Posted on 08/27/2014 6:19:26 AM PDT by Kaslin
Harry Reid is in love with one of the easiest tax dodges out there. He’s been buying –-gasp!!—municipal bonds, which of course every investor knows denies federal income tax from being paid to the patriotic hardworking citizens of the United States via the U.S. Treasury on the income created from the interest rate carried on the debenture. I don’t know how long the government will put up with this loophole whereby the federal government allows some citizens, like Reid, to make really stupid investment choices in the name of tax-free investment, but I can say this: If you have reasonable facsimile of a sarcasm font, I’m in dire need.
Because of course there is nothing wrong per se with buying municipal bonds for the tax advantages even if it is a ridiculous choice as an “investment”.
I mean what’s the market for a 30-year municipal bond at 3 1/8%?
The market can ‘t be good, especially if interest rates rise. After you figure in inflation…yikes! That’s not investment, but rather the investment equivalent of that kid who lives in your basement with student loans and no job.
No wonder Reid loves it.
Let’s put it this way: If Reid was the guy who wrote up Obamacare, then there is no question why it sucks so badly. Like most Democrats he knows nothing about money. So he had to earn it the old fashioned way, through graft, unlike conservatives who do by hard work.
Which bring me to the meat of the story.
Burger King is moving to Canada, speaking of meat.
“Burger King is ruling a larger fast-food kingdom,” reports USAToday. “The new global company will be headquartered in Canada, but each brand will be managed independently, with Burger King retaining its U.S. offices in Miami, the two companies said in a joint statement.
I say good luck to the King of meat. Perhaps a country with a queen on its currency will be more friendly to the King than the U.S. has been.
It certainly will offer tax advantages, which of course is exactly what the move is all about. USAToday reports that the King save 46% on its tax bill with the move to the Great White North.
Does anyone else find the irony in that Burger King is fleeing to Canada-- a place to which American Tories fled because they supported the tax on tea in opposition to guys like Adams, Franklin and Washington—because it will save them from the onerous American tax system?
And no irony would be complete in Obama’s fantasy tax code without an Obama billionaire weighing in, wagging his patriarchal moneybags in a hypocritical fashion.
“Warren Buffett has been a vocal supporter of higher tax rates for the wealthy but when push comes to shove the Oracle is all about the bottom line,” writes Jeff Macke on Yahoo Finance. “As you know yesterday Burger King (BKW) shares soared when word leaked of a potential tax inversion - inspired bid for Canadian donut shop Tim Horton's (THI). Now it's being reported that the deal will be funded in part by Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway
Called “tax inversions” the newest trend has companies looking to move their headquarters overseas in an attempt to selfishly make more money for investors by fleeing high American corporate taxes, thus fulfilling the legal obligation management has to their shareholders. It’s more about the sickness of the American tax system, which can even compete with France. And that of course has liberals furious, calling companies who practice tax inversions unpatriotic and a lot of other hard names as well.
Liberal Democrats went so far at to call for a boycott of Burger King.
“Sen. Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio) was the first lawmaker to call for a boycott of Burger King Worldwide Inc.,” writes the Wall Street Journal, “telling customers to shop elsewhere given the company’s pursuit of an acquisition that could allow it to avoid or curtail U.S. taxes.”
So while companies continue to flee the United States over a broken tax code, Brown, Harry Reid and the rest of the Democrat Senate engage in the oldest tax dodge of desperate politicians.
Because dishonesty is the Democrats favorite tax dodge as well as their oldest.
I wonder if Burger King will keep its contract with the US Army as the burger franchise of choice on American military bases.
> Called “tax inversions” the newest trend has companies looking to move their headquarters overseas in an attempt to selfishly make more money for investors by fleeing high American corporate taxes, thus fulfilling the legal obligation management has to their shareholders. It’s more about the sickness of the American tax system, which can even compete with France. And that of course has liberals furious, calling companies who practice tax inversions unpatriotic and a lot of other hard names as well.
