Do non-profits deserve their tax-free status? Universities, political organizations, special interest groups, etc. all claim that they deserve a tax-free status because they're preforming some sort of public good. Well, so does the guy who works on my car and he has to pay taxes.

What say you? Revoke the tax-free status of non-profits and make them play by the same rules as everyone else?

(11-30-2011 08:06 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Do non-profits deserve their tax-free status? Universities, political organizations, special interest groups, etc. all claim that they deserve a tax-free status because they're preforming some sort of public good. Well, so does the guy who works on my car and he has to pay taxes.

What an absurd statement to make. The guy who works on your car is doing you a service.

Quote:What say you? Revoke the tax-free status of non-profits and make them play by the same rules as everyone else?

Yeah, let's get rid of all those annoying charities and foundations so only the compassionate gov't will be there to help people. Maybe we'll just expand the IRS' scope to include all charitable functions.

Non-profits can still pay tax. The have provisions for them to make and report money unrelated of their charitable efforts and status, and thus pay tax on it.

(11-30-2011 09:54 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  What an absurd statement to make. The guy who works on your car is doing you a service.

Yes, and many non-profits are providing a service specifically for their donors. For example, trade associations.

(11-30-2011 08:06 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Do non-profits deserve their tax-free status? Universities, political organizations, special interest groups, etc. all claim that they deserve a tax-free status because they're preforming some sort of public good. Well, so does the guy who works on my car and he has to pay taxes.

What say you? Revoke the tax-free status of non-profits and make them play by the same rules as everyone else?

Just install a consumption based tax system and be done with this argument. If you buy stuff..you pay...period.

I would actually be OK with some "non-profits" paying taxes. Trade associates, labor unions, things of that nature. But true "charity" groups absolutely not.

(11-30-2011 08:06 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  What say you? Revoke the tax-free status of non-profits and make them play by the same rules as everyone else?

Sure...

Get rid of business taxes in general (since they're just hidden and handed to the consumer anyway) and use a consumption tax. Let the people see how much the govt. is taking from them.

(11-30-2011 12:08 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(11-30-2011 08:06 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  What say you? Revoke the tax-free status of non-profits and make them play by the same rules as everyone else?

Sure...

Get rid of business taxes in general (since they're just hidden and handed to the consumer anyway) and use a consumption tax. Let the people see how much the govt. is taking from them.

Exactly. The embedded taxes seem to be overlooked by most people. ONLY individuals actually pay taxes.

(11-30-2011 12:24 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(11-30-2011 12:08 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(11-30-2011 08:06 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  What say you? Revoke the tax-free status of non-profits and make them play by the same rules as everyone else?

Sure...

Get rid of business taxes in general (since they're just hidden and handed to the consumer anyway) and use a consumption tax. Let the people see how much the govt. is taking from them.

Exactly. The embedded taxes seem to be overlooked by most people. ONLY individuals actually pay taxes.

Wouldn't that require shifting from a consumption based economy? Even if the net price of goods doesn't change, people are still going to scale way, way back when they see the tax bill.

(11-30-2011 12:40 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Wouldn't that require shifting from a consumption based economy? Even if the net price of goods doesn't change, people are still going to scale way, way back when they see the tax bill.

Not a problem if the govt. stops spending $ that they don't have. (Yes, I'm delusional, but if I'm expected to live within my means, why shouldn't DC?)

(11-30-2011 12:43 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(11-30-2011 12:40 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Wouldn't that require shifting from a consumption based economy? Even if the net price of goods doesn't change, people are still going to scale way, way back when they see the tax bill.

Not a problem if the govt. stops spending $ that they don't have. (Yes, I'm delusional, but if I'm expected to live within my means, why shouldn't DC?)

My question was more about how to go about shifting the American economy away from being consumption based. You can't just do it over night, it could take decades.

(11-30-2011 12:40 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(11-30-2011 12:24 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(11-30-2011 12:08 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(11-30-2011 08:06 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  What say you? Revoke the tax-free status of non-profits and make them play by the same rules as everyone else?

Sure...

Get rid of business taxes in general (since they're just hidden and handed to the consumer anyway) and use a consumption tax. Let the people see how much the govt. is taking from them.

Exactly. The embedded taxes seem to be overlooked by most people. ONLY individuals actually pay taxes.

Wouldn't that require shifting from a consumption based economy? Even if the net price of goods doesn't change, people are still going to scale way, way back when they see the tax bill.

Why would people having more cash(the amount being withheld) in their paychecks scale back consumption? Additionally The FT includes a "prebate" to everyone. The cost of goods is predicted to spike short term and then quickly return to market levels and eventually reduce due to competition. Removing the embedded taxes will reduce the cost of goods in the long run and make businesses more competitive with off shore goods. Also...A consumption tax would reel in countless billions of dollars that are now lost due to evasion and black market activities.

A consumption tax or some hybrid thereof ...looks like a big bucket of win to me. Of course...it takes away power from the government. This is the main reason I see it being very hard to implement.

(11-30-2011 12:50 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(11-30-2011 12:43 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(11-30-2011 12:40 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Wouldn't that require shifting from a consumption based economy? Even if the net price of goods doesn't change, people are still going to scale way, way back when they see the tax bill.

Not a problem if the govt. stops spending $ that they don't have. (Yes, I'm delusional, but if I'm expected to live within my means, why shouldn't DC?)

My question was more about how to go about shifting the American economy away from being consumption based. You can't just do it over night, it could take decades.

It can't be harder than putting a man on the moon. A system is already in place to collect taxes on the local and state level and businesses are used to doing it. It simply would be another line added to the receipt at checkout and another check to send to the federal government. With today's technology...this should not be that hard to accomplish.

I admit though...that I have never like the idea of forcing businesses to be tax collectors...but...they already are.

