Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Free trade
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="soonerwings" data-source="post: 1619322" data-attributes="member: 8035"><p>Negative. Businesses such as "Austin on Fire" (an operator of Firehouse franchises) is an independent business that has agreed to certain restrictions in return for the right to use the Firehouse Brand. If Austin on Fire fails, it fails alone. Firehouse keeps right on chugging along. The profits made by Austin on Fire are part of their income (not the parent company's) and the owner (who is one and the same as the business in U.S. tax law) is taxed at the end of the year. Franchise operators are independent businesses. On a side note, corporate owned Firehouse stores adopted the same prohibition against raising taxes in the example given.</p><p></p><p>The most simplistic definition of tax is the passing of post cost revenue from an individual to the government. When an owner, be he a sole proprietor or an LLC, pays a share of his post-cost revenue (profit) to Uncle Sam, the business (which is legally the same as the owner) faces a reduced profit and is therfore taxed. Try telling Joe the Plumber or Rocky the Bricklayer (my dad) that they don't pay taxes on their business operating income. That's the same as telling a retail/service worker that he doesn't pay taxes on his income because someone else used the services that they provided.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I LOVE the idea of a flat consumption tax. Love it. However, I'm going to have to step out on a limb and say that 1% is nowhere near enough. Especially considering that we're in such a deep economic hole. Let's assume a GDP of 15 trillion (very optimistic). 150 Billion isn't going to be sufficient to maintain infrastructure much less provide any semblance of defense.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="soonerwings, post: 1619322, member: 8035"] Negative. Businesses such as "Austin on Fire" (an operator of Firehouse franchises) is an independent business that has agreed to certain restrictions in return for the right to use the Firehouse Brand. If Austin on Fire fails, it fails alone. Firehouse keeps right on chugging along. The profits made by Austin on Fire are part of their income (not the parent company's) and the owner (who is one and the same as the business in U.S. tax law) is taxed at the end of the year. Franchise operators are independent businesses. On a side note, corporate owned Firehouse stores adopted the same prohibition against raising taxes in the example given. The most simplistic definition of tax is the passing of post cost revenue from an individual to the government. When an owner, be he a sole proprietor or an LLC, pays a share of his post-cost revenue (profit) to Uncle Sam, the business (which is legally the same as the owner) faces a reduced profit and is therfore taxed. Try telling Joe the Plumber or Rocky the Bricklayer (my dad) that they don't pay taxes on their business operating income. That's the same as telling a retail/service worker that he doesn't pay taxes on his income because someone else used the services that they provided. I LOVE the idea of a flat consumption tax. Love it. However, I'm going to have to step out on a limb and say that 1% is nowhere near enough. Especially considering that we're in such a deep economic hole. Let's assume a GDP of 15 trillion (very optimistic). 150 Billion isn't going to be sufficient to maintain infrastructure much less provide any semblance of defense. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Free trade
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom