Biden's Eviction Moratorium Order May Not Be Enough

[icehorse]

I am....carefully.
But you're not responding to mine as I'd hoped, ie,
with specific info & analysis rather than broad claims.

It seems to me that you're stuck on justifying a bad tax code?

So yes, I'm making a broad claim: And that claim is that if a company cannot pay it's fair share to maintain our infrastructure then it's not a company that's helping our economy, it's a parasite. This is a conceptual claim, what's your conceptual answer?

 

[Revoltingest]

Which implies that there are fewer people seeking new apartments than there are empty apartments on offer.

Empty apartments don't bring in money, anyway, so why keep them empty?

Apartments occupied by non-paying tenants have problems....
- They aren't available to paying tenants.
- They cause costs: utilities, maintenance

 

[Revoltingest]

It seems to me that you're stuck on justifying a bad tax code?

That's ridiculous, given that I've been advocating
a radical overhaul of the entire tax structure.

What I'm doing is challenging your unevidenced
claims. We need to see analysis of a company's
tax return to understand what's going on.

So yes, I'm making a broad claim: And that claim is that if a company cannot pay it's fair share to maintain our infrastructure then it's not a company that's helping our economy, it's a parasite. This is a conceptual claim, what's your conceptual answer?

You've presented no figures on what companies
pay in property taxes, payroll taxes, & income
taxes in other years.
You need more than mere name calling.

 

[icehorse]

That's ridiculous, given that I've been advocating
a radical overhaul of the entire tax structure.

What I'm doing is challenging your unevidenced
claims. We need to see analysis of a company's
tax return to understand what's going on.

You've presented no figures on what companies
pay in property taxes, payroll taxes, & income
taxes in other years.
You need more than mere name calling.

I'm sorry @Revoltingest - I'm not going to regurgitate the very clear article I already sent you.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm sorry @Revoltingest - I'm not going to regurgitate the very clear article I already sent you.

As I said, your article was only partially accessible to me.
The portion I saw provided no such info.
Are you claiming that it does?
If so please present it.

Income taxes are based upon profit, which is something
calculated by IRS standards, not GAAP. For example,
this can mean no tax liability in a profitable year if there
are carry forward losses.
Moreover, you call them "parasites" without giving credit
for payroll taxes, property taxes, & other payments.

 

[icehorse]

As I said, your article was only partially accessible to me.

From the article:

Nearly 100 Fortune 500 companies effectively paid no federal taxes in 2018, according to a new report.

The study by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a left-leaning think tank, covers the first year following passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act championed by President Donald Trump, which was signed into law in December 2017.

The report covers 379 companies from the Fortune list that were profitable in 2018 and finds that 91 paid an effective federal tax rate of 0% or less. Those companies come from a wide range of industries and include the likes of Amazon, Starbucks and Chevron.

Once again, it seems to me that you're - in effect - defending the current tax code by bringing up all of the legal loopholes that these corporations use. For example, it would appear that you're okay with profitable companies using "carry forward losses" to avoid paying taxes, as our country's bridges crumble and CEOs are worth billions and sometimes tens of billions.

 

[Revoltingest]

From the article:



Once again, it seems to me that you're - in effect - defending the current tax code by bringing up all of the legal loopholes that these corporations use. For example, it would appear that you're okay with profitable companies using "carry forward losses" to avoid paying taxes, as our country's bridges crumble and CEOs are worth billions and sometimes tens of billions.

I am OK with carry forward losses. If one loses more in
in a fiscal year than one makes, to carry it forward against
future income is fair. The IRS is the body enforcing the
arbitrary 12 month fiscal year.
But that is one tiny aspect of a massive tax code in need
of an overhaul. Is this really the issue? No...it's about the
reasonableness of having no tax liability in a given year.
You've offered no financial analysis showing why they
paid no income taxes in a particular year.

 

[icehorse]

I am OK with carry forward losses. If one loses more in
in a fiscal year than one makes, to carry it forward against
future income is fair. The IRS is the body enforcing the
arbitrary 12 month fiscal year.
But that is one tiny aspect of a massive tax code in need
of an overhaul. Is this really the issue? No...it's about the
reasonableness of having no tax liability in a given year.
You've offered no financial analysis showing why they
paid no income taxes in a particular year.

You continue to defend aspects of the tax code. It's huge, and neither of us can probably engage in the details of this massive set of rules.

OTOH, we CAN talk in terms of broader principles. My claim is that a profitable fortune 500 company ought to pay some federal taxes. full stop.

And if the tax code provides them the means to do so, it's a clear indication that the tax code is in very bad shape.

 

[Revoltingest]

You continue to defend aspects of the tax code.