That’s what you call good business strategy (something that liberals don’t get because most have never owned a business). If you’re getting the hell taxed out of you and a simple relocation would save you an enormous chunk of change you move. Everbody is way too overtaxed in the U.S. because of a runaway government whose appetite is voracious.
When I joined the Air Force...the finance guy there in Texas tried to convince me to list Texas as my home of record...thus avoiding any state taxes for the remainder of my life. I didn’t grasp the argument and just stuck with my home state. Four years later...I’m in Washington state and get the same lecture again (Washington has no state income tax), and this time I understood the discussion and argument. For the remainder of my career with the Air Force....I paid no state income tax.
I view this mess in the same fashion. It’s a personal choice, and unless some idiots make a law forbidding the tactic, I don’t see a problem with it.
I worked with a gal who bought a horse ranch while stationed in Montana. Upon selling it and assuming she’d have to pay some taxes on the profits (over $70k in profits)...she found this local tax accountant who knew of a federal law dealing with Montana horse ranches sold within a certain year period (she fell into the category) that voided all profits for taxation purposes. It was singularly written for Montana, for a limited year period. Obviously, some senator worked the deal for a friend and others benefited from the deal. There are countless deals on the books which Congress put into the system...pretending to be tax experts and writing their own code.
Get rid of the Pride burger though. The thought of it makes you wonder what’s in the secret sauce on that one.../s
There are some army brats turned army themselves who absolutely hate the idea of going to burger king. They’ve seen BK and only BK for so long that the thought of it is repulsive. They’ll even...shudder...choose MacDonalds over Burger King. That’s a desperation move in anyone’s book. :>)
So much for “equal protection under the law”, eh?
The Current FReepathon Pays For The Current Quarter's Expenses?
“I worked with a gal who bought a horse ranch while stationed in Montana. Upon selling it and assuming she’d have to pay some taxes on the profits (over $70k in profits)...she found this local tax accountant who knew of a federal law dealing with Montana horse ranches sold within a certain year period (she fell into the category) that voided all profits for taxation purposes. It was singularly written for Montana, for a limited year period. Obviously, some senator worked the deal for a friend and others benefited from the deal. There are countless deals on the books which Congress put into the system...pretending to be tax experts and writing their own code.”
Yet another reason the USA should replace the income tax with the FairTax and abolish the IRS!
This is a FairTax moment!
If the American people would only demand of their elected officials that the income tax be replaced with the FairTax and the IRS abolished, this so-called “inversion” problem would go away.
In fact, companies and businesses would fight each other to be the first to return to the USA. It would be a stampede!
What is so troublesome about this entire discussion is that fundamental tax reform is not on the table.
Instead these LIEberal dumbass bozos are trying to find a way to punish companies who do the smart thing and leave high-tax USA for low-tax Canada and other countries.
Why not make the USA the low-tax — FairTax levies NO income tax on businesses — capital of the world?
And then, the smart businesses will relocate to the USA!
There are billions (some say over a trillion) of dollars being held out of the USA by multi-national companies to avoid federal taxes.
Under the FairTax, those billions would come into our economy tax FRee and give it onehellofaboost!
So, call, write, email, fax, twitter, whatever, your elected representatives and demand that FairTax be passed and implemented!
I keep thinking that the government will begin granting exemptions even with sales taxes. They already do. One way to snag everybody would be with a VAT, and the only exemption would be the % tax at the register point of final sale.
With that in mind, the % tax at all levels would have to be small to add up to the amount tax that the fair tax wants to enact....in the range of 20% isn’t it???
I’m asking this as someone who supports the fair tax, not as an opponent.
Good question.
The FairTax is an attempt to rein in, in respect of taxes, the “Rule of Man” that has so corrupted human civilization right FRom the get-go. By that, I mean, Rule of Law is supposed to mean something.
