Revenue Models & Tax Theory

[baltimorened]

@fatpiggy, do you want to weigh in on tax theory or just complain about spending?

ah yes, isn't that where we started?

I'll try to bring us back...you're welcome!

Corporate taxes. I'm sure there will be lots of viewpoints on this. Corporations come in all sizes..we sometimes seems to lose track of that. There are legitimate reason for incorporating and lots of small business do it as well as larger ones. So when we talk corporate taxation it crosses a lot of revenue/profit spectra. I know that people like to focus on the $$multi million salaries of CEOs, but in fact the average income is about $825,000. There are apparently a lot more small Corporations than Big ones.

Current thought is to tax corporate profits....so where do those profits go normally? Well some reinvest into the company to grow it with the hope of greater revenue/profits...growth. Others just retain them for future needs opportunities...other pay dividends to shareholders, some might use profits to buy or invest in other companies....

So what happens when we raise taxes on them. Well looking at the list above, it's clear, to me at least, that where we are doing is changing a decision process on what to do with those profits from the company to the government. What's the effect of that? Well, first of all, the dividends that I and many retirees receive are either reduced or eliminated - as are the taxes we pay on those dividends (15-20%). At the same time, as stock prices are based on performance, when the money goes to the government it is either a certainty or highly likely that stock prices will decline. Is that important? Well, if you're enrolled in a retirement plan at work or have an IRA/401 etc, it's likely you are invested in stocks/corporations. When the earnings decline, the value of the stock declines and the value of your retirement fund declines.

So, again in my opinion, while taxing a corporation - which is treated as a person - has a lot of appeal for adding to government coffers, there are some negatives to the populace that have to be considered. As every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

OK throw those spears

come on flaw, stick to topic

 

[GDead_Tiger]

How long should one person need said safety net? What’s a reasonable amount of time to you to find a job? 6 months? Do you think one person should be on welfare for 3-4 years??

Most people who use safety nets do so out of necessity and in times of struggle. People who stay on it longer are usually elderly, sick, disabled, or children.

 

[baltimorened]

Most people who use safety nets do so out of necessity and in times of struggle. People who stay on it longer are usually elderly, sick, disabled, or children.

I will readily admit, that I don't think that's an accurate assessment. But I also admit I have no fact to back up my position

 

[MTTiger19]

I will readily admit, that I don't think that's an accurate assessment. But I also admit I have no fact to back up my position

I do. Only 31% are on government subsidies for 12 months or less. That’s not a safety net, that’s taking advantage of the system.

 

[MTTiger19]

Most people who use safety nets do so out of necessity and in times of struggle. People who stay on it longer are usually elderly, sick, disabled, or children.

So you think it’s acceptable for over 43% to be on taxpayer funded subsidies for 3-4 years?? Who needs 4 years to get a job? TANF which is straight cash averages 24+ months. 60% are receiving TANF for 24+ months, 34% are receiving it for the full 60 month limit.

 

[fatpiggy]

Customs and duties only reflect $77B. If only we could get that number up. Sounds like .... ummm I just can't put my finger on it.

It would be nice if we could raise that Customs and Duties revenue by having corporations in other countries drop their prices a little bit. hmmmm.

 

[fatpiggy]

Socical security needs reform. I like the Trump account idea. Give each child an account when they are born that they can access at retirement age. You could tie the governments obligation to the performance of the s&p 500 index or something. If performance falls below X% then the government must be the safety net and fund the account.

Need to tie Social Security to life expectancy too.

Essentially, reform social security to make it more efficient and save money.

 

[fatpiggy]

I think the individual income tax is tapped out. When anyone is taxed close to 50% of their income that is morally wrong in my opinion. I will never support an income tax rate of 50% or higher. Of course not everyone is paying 50% but the trend in taxes is very clear. The income tax started out at 3%. At some point we have to say "NO".

 

[MTTiger19]

I think the individual income tax is tapped out. When anyone is taxed close to 50% of their income that is morally wrong in my opinion. I will never support an income tax rate of 50% or higher. Of course not everyone is paying 50% but the trend in taxes is very clear. The income tax started out at 3%. At some point we have to say "NO".



View attachment 1212649

WTH happened where we are entertaining stealing 50% of workers wages. Like 20-30% isn’t enough already?

 

[FLaw47]

ah yes, isn't that where we started?

I'll try to bring us back...you're welcome!