I've defended one aspect because it's fair.
But it seems you're trying to use that to claim
I favor the whole thing. That would be wrong.

It's huge, and neither of us can probably engage in the details of this massive set of rules.

I have to deal with some of the complexities.
Criminy....a code change a year ago meant
amending a couple years.

OTOH, we CAN talk in terms of broader principles. My claim is that a profitable fortune 500 company ought to pay some federal taxes. full stop.

I agree.

And if the tax code provides them the means to do so, it's a clear indication that the tax code is in very bad shape.

That is a case you've not made though.

 

[icehorse]

That is a case you've not made though.

I'm talking about ethics here.

- we have HUGE, fortune 500 companies (therefore they ARE making heavy use of OUR infrastructure).
- we're talking about years in which they are profitable
- the tax system allows them to pay $0 taxes.

How is that ethically sound?

This is NOT a question of the ins-and-outs of details of the tax code, this is a much simpler question of what's right and what's wrong. Our tax code is failing us. You and I are paying more taxes - individually - than these monster huge, PROFITABLE, companies.

How is that ethically sound OR sustainable as a society?

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm talking about ethics here.

- we have HUGE, fortune 500 companies (therefore they ARE making heavy use of OUR infrastructure).
- we're talking about years in which they are profitable
- the tax system allows them to pay $0 taxes.

Where's your analysis?

How is that ethically sound?

You've not shown any detail about their
income & tax situation. All you've done
is claim it's unethical.

This is NOT a question of the ins-and-outs of details of the tax code, this is a much simpler question of what's right and what's wrong. Our tax code is failing us. You and I are paying more taxes - individually - than these monster huge, PROFITABLE, companies.

How is that ethically sound OR sustainable as a society?

If you have no detail about the tax code or their
profit, how can you criticize the situation?

 

[icehorse]

Where's your analysis?

I'm summarizing the claims made in the article.

If you have no detail about the tax code or their
profit, how can you criticize the situation?

You keep falling back to the tax code. You're putting words in my mouth, I'm making no claims about specifics concerning the tax code.

My claim is that - whatever the fine print in the tax codes might be - the net affect of them is unethical.

Once again, my claim is that for the following three things, ALL to be true of a corporation.. :

1 - They are large (and therefore making extensive use of OUR infrastructure)/
2 - They are profitable (per public record)
3 - They legally paid no federal tax (per public record).

Is proof of an unethical tax code.

Think of the tax code like a "black box" (which it virtually is, btw). We know what goes in and we know what comes out, but we do not know how the internal machinery works. Armed only with the above mentioned ins-and-outs, we can make claims as to the ethics of the inner workings of the black box. (In this case, the tax code.)

 

[McBell]

I'm summarizing the claims made in the article.



You keep falling back to the tax code. You're putting words in my mouth, I'm making no claims about specifics concerning the tax code.

My claim is that - whatever the fine print in the tax codes might be - the net affect of them is unethical.

Once again, my claim is that for the following three things, ALL to be true of a corporation.. :

1 - They are large (and therefore making extensive use of OUR infrastructure)/
2 - They are profitable (per public record)
3 - They legally paid no federal tax (per public record).

Is proof of an unethical tax code.

Think of the tax code like a "black box" (which it virtually is, btw). We know what goes in and we know what comes out, but we do not know how the internal machinery works. Armed only with the above mentioned ins-and-outs, we can make claims as to the ethics of the inner workings of the black box. (In this case, the tax code.)

which tax code is not available to you to look over?

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm summarizing the claims made in the article.

What support did the article offer for the claim that
profitable companies paid no income taxes?

Ya know....there are people who tell me they have
The Truth that they read in a book. The book makes
bold claims. They quote the book, & they tell me who
is moral & who is immoral. I've no faith in the book's
pronouncements. I want objective quantitative info.
Book or article....I don't take them on faith.

My claim is that - whatever the fine print in the tax codes might be - the net affect of them is unethical.

You needn't know everything in the tax code.
But to make the claim, you should know what's
relevant. And you should know the P&L pictures
of the companies,
Otherwise, how do you know it's unethical?

Once again, my claim is that for the following three things, ALL to be true of a corporation.. :

1 - They are large (and therefore making extensive use of OUR infrastructure)/

And for this, they pay property taxes, fuel taxes, payroll
taxes, & when profitable they pay income taxes.
Do you deny that they pay property, fuel, & payroll taxes?
Do you deny that property & fuel taxes support infrastructure?

2 - They are profitable (per public record)

Where is that public record showing their finances?
Do you claim that every corporation is always profitable
in every year?

3 - They legally paid no federal tax (per public record).