If, every time the law is perceived as “unfair” by some powerful person or group and they have the clout to and then do change it to benefit themselves or their “tribe,” what happens to the Rule of Law?
IMHO, the less exemptions and loopholes a law has, the better. After all, our Constitution promises equal treatment under the law. That is hard to do when the law is perverted to satisfy some tribal requirement.
HST, the way to control the “exemption and loophole” game is for We the People to regain control of our elected officials. They DO work for us, you know!
I am reminded that in the Florida Primary yesterday, for example, EVERY sitting Congressman won their primary contest. On average, BTW, 90% of those who hold public office (and run for re-election) get re-elected every cycle.
What we need, of course, is to throw the rascals out! Even better, we need term limits, and an end to the Cadillac retirement plans/health insurance plans these Bozos vote for themselves!
Diapers and politicians need changing FRom time to time, and often for the same reason!
I don’t like the VAT for a lot of reasons: it is a hidden tax; historically, it starts out single digit, and morphs quickly into double digits; it is an administrative burden; nowhere in the world is the VAT the only tax — usually, it is in ADDITITON to an income tax scheme (FairTax REPLACES income taxes); and, lastly, governements LOVE the VAT!
Anything, be it a “program,” a tax, food stamps, welfare scheme, “benefit,” etc., etc. that government likes, I automatically don’t like!
Let us stay focused on FairTax and not get led astray by the Flat tax and VAT crowd!
I appreciate your support for the FairTax. Stay with it, please.
The basic premise of the VAT is that at each stage of sale that a sales tax is paid. That means that if the lumber company sells a load of wood to the furniture manufacturer that they pay the tax there. Then the furniture manufacturer sells furniture to a furniture store, and that is taxed there. Then the furniture store sells to the customer who pays a tax at the register.
As it stands, the fair tax wants the only “sales tax” to be to the final consumer. I’m saying that exemptions already exist for sales taxes, and that those exemptions will either continue or will eventually reappear under the fair tax. I am not entirely opposed to them. For example, I believe that a church is constitutionally untaxable. However, I can argue that their purchase as an end customer had nothing to do with the purchase that the furniture manufacturer made from the lumber company. So, they are not really being taxed when they purchase an item that has costs embedded from previous stages bringing that item to market. The only taxation on them would be the tax at the point of sale when they purchase. That tax, they could constitutionally protest.
A VAT would also ensure that those who tried purchasing and selling under the table would have at least some taxes embedded in the prices of what they purchase.
How is it going to be less prone to fraud?
Why not just not tax the things the prebates are supposedly going to refund taxes for, and eliminate all that?
I'd rather have a flat tax than something prone to smoke and mirrors.
Congress writes tax law but they always write in an escape clause. So they know how to avoid the very tax they get put in place.
Find out how congress critters avoid taxes and follow their lead. Or get to know a good tax accountant.
Prebate “checks” will be electronic direct deposits, similar to federal, state and local retirement checks, SS checks and the like. Done by computer-to-computer communication.
I’ll grant that there is the opportunity for FRaud inherent in ALL government programs. Witness the continuing EBT, disability, unemployment, etc. etc. FRaud we are daily told about. HST, the potential for FRaud is not, IMHO, a serious enough problem to be a FairTax show-stopper. In any event, there are provisions in the law to “handle,” and ultimately, imprison, those who try to cheat the system.
With respect to employees, it will not take 100,000 feds (the rough IRS body count today) to operate the new agency. The IRS WILL BE ABOLISHED and a new agency created to monitor the states tax collection efforts after FairTax is implemented. If the number of IRS types decreases by 50-75%, that is a hellofasavings!
When the FairTax proposal was being written, I argued (I was there) for the lower rate/no prebate you speak of. I lost the argument (I was not the only one arguing for a “no prebate plan, BTW). HST, the arguments for including the prebate were persuasive, and the prebate is in the legislation.