(11-30-2011 12:08 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  Get rid of business taxes in general (since they're just hidden and handed to the consumer anyway) and use a consumption tax. Let the people see how much the govt. is taking from them.

This is untrue. Only deep ignorance of economics would cause someone to make a such a ridiculous blanket statement.

(11-30-2011 01:27 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(11-30-2011 12:08 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  Get rid of business taxes in general (since they're just hidden and handed to the consumer anyway) and use a consumption tax. Let the people see how much the govt. is taking from them.

This is untrue. Only deep ignorance of economics would cause someone to make a such a ridiculous blanket statement.

Oh, businesses don't treat taxes as an expense (just like, say labor costs) and pass it on to the consumer in the cost of the good/service?

Enlighten me, oh wise one. Tell me how businesses operate.

(11-30-2011 01:35 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(11-30-2011 01:27 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(11-30-2011 12:08 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  Get rid of business taxes in general (since they're just hidden and handed to the consumer anyway) and use a consumption tax. Let the people see how much the govt. is taking from them.

This is untrue. Only deep ignorance of economics would cause someone to make a such a ridiculous blanket statement.

Oh, businesses don't treat taxes as an expense (just like, say labor costs) and pass it on to the consumer in the cost of the good/service?

Enlighten me, oh wise one. Tell me how businesses operate.

It's simple price elasticities. I've tried to explain it to Hambone before, but he either refuses to acknowledge it or he's just too stupid to grasp it. I'm guessing you're going to be too stupid to grasp it. The ability of a business to pass on increases in taxes or keep decreases in taxes in the form of increased profit depends on the price elasticity of demand. Producers of highly inelastic products will pass on the entire tax to consumers, while producers of highly elastic products would be forced to bear the entire burden of the tax through lower profits. Most products fall somewhere in the middle meaning that taxes are shared between the consumer and the business. The notion that business taxes are completely passed on to consumers is true only in rare instances. To generalize those rare instances to all businesses shows either a deep ignorance of economics or a willingness to lie in order to advance a political agenda. Which is it for you?

(11-30-2011 02:27 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(11-30-2011 01:35 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(11-30-2011 01:27 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(11-30-2011 12:08 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  Get rid of business taxes in general (since they're just hidden and handed to the consumer anyway) and use a consumption tax. Let the people see how much the govt. is taking from them.

This is untrue. Only deep ignorance of economics would cause someone to make a such a ridiculous blanket statement.

Oh, businesses don't treat taxes as an expense (just like, say labor costs) and pass it on to the consumer in the cost of the good/service?

Enlighten me, oh wise one. Tell me how businesses operate.

It's simple price elasticities. I've tried to explain it to Hambone before, but he either refuses to acknowledge it or he's just too stupid to grasp it. I'm guessing you're going to be too stupid to grasp it. The ability of a business to pass on increases in taxes or keep decreases in taxes in the form of increased profit depends on the price elasticity of demand. Producers of highly inelastic products will pass on the entire tax to consumers, while producers of highly elastic products would be forced to bear the entire burden of the tax through lower profits. Most products fall somewhere in the middle meaning that taxes are shared between the consumer and the business. The notion that business taxes are completely passed on to consumers is true only in rare instances. To generalize those rare instances to all businesses shows either a deep ignorance of economics or a willingness to lie in order to advance a political agenda. Which is it for you?

Thank you for your confirmation that business taxes are passed onto the consumer.

Remove the elasticities and it helps businesses predict their profits and competitor's pricing better, which makes competition more effective at driving prices down for the consumer by making a business' expenses and bottom line more predictable.

(11-30-2011 09:54 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(11-30-2011 08:06 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Do non-profits deserve their tax-free status? Universities, political organizations, special interest groups, etc. all claim that they deserve a tax-free status because they're preforming some sort of public good. Well, so does the guy who works on my car and he has to pay taxes.

What an absurd statement to make. The guy who works on your car is doing you a service.

Quote:What say you? Revoke the tax-free status of non-profits and make them play by the same rules as everyone else?

Yeah, let's get rid of all those annoying charities and foundations so only the compassionate gov't will be there to help people. Maybe we'll just expand the IRS' scope to include all charitable functions.

The problem is the number of mega rich who use foundations as ways to hide their money from taxation. Forming a charitable foundation is the motherload of tax shelters.

The same billionaires saying 'raise my tax rate' pay next to no taxes because they hide their money..

(11-30-2011 02:27 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  The notion that business taxes are completely passed on to consumers is true only in rare instances.

I see what you did - you gave yourself a built-in out.

Would you agree if businesses paid zero taxes that prices across the board would decrease, ergo, more affordable for the government assisted poor among us?

(11-30-2011 02:27 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  It's simple price elasticities. I've tried to explain it to Hambone before, but he either refuses to acknowledge it or he's just too stupid to grasp it. I'm guessing you're going to be too stupid to grasp it. The ability of a business to pass on increases in taxes or keep decreases in taxes in the form of increased profit depends on the price elasticity of demand. Producers of highly inelastic products will pass on the entire tax to consumers, while producers of highly elastic products would be forced to bear the entire burden of the tax through lower profits. Most products fall somewhere in the middle meaning that taxes are shared between the consumer and the business. The notion that business taxes are completely passed on to consumers is true only in rare instances. To generalize those rare instances to all businesses shows either a deep ignorance of economics or a willingness to lie in order to advance a political agenda. Which is it for you?

Ummm, no.

Now, you can respond to this in either of two ways. You can engage in substantive conversation about the issues involved, or you can pitch a tantrum and call me an idiot and moron and maybe even racist if I keep disagreeing. With either, I suppose you might toss in a couple of econometrics-based "studies" which "prove" your point. Which will you choose?