Corporate taxes. I'm sure there will be lots of viewpoints on this. Corporations come in all sizes..we sometimes seems to lose track of that. There are legitimate reason for incorporating and lots of small business do it as well as larger ones. So when we talk corporate taxation it crosses a lot of revenue/profit spectra. I know that people like to focus on the $$multi million salaries of CEOs, but in fact the average income is about $825,000. There are apparently a lot more small Corporations than Big ones.

Current thought is to tax corporate profits....so where do those profits go normally? Well some reinvest into the company to grow it with the hope of greater revenue/profits...growth. Others just retain them for future needs opportunities...other pay dividends to shareholders, some might use profits to buy or invest in other companies....

So what happens when we raise taxes on them. Well looking at the list above, it's clear, to me at least, that where we are doing is changing a decision process on what to do with those profits from the company to the government. What's the effect of that? Well, first of all, the dividends that I and many retirees receive are either reduced or eliminated - as are the taxes we pay on those dividends (15-20%). At the same time, as stock prices are based on performance, when the money goes to the government it is either a certainty or highly likely that stock prices will decline. Is that important? Well, if you're enrolled in a retirement plan at work or have an IRA/401 etc, it's likely you are invested in stocks/corporations. When the earnings decline, the value of the stock declines and the value of your retirement fund declines.

So, again in my opinion, while taxing a corporation - which is treated as a person - has a lot of appeal for adding to government coffers, there are some negatives to the populace that have to be considered. As every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

OK throw those spears

come on flaw, stick to topic

I'm all in favor of cutting back corporate taxes and making up the revenue in capital gains or income taxes (open to other suggestions). It's an inefficient tax that gets passed on to consumers anyways.

 

[FLaw47]

Customs and duties only reflect $77B. If only we could get that number up. Sounds like .... ummm I just can't put my finger on it.

It would be nice if we could raise that Customs and Duties revenue by having corporations in other countries drop their prices a little bit. hmmmm.


View attachment 1212630

I don't understand the attraction of tariffs. They're inefficient and don't do much of what they are purported to do at all.

 

[FLaw47]

I think the individual income tax is tapped out. When anyone is taxed close to 50% of their income that is morally wrong in my opinion. I will never support an income tax rate of 50% or higher. Of course not everyone is paying 50% but the trend in taxes is very clear. The income tax started out at 3%. At some point we have to say "NO".



View attachment 1212649

This seems like Slippery Slope to me. I don't think we have anyone with an effective tax rate anywhere close to 50% (please don't add up a bunch of marginal rates and claim it's the same thing).

 

[fatpiggy]

You are just figuring this out? Fatpiggy is somewhere around 75% troll. He's not a reasonable guy. This is the type of guy that when Trump posts a picture of apes with Obama's picture on it, he tells you with a straight face that that is not racist AND THEN tells you that Michelle Obama saying she supports businesses owned by people of color IS racist. Next week when gas prices really start to rise, be prepared for him to tell you that even though the price at the pump is higher, that doesn't REALLY mean prices are higher.

Maybe you should go read the actual thread where i said Trump should not have posted the video instead of making stuff up out of thin air?

And gas prices are no where near where they were when we were putting those Biden stickers on the pump. I was paying $4.75 a gallon back then. What is gas today?

Let me know when the national average gets up there and then ill listen. until then it's just dems chirping.

 

[FLaw47]

I'll give you somewhere i differ from most in my party.

Why not a stiff inheritance tax? It seems fair to me, hear me out.

1) You are the best steward of your money, not the government. You will be much more responsible managing, investing, and spending your own money than the government, so it makes sense for you to hold onto that money for as long as possible.
2) It's progressive. The more you gained from society, the more you will pay.
3) Children don't need to inherit vast sums of money. a) It makes them entitled b) They have done nothing to prove they are efficient at capital allocation like those who earned the money. c) It levels the playing field for children and get's us to a merit based society.
4) If you know your money will be taxed when you die, this would entice you to spend your money now. This could be a boom to economic activity.

There are downsides. Family cohesion is important, taxing inheritance may disrupt that. I know farms struggle with inheritance taxes. Large tax bills can disrupt family businesses. But maybe solutions can be found for these.

And to be clear, i want the inheritance tax to replace many of the taxes we currently pay, not in addition too.

edit: I wrote this before reading your post above.