The architects the FairTax believe that including a prebate to pay for the necessities of life would accomplish three essential purposes: (1) the prebate would help defuse the “regressive” argument, because the it effectively makes the FairTax “progressive;” (2) the prebate would increase the appeal of the FairTax to low and middle income taxpayers who were used to paying lower tax rates, and; (3) the prebate would obviate the “requirement” to have certain classes of goods (food, rent, medicine, etc. etc.) untaxed. The prebate totally eliminated the argument that if certain goods were not taxed, then other goods should not be taxed. (Under FairTax, ALL new retail goods and services are taxed; there are no exemptions and loopholes. The idea here is to eliminate the “rent seeking” lobbyists industry.)
Finally, the flat tax is still an income tax. The Flat tax does not abolish the IRS; the FairTax does. The flat tax does not release the American citizen FRom the slavery of an income tax; the FairTax does.
In fact, I can make a strong argument that under a flat income tax, the IRS will become even more intrusive, abusive, intolerant and disrespective of the Constitution than it is now. I’ll save that discussion for another thread.
Fundamentally, what we have here is an argument for FReedom. We will never be a truly FRee people so long as we have an income tax and an IRS!
I rest my case.
I know what a VAT is, and I don’t like it, primarily for its huge administrative overhead cost, which you so neatly pointed out. Each level of taxation imposes an administrative burden to the company that the FairTax simply does not.
You must realize that ALL taxes are paid by the final consumer. If you deny that fact, then we cannot have this discussion.
The FairTax is no more prone to “cheating” than the VAT. In both cases, it requires at least a two-party conspiracy, and there is a paperwork trail that the law can follow.
Please drop the idea of a VAT and throw your support behind the FairTax.
The furniture company buys from the lumber company and gets taxed. How is that an administrative burden? If you’re selling, then you’re collecting taxes. Why should Joe’s restaurant have to do it and not Joe’s Lumber Yard. It doesn’t make sense to me that it’s any different.
If I buy something and get taxed, there’s no administrative burden on me. If I sell something and get taxed, then my burden is no different than any other seller.
I don’t see that it’s onerous.
What is onerous is exemptions granted at the end point of sale. An exemption MUST be granted to Churches, for example, because it’s unconstitutional to tax them. They are permitted free exercise, and if the government takes away any of their money, then it’s not free. It’s inhibited.
The only way we will be free of the slavery of taxes is to put the government beck in its Constitutionally delineated (original intent) cage.
So long as the Federal Government is in my light sockets, toilet tank and my kid's lunchbox, we are subjects of abject tyranny, and no matter how you collect the money, it remains what it is.
Put lipstick on a pig, you just have a fancy high-maintenance pig.
As for: "With respect to employees, it will not take 100,000 feds (the rough IRS body count today) to operate the new agency. The IRS WILL BE ABOLISHED and a new agency created to monitor the states tax collection efforts after FairTax is implemented. If the number of IRS types decreases by 50-75%, that is a hellofasavings!"
When has the government ever, and I mean ever, retired or done away with an agency it that didn't find a less efficient and more expensive labor intensive way to do things?
I have absolutely no faith that anything would be reduced in size or scope by a government that expanded (against the 4th Amendment) its monitoring of "terrorists" to include every communication in the country, including, no doubt, this one, regardless of who or what.
When the ministry of blanket electronic proctology shuts its doors, maybe we can think about downsizing.
I am fully in support of eliminating the income tax, after all, how is an exchange of my time, labor, and expertise "income"? I am trading, even up, for some pieces of paper or inconvenienced electrons to say I have another, more widely accepted medium of exchange--but have I gained anything? No, I traded, value for value, even up. No "gain", no "income" involved.
You still have to keep track of who has what account, changes of accounts, address, etc. You will still have a leviathan. Ever belong to a book club? (Do you thin the Federal Government is capable of operating at even that level of efficiency?) If not, it is going to be a mess, to put it mildly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.