I don't dispute that this happens.
Nay, I expect that it would because companies aren't
profitable every year. (I don't have a profit in every year.)
People & businesses shouldn't pay income tax when
they don't have net income.
Or do you disagree?

Is proof of an unethical tax code.

You've made claims, but offered no proof.
When I look at financials for a business, I examine
income, expenses, assets, liabilities, & tax situation.
You've offered none of those.

Think of the tax code like a "black box" (which it virtually is, btw). We know what goes in and we know what comes out, but we do not know how the internal machinery works. Armed only with the above mentioned ins-and-outs, we can make claims as to the ethics of the inner workings of the black box. (In this case, the tax code.)

You've not posted no info about these "ins-and-outs".
I know how the tax code works with respect to my
businesses (albeit with regular surprises). It's a pain
& often unfair. It should be fixed.
But government doesn't consult me about changes.

 

[icehorse]

which tax code is not available to you to look over?

If a small car gets only 1 MPG, you don't have to look under the hood to know it's a bad engine. Of course the thousands and thousands of pages of tax codes are available to peruse, doh!

Your question is missing the point.

 

[Revoltingest]

If a small car gets only 1 MPG, you don't have to look under the hood to know it's a bad engine. Of course the thousands and thousands of pages of tax codes are available to peruse, doh!

Your question is missing the point.

Making an unsupported analogy to prove an
unsupported claim about taxation isn't convincing.

 

[icehorse]

If you want it, you get the last word, because it's clear that you're not discussing this in good faith, and I do not have time for any more of your nonsense.

What support did the article offer for the claim that
profitable companies paid no income taxes?

One of the first links in the article is to a study done by the "Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy". But if you do a simple internet search you'll find countless articles and studies that support the claim that many HUGE and HUGELY PROFITABLE corporations pay little or no federal income tax. @Revoltingest, I've seen you respond to many posters that you don't have time to read their links, and I should have realized earlier what a red flag this is. It's very easy to extrapolate from this common response of yours that all we're apt to get from you is your un-researched, slapdash, knee jerk reactions to OPs.

Otherwise, how do you know it's unethical?

By the results.

You've made claims, but offered no proof.
When I look at financials for a business, I examine
income, expenses, assets, liabilities, & tax situation.
You've offered none of those.

Sometimes it's useful to look at a businesses finances in detail, we're agreed. But sometimes - like in this case - it's not necessary. As I said in a separate post, if a particular small car gets only 1mpg, you don't need to look under the hood to know that that car has a bad engine.

And for this, they pay property taxes, fuel taxes, payroll
taxes, & when profitable they pay income taxes.
Do you deny that they pay property, fuel, & payroll taxes?
Do you deny that property & fuel taxes support infrastructure?

I would be gobsmacked of you didn't know the answer to this question, which again leads me to the conclusion that you are wasting everyone's time here.

Of course the taxes you mention help, but clearly they are not sufficient, and again, you must know that. In other words, those taxes you mention only PARTIALLY support OUR infrastructure, and of course that's the case, because if they entirely supported our infrastructure there would be no need for federal taxes at all.

Enjoy your day, I'm moving on.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you want it, you get the last word, because it's clear that you're not discussing this in good faith, and I do not have time for any more of your nonsense.

I asked for evidence.
Instead of offering any, you resorted to ad hominem.
Yet you challenge my good faith?
Pish posh.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Especially hard hit are those privately owned properties that represent a landlord renting a small number of dwellings as opposed to cooperate landlords who own multiple properties, including the infamous 'slum'lords. Either way the landlord is dependent on the rent to pay their own taxes and mortgages. Are landlords allowed the same 'moratorium'?

Landlords should be entitled to the same protections as other investors.

If a company decides to cut the dividends it issues, what sort of protections do you think should be offered to the shareholders that might have depended on them?

It's not the job of the government to ensure that investors have a positive return on their investments every single year.

If the landlord really is in dire straits, they'll be protected from eviction just like their tenants.

 

[Revoltingest]

If the landlord really is in dire straits, they'll be protected from eviction just like their tenants.

It isn't such a reciprocal situation.
Tenants who get far behind in rent are unlikely to ever catch up.
They're generally uncollectible, so eviction is a necessary tool.
(That's been my experience in the business.)
Landlords who get behind on loans, utilities, taxes, & insurance.
are always held accountable because we can't run from those bills
because the property itself is the security.
Property taxes are liens on the property, & must be paid lest the
property be sold at a tax sale. Utilities will be cut off if unpaid.
Insurance will be cut off if unpaid. Loans unpaid will cause
foreclosure. Maintenance vendors will cease service if unpaid.
Loans, if they're not Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (federal gov
controlled) or a foreign owned bank (eg, Citizens NA) can
sometimes be renegotiated for a manageable payment.