Super on board with a much larger estate tax (and I say this as someone who would likely be hit by this). To discuss a few of your points:

• This "you know how to spend your money better than the government" thing is said a lot but I don't think is true in an awful lot of cases. If it was really true we'd have never needed social security (if we're making the assumption that everyone could magically get better jobs, which a lot of you guys think is the case).
• I've never been moved by the "oh no the farms!" argument. You'd still be getting the business at a massive discount and you could take out a loan to pay off the taxes, presumably with very good rates because there's excellent collateral. I don't know why a business should be a birthright more than anything else.

 

[fatpiggy]

I don't understand the attraction of tariffs. They're inefficient and don't do much of what they are purported to do at all.

Democrats use tariffs too.

I remember learning that tariffs were bad in my finance classes because the opposing country would just tariff you back and it was a zero sum game. But that didn't happen the way Trump implemented the tariffs did it? So, to me it seems as if tariffs are a tool in a toolbox. You will get different results depending on how you use the tool. So far Trump has used the tool properly.

Im not really pro or anti tariff. It depends on how they are used in my opinion. If they are used in conjunction with other tools, i think some of the historically accepted science on the topic goes out the window.

 

[PawPride]

Democrats use tariffs too.

I remember learning that tariffs were bad in my finance classes because the opposing country would just tariff you back and it was a zero sum game. But that didn't happen the way Trump implemented the tariffs did it? So, to me it seems as if tariffs are a tool in a toolbox. You will get different results depending on how you use the tool. So far Trump has used the tool properly.

Im not really pro or anti tariff. It depends on how they are used in my opinion. If they are used in conjunction with other tools, i think some of the historically accepted science on the topic goes out the window.

Elaborate, please. I think tariffs are fine when surgically applied, not blindly thrown out at a whim, which seems to be how Trump was applying them.

 

[MTTiger19]

Super on board with a much larger estate tax (and I say this as someone who would likely be hit by this). To discuss a few of your points:

• This "you know how to spend your money better than the government" thing is said a lot but I don't think is true in an awful lot of cases. If it was really true we'd have never needed social security (if we're making the assumption that everyone could magically get better jobs, which a lot of you guys think is the case).
• I've never been moved by the "oh no the farms!" argument. You'd still be getting the business at a massive discount and you could take out a loan to pay off the taxes, presumably with very good rates because there's excellent collateral. I don't know why a business should be a birthright more than anything else.

As altruistic as you are, do you have any possessions left? Surely you’ve given them all away right. Counting others money and such.

 

[FLaw47]

Democrats use tariffs too.

I remember learning that tariffs were bad in my finance classes because the opposing country would just tariff you back and it was a zero sum game. But that didn't happen the way Trump implemented the tariffs did it? So, to me it seems as if tariffs are a tool in a toolbox. You will get different results depending on how you use the tool. So far Trump has used the tool properly.

Im not really pro or anti tariff. It depends on how they are used in my opinion. If they are used in conjunction with other tools, i think some of the historically accepted science on the topic goes out the window.

I don't think Democrats always get it right. I think they're ok when they're used for strategically important industries but, when we use them, American manufacturers just raise their prices and don't increase capacity. Importers just pass the buck on to us. So yeah, it raises revenues it's just out of our pockets. And now that turns out to be a straight up wealth transfer from our pockets back to the companies that "paid" the tariffs! Pretty great, right?

 

[MTTiger19]

Hey everyone look! Brandon Johnson must be stalking this thread. He’s definitely on board with OP. More taxes!! Yay!!!! Good thing they spend their money so wisely right?

 

[PawPride]

Hey everyone look! Brandon Johnson must be stalking this thread. He’s definitely on board with OP. More taxes!! Yay!!!! Good thing they spend their money so wisely right?

That's old news - think it was passed back in December, but yeah Johnson is very unimpressive. IIRC from reading about it last year, he just chose not to veto the alternative package that the Chicago alderman proposed (removing his corporate tax hikes and replacing them with gambling, rideshare, and booze taxes.) I may be misremembering but seems like a big slap in the face to the avg citizen and a big break for the big business owners in Chicago

 

[PawPride]

Democratic leadership is so ******** stupid.

Ahead of 2028, Sen. Cory Booker to unveil bill to make $75,000 in income tax-free

The bill is a marker for the next time Democrats get a chance to rewrite the tax code. The New Jersey senator told NBC News he's keeping the door open to a 2028 presidential bid.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[UrHuckleberry]

Democratic leadership is so ******** stupid.

