Comments on: Jindal’s model for tax reform

By: News2Day

News2Day — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 16:33:45 +0000

RobinGrace, I believe previous commentors were referring to the fact that partnerships, limited liability corporations, single-member LLCs and most S-Corps do not directly pay taxes. Those types of businesses report their taxable income to the IRS, but the income flows to the owners who then pay taxes on their share of the business income. A lot of nonprofits, foundations and trusts also do not pay taxes. That leaves corporations as being the business form that predominantly pays taxes, which are passed on to their customers via higher prices. A corporation’s goal in reducing its taxes is not so much to benefit its customers as it is to benefit its shareholders.

By: Regular

Regular — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 00:13:51 +0000

This plan will work out if applied nationally. For a consumer society, it may provide a balance based on incomes. Rich families may spend more and contribute to revenues. Poor will be wary of out-spending themselves, but still will be pleased with not paying any income tax. However, if this proposal is implemented only in Louisiana, then there is no guarantee that the rich people in Louisiana will always purchase goods from that state. They may go to a next state which has lesser sales taxes. When applied at Federal level, it can be more effective. This also means, Fed may have to depend on states for its own revenues, probably a legally enforced percentage of sales revenue from each state.

By: Smurfe

Smurfe — Sat, 16 Mar 2013 23:02:57 +0000

I am a resident of Louisiana. I see no mention of requiring the collection of sales tax on Internet purchases. The state will need this because if this poor idea is instituted, Internet sales to Louisiana residents will skyrocket resulting in a loss of more income to the state. Even if state sales tax is required to be collected, online buying will still increase with a loss of sales tax revenue to the local municipality.

I am already paying right at 10% state and local tax on every purchase I make. another 1.8% will be tough to swallow. I am sure I will see other state administered fees such as vehicle registration, Inspection fees for example rise as well.

Also, when doing the math on my income and state taxes paid, there is no significant difference of savings when adding in this additional 1.8% of sales tax being charged. It comes out about even. Yes, I could buy less product as I have a choice what I buy but then I don’t have an item I want and the vendor that sells it doesn’t obtain their profit and the local taxing body doesn’t get their revenue.

So in summary, the only one I see benefiting in this entire equation is the large corporations in tax savings.

By: upstater

upstater — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:25:26 +0000

Norquist should move to Louisiana. And if he has kids, send them to public schools or Jindal’s charter schools. Then see if they can read and write after 12 years.

Now that would be a bold statement by Grover.

Why does Reuters publish this guy anyway?

By: RobinGrace

RobinGrace — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:51:42 +0000

To @oots who said ”
10:06 AM UTC
@oots
the fact is that less than 40% of businesses of any form pay any income tax at all.”

I would appreciate it if you would back that statement up with facts. I don’t know any companies that get away with paying any taxes at all. Can you please publish their annual report links and Budgets .?

By: RobinGrace

RobinGrace — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:48:33 +0000

Just in passing…Can anyone who commented tell me who employs them if not a corporation/company? And if you are really wanted to continue to punish corporations, do you take responsibility with all the current legislation that deters small business in America? And when that small Business hires more people it gets penalized? There is a bigger story here than the same ole diatribe than those ‘evil Corporations’. Reuters is under a Corporation. Taking them down too?

By: flashrooster

flashrooster — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:38:52 +0000

Same old crap from Norquist. Advocating to get his taxes lowered. One thing should be crystal clear. If Grover Norquist is heaping praise on a Republican’s tax reform plan, then you know the plan’s main intent is to cut taxes for the wealthy and lower revenues for government. Reduce the power of government, and corporations–those who pay Norquist millions–will fill the vacuum. Then we get to see how much influence “the people” have with company executives and Boards of Directors. It’s a great plan for doing away with democracy while making himself rich.

By: pavoter1946

pavoter1946 — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:35:29 +0000

His plan adheres to the conservative principle that the tax code should not be used to pick winners and losers in the economy.

ROFLMAO. His plan certainly picks winners. Corporations and the wealthy. The poor have to spend all they have to live. The wealthy don’t. They can send their surplus cash to the Caymans.

The sales tax would also apply to a broader base of goods and a number of services previously untaxed. One can just imagine the ‘services’ that would not be taxed.

But then, this is a typical Grover Norquist article.

By: QuietThinker

QuietThinker — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:27:23 +0000

Why on earth should Reuters publish anything from Grover Norquist? He is well paid for his extremist propaganda. Let him buy ad space.

By: jcfl

jcfl — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:06:14 +0000

@oots
the fact is that less than 40% of businesses of any form pay any income tax at all. my statement was that the gop cares only about large corporations and the wealthy – that comment still stands. your response is as nonsensical and off the point as usual.