May 4, 200917 yr http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/04/obama-crack-business-taxes/ The striking part of the article to me is the proposed elimination of the presumption of innocence in tax court. Defenders of socialism, please feel free to comment.
May 4, 200917 yr The striking part of the article to me is the proposed elimination of the presumption of innocence in tax court. Not sure if that is socialism, but probably an even worse idea. Isn't presumption of innocence a central tenet to the legal system? While I'm no legal philosopher, isn't the system set up to prevent Type II errors (i.e. to keep innocent people from wrongly going to jail)? As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "I would rather see nine men go free than one innocent man go to prison." From what I understand, overturning the legal precedent of "innocent until proven guilty" is a dangerous (and downright illogical, not to mention I'm sure unconstitutional and more simply ethically wrong) move.
May 4, 200917 yr http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/04/obama-crack-business-taxes/ The striking part of the article to me is the proposed elimination of the presumption of innocence in tax court. Defenders of socialism, please feel free to comment. I didn't see anything about removing a presumption of innocence in the link. Did I miss it? Regardless, if these are civil, not criminal matters, how is that different from deductions for the average taxpayer? If I claim a tax deduction for a donation to my parish and I am audited, isn't it up to me to show evidence that I made the donation? The IRS doesn't have to prove that I DIDN'T make the donation to disallow it. By the way, I am not a defender of socialism, but I don't think there are socialists in the administration to defend.
May 4, 200917 yr Thoughts on the issue at hand re: eliminating tax breaks? Eliminating tax loopholes is an excellent idea to me. However, hopefully the President does so in a manner in which more loopholes are created. Our tax code, 7 times the size of the Bible, needs to have words removed, not added. I hope that our President enacts some sort of flat tax with very, very few loopholes and a tax credit up to the poverty line, so that everyone pays their fair share, from the poor to the rich! However, some of the statements made in the article are a bit disconcerting. "If financial institutions won't cooperate with us, we will assume that they are sheltering money in tax havens and act accordingly," This statement leads me the believe that taxation is being used as punishment, which is a terrible way to look at it. Taxation should be the government taking only what is needed to be able to provide the responsibilities given to them in the constitution, not a tool for politicians to slap people on the wrists. Also, when the President talks about creating a job in India results in less tax liability then creating one in New York, I hope his solution is not to raise taxes on the U.S. company creating a job abroad- instead, I'd prefer more tax credits for the U.S. company creating the domestic job. Either way, I still don't see the big deal with this specific instance. The quote from Marty Regalia, "The United States is the only major industrialized country which double taxes the overseas earnings of our companies." is dead-on. Hopefully President Obama realizes this and fixes it. However, from the general tone of his statements in this article and his campaign in general, it seems that he thinks that U.S. companies that are abroad deserve to be reprimanded.
May 4, 200917 yr Author There is no such thing as a "loophole." It is either the law, or it isn't. We all try to deign the "intent" of legislation, but the written letter is what controls.
May 4, 200917 yr Author I didn't see anything about removing a presumption of innocence in the link. Did I miss it? Regardless, if these are civil, not criminal matters, how is that different from deductions for the average taxpayer? If I claim a tax deduction for a donation to my parish and I am audited, isn't it up to me to show evidence that I made the donation? The IRS doesn't have to prove that I DIDN'T make the donation to disallow it. By the way, I am not a defender of socialism, but I don't think there are socialists in the administration to defend. Interesting, when I posted this article this morning, there was a specific paragraph discussing removal of the presumption of innocence. That has now been removed, and the article altered. The IRS assesses penalties, criminal and civil, administratively. Administratively, you are correct, you must produce requested documentation. Upon the taxpayer's appeal challenge, however, the burden of proof lies upon the government in tax court.
May 4, 200917 yr Author Why aren't all of his tax cheat appointees being punished? They are not 'tax cheats,' only corporations can be tax cheats. When politicians do it, they are 'Code-compliance challenged.'
May 4, 200917 yr Interesting, when I posted this article this morning, there was a specific paragraph discussing removal of the presumption of innocence. That has now been removed, and the article altered. The IRS assesses penalties, criminal and civil, administratively. Administratively, you are correct, you must produce requested documentation. Upon the taxpayer's appeal challenge, however, the burden of proof lies upon the government in tax court. I'll stand by that Hearsay, because I read it right after you posted and it was there near the bottom.
May 4, 200917 yr I have a question, which I ask because I'm no tax expert: If a citizen doesn't pay his/her personal income taxes, they will eventually be found out, and forced to pay. But as I understand it, corporations can be set up in such a way that much of the corporate income is not taxed. How is it possible that such a set up for corporations is good for the US? If the corporation is not hiring US workers, whom would be taxed, and the money is not in the US, what makes it good for the US?
May 5, 200917 yr They are not 'tax cheats,' only corporations can be tax cheats. When politicians do it, they are 'Code-compliance challenged.' Watching the treasury secretary standing next to Bam Bam and then discussing the importance of corporations paying their taxes is yet another priceless moment in this young (and entertaining) presidency. Sort of like Hitler discussing the importance of human rights.
May 5, 200917 yr Author I have a question, which I ask because I'm no tax expert: If a citizen doesn't pay his/her personal income taxes, they will eventually be found out, and forced to pay. But as I understand it, corporations can be set up in such a way that much of the corporate income is not taxed. How is it possible that such a set up for corporations is good for the US? If the corporation is not hiring US workers, whom would be taxed, and the money is not in the US, what makes it good for the US? Your question is very broad with many answers, but I'll give you one: the corporation's shareholders are primarily in the U.S., and the reduction in taxable corporate earnings helps investment growth and dividends to those persons/entities. Corporations do not exist for the good of this country, they exist for the profit of their owners.
May 5, 200917 yr Corporations do not exist for the good of this country, they exist for the profit of their owners.If they don't contribute there legally authorized share of governemnt support (taxes) they not be allowed access to government protected (police and military) markets nor should they have utilization of our roadways and due to the fact they are not paying for the regulartory services to be administered upon them, they should not be regulated and if not regulated they should be banned from American use. This is nothing more than companies using US reasources and getting out of paying for them.
May 5, 200917 yr If they don't contribute there legally authorized share of governemnt support (taxes) they not be allowed access to government protected (police and military) markets nor should they have utilization of our roadways and due to the fact they are not paying for the regulartory services to be administered upon them, they should not be regulated and if not regulated they should be banned from American use. This is nothing more than companies using US reasources and getting out of paying for them. The great, vast majority of corporations most certainly do contribute their legally authorized share of government support. The issue is their taking advantage of the many loopholes in the code. Are you in favor of applying your same rules of no pay no utilization to the 43% of taxpayers that pay no income tax because I'm certainly with you on this one if so.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.