Ahead of 2028, Sen. Cory Booker to unveil bill to make $75,000 in income tax-free

The bill is a marker for the next time Democrats get a chance to rewrite the tax code. The New Jersey senator told NBC News he's keeping the door open to a 2028 presidential bid.

www.nbcnews.com

Not a fan of Booker at all. Can be a good orator but has always come across as ingenuine to me

 

[PawPride]

Not a fan of Booker at all. Can be a good orator but has always come across as ingenuine to me

He, along with the rest of the democrat leadership, are all worthless. They have absolutely zero feel for the moment, are likely going to swing way too far in the wrong direction with their proposals and end up making **** worse.

 

[FLaw47]

Not a fan of Booker at all. Can be a good orator but has always come across as ingenuine to me

I have a good friend who sat behind him on a flight once. His mom called and he had her listed in his phone with her full name and not "mom". To be fair, that's what I do with my mom but we have a strained relationship.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

I have a good friend who sat behind him on a flight once. His mom called and he had her listed in his phone with her full name and not "mom". To be fair, that's what I do with my mom but we have a strained relationship.

(at Booker, not your strained relationship)

 

[baltimorened]

I'm all in favor of cutting back corporate taxes and making up the revenue in capital gains or income taxes (open to other suggestions). It's an inefficient tax that gets passed on to consumers anyways.

I don't know about capital gains taxes...in an IRA/401 RMD all withdrawal are taxed as ordinary income...capital gains are included as part of the RMD (in total amount withdrawn, not as a specific category). Right now gains are taxed at 20% (LTG) or ordinary income (STG) and then there is the Obamacare 3.8%.

I think you run into the same stock/investment problem when you remove the incentive to invest. I'm sure someone, somewhere has done a study on this because the debate has been around for years.

 

[baltimorened]

This seems like Slippery Slope to me. I don't think we have anyone with an effective tax rate anywhere close to 50% (please don't add up a bunch of marginal rates and claim it's the same thing).

I would agree that there is a likelihood that few have an effective rate of 50%....now since the top rate federally is in the range of 37%, isn't the only way to get to 50% through the addition of things like state, local etc

 

[baltimorened]

Super on board with a much larger estate tax (and I say this as someone who would likely be hit by this). To discuss a few of your points:

• This "you know how to spend your money better than the government" thing is said a lot but I don't think is true in an awful lot of cases. If it was really true we'd have never needed social security (if we're making the assumption that everyone could magically get better jobs, which a lot of you guys think is the case).
• I've never been moved by the "oh no the farms!" argument. You'd still be getting the business at a massive discount and you could take out a loan to pay off the taxes, presumably with very good rates because there's excellent collateral. I don't know why a business should be a birthright more than anything else.

I believe that the argument, or at least one argument, is that taxes have already been paid and taxing again when you die is really kind of not fair. People save money for a multitude of reasons, none of which is to leave it for the government to tax, again.

I'n not in the position yet where my estate has reached the $25 million (couple) amount. But if I were in that position, I would definitely be buying annuities, life insurance (passes tax free) in order to get around that tax.

 

[baltimorened]

Not a fan of Booker at all. Can be a good orator but has always come across as ingenuine to me

I think he did a good job as mayor of Newark, but once he got to the Senate he's been a little out of the mainstream

 

[fatpiggy]

I feel the same way as Joe.
Why would I want to pay a single cent more in taxes when the waste fraud and abuse is astronomical?

Get honest and efficient programs and people would feel much better about paying taxes.

as it is, the system is rife with waste fraud and abuse. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, wants to pay for that. But democrat politicians are seemingly ok with it.

 

[fatpiggy]

 

[MTTiger19]

Well according to flaw you should not only expect that, you should welcome and accept it.

 

[MTTiger19]

I feel the same way as Joe.
Why would I want to pay a single cent more in taxes when the waste fraud and abuse is astronomical?

Get honest and efficient programs and people would feel much better about paying taxes.

as it is, the system is rife with waste fraud and abuse. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, wants to pay for that. But democrat politicians are seemingly ok with it.

It appears that tax payers are not going to get with the program. Liberals are going to bankrupt their states. Americans don’t like socialism, shocker. It is kinda funny just watching all these people and companies leave though. Ultra lib Starbucks founder is leaving Seattle to move to Florida and moving their corporate office to Nashville hahahahahahah. You can’t make this up. But OP wants more taxes. Lolololol.
I can’t believe people don’t wanna pay boat loads of taxes for fraud, corruption and entitlements. Hahahaha. Who could’ve predicted that?

 

[ANEW]

It appears that tax payers are not going to get with the program. Liberals are going to bankrupt their states. Americans don’t like socialism, shocker. It is kinda funny just watching all these people and companies leave though. Ultra lib Starbucks founder is leaving Seattle to move to Florida and moving their corporate office to Nashville hahahahahahah. You can’t make this up. But OP wants more taxes. Lolololol.
I can’t believe people don’t wanna pay boat loads of taxes for fraud, corruption and entitlements. Hahahaha. Who could’ve predicted that?

The problem is, ultra lib starbucks owner will still vote and give money to continue the crazy even after he moves to florida.

 

[MTTiger19]

The problem is, ultra lib starbucks owner will still vote and give money to continue the crazy even after he moves to florida.

He most likely will. But the common man leaving those places will not. It’s funny to see that assumption imo. Uprooting your life and moving to a completely different state is not something people do for fun. For things to get to the point where you have to sell your home, find new jobs and schools and uproot your life, you don’t continue voting for those policies or people that support them. This is a rejection of those ideas and policies.

 

[PawPride]

It appears that tax payers are not going to get with the program. Liberals are going to bankrupt their states. Americans don’t like socialism, shocker. It is kinda funny just watching all these people and companies leave though. Ultra lib Starbucks founder is leaving Seattle to move to Florida and moving their corporate office to Nashville hahahahahahah. You can’t make this up. But OP wants more taxes. Lolololol.
I can’t believe people don’t wanna pay boat loads of taxes for fraud, corruption and entitlements. Hahahaha. Who could’ve predicted that?

Wait, isn't it the former CEO who retired a decade ago and is moving to a massive Miami penthouse? Also, they're just opening a new supply chain hub in Nashville, they're not relocating their main corporate office.

 

[MTTiger19]

Wait, isn't it the former CEO who retired a decade ago and is moving to a massive Miami penthouse? Also, they're just opening a new supply chain hub in Nashville, they're not relocating their main corporate office.

 

[PawPride]

https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/luxury-homes/howard-schultz-starbucks-florida-penthouse-1340d1d7?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqffRoCEVzhKWry4TaX2wxco406LeZAjlRNNOHTGEowHWMVn1t8kW0D1r3ThauI%3D&gaa_ts=69b16ada&gaa_sig=kByjTTfg6MA-JA7z_mtDLqw6cSOzO3h_ZPgxdcWMlKviHpzGNKaxkg_Ue910zJkE8j6tLWiPVcHKU_lDwkshZQ%3D%3D

Starbucks’ New Nashville Supply Chain Hub Could Be A Game Changer For Starbucks (SBUX)

In early March 2026, Starbucks announced plans to open a new corporate office in Nashville to anchor its North American supply chain operations, relocating some roles from Seattle and adding new jobs as part of its "Back to Starbucks" turnaround plan. This move signals a push to improve...

finance.yahoo.com

 

[ANEW]

He most likely will. But the common man leaving those places will not. It’s funny to see that assumption imo. Uprooting your life and moving to a completely different state is not something people do for fun. For things to get to the point where you have to sell your home, find new jobs and schools and uproot your life, you don’t continue voting for those policies or people that support them. This is a rejection of those ideas and policies.

"working man" i can buy that. But as you get into the older, wealthier, retiree or close to it types, not so much. They have decades being emotionally invested in the lib nonsense and their wealth isolates them from the day to day impact of the really dumb stuff (open borders, defund the police etc. )

I think the starbucks to nashville is an expansion of some logistics functions and/or HQ. Not a complete pack up and move

 

[MTTiger19]

"working man" i can buy that. But as you get into the older, wealthier, retiree or close to it types, not so much. They have decades being emotionally invested in the lib nonsense and their wealth isolates them from the day to day impact of the really dumb stuff (open borders, defund the police etc. )

I think the starbucks to nashville is an expansion of some logistics functions and/or HQ. Not a complete pack up and move

Those retirees are dying everyday, the hope should be that their ridiculous suicidal empathy will be eradicated with them dying. The younger generation is not down with all this socialism stuff, they hate it. They’re not cool with open borders either. Furthermore people in states like SC are not going to tolerate excessive taxes, there’s not enough of them to change that. It’s more likely they begin leading right, not the other way.