SeaWorld Parks doesn't pay any corporate income taxes after record year

Must ....resist....urge.....to post...in.... tax threads.....on ....coaster....site.

So when is opening day at Cedar Point? :)

Lord Gonchar said:

I think it absolutely makes sense to take a greater amount from someone with a greater amount. I think it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest taking a greater percentage because they have a greater amount.

Part of the logic hidden in that (not arguing validity, just the conceptual basis) is that some taxes, like sales taxes and payroll takes, are generally regarded by economists as being regressive in nature. If you consider that those in the two lower quintiles make less than the 100K boundary where payroll taxes drop off, and that the vast majority of their income is spent, it's understandable why those taxes are believed to be so.

Also, the crazy-high 90% marginal tax brackets that once existed were an accepted result of war that we did not enter voluntarily. Haven't seen many Victory Gardens lately (ours is fun to play around in, but it's not really helping the war effort).

"Not sure why one angle gets painted as noble and the other as criminal."

I think we all know why. We have an ill-informed media complex(at best)that trumpets the "evil" rich every day. In many sectors the public education system does the same. This turns out little mind numb robots who vote accordingly...if they bother to vote.

You don't get such an ill-informed and apathetic voting base through fair education of the public. Those that do seek alternative news sources to self-educate are treated worse than an occupier crapping in the street by the mainstream media.

But it works. While we argue "fairness" of the tax code, the SPENDING keeps growing exponentially faster assuring those who benefit most from the government dollar never have to face the same risks of those who fund their pensions.

Please. It's not the evil media. That's a cop-out for non-thinkers, which is funny, because I'd lump that group with the same people who make the call that people who make money are all douchebags. You pretty much made that case in the very next sentence.

I think it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest taking a greater percentage because they have a greater amount.

I disagree. The entire principle behind "progressive" tax rates (i.e. the marginal rate goes up as you earn more) is that your Nth dollar "means less" than your 1st dollar---the idea of diminishing returns. To a household at or near the poverty line, every dollar matters. In contrast, for a household with earnings in the low six figures, a single dollar isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things.

As for the slippery slope question: Clearly, there is a limit. A marginal tax rate of 100% (or one even close) definitely dis-incentivizes work and productivity. But, on the other hand, the top tax rate of 35% strikes me as low enough that it doesn't really cause most people to think, "That's it! I'm not working anymore!" I'm guessing the sweet spot is somewhere in between these two rates. Finding it is the province of the behavioral economists.

Brian Noble said:
The entire principle behind "progressive" tax rates (i.e. the marginal rate goes up as you earn more) is that your Nth dollar "means less" than your 1st dollar---the idea of diminishing returns. To a household at or near the poverty line, every dollar matters. In contrast, for a household with earnings in the low six figures, a single dollar isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things.

And I disagree with that line of thought. Based on what I said before - it's getting into an area where we're making judgement calls on how much someone needs or should have.

Precisely. Besides, why does earning more money mean that I owe the government a higher percentage? Putting it another way, why is the government entitled to receive more from me because I'm working harder/more/smarter to make a better life...for myself?

Jeff said:
You want to penalize success because you believe success all comes from being a shady douchebag. See above.

Nonsense. I've known plenty of perfectly respectable, hard working successful (rich) people. But if we're going to ignore facts and economics and just talk about beliefs, I do believe that successful people owe a bigger debt to society. Clearly lots of people disagree with that, but nobody who's ever gotten rich did it 100% on their own without the help of the society we live in. So yes, I think it's perfectly fine to expect them to pay a little more to support the system that allowed them to get to where they are. That so many people feel they owe no debt to a society that's helped them achieve success is disturbing to me.

On a side note, I'd be curious to see how many people actually know how the progressive tax system is designed to work. It seems to me that most people think they know how it works, but actually end up being pretty clueless. It might be slightly harder to comprehend than a flat tax, but historically it worked pretty darn well before we started mucking with it in 80's. I haven't uncovered any stories about people at the top saying "Eh, screw it, I'm not going to make any more money" because of the 90% top tax bracket that existed in those days.

Lord Gonchar said:
...it's getting into an area where we're making judgement calls on how much someone needs or should have.

See, I see it as finding the right parameters that enable a sustainable economy, at least from the revenue generation perspective. I don't want to punish Scrooge McDuck, but I do want to ensure the whole system doesn't fall apart, leaving me unable to have a similar level of success.

Vater said:
Putting it another way, why is the government entitled to receive more from me because I'm working harder/more/smarter to make a better life...for myself?

You're ignoring that that you owe some of your success to the government. After all, you did not personally fund the entirety of the infrastructure that helped you achieve that success. Others helped, including people who, for one reason or another, simply won't have the same opportunities for success that you had.

Longing for the days of the 90% top marginal bracket (or even the lower 70% top rate put in place during the 1960s) while at the same time complaining that the rich take advantage of loopholes to reduce their tax liability makes no sense. There was an entire cottage industry devoted to creating and selling tax shelters to the wealthy with the 90% and 70% top rates in place. Those top rates also applied to significantly higher income levels (adjusted for inflation) and thus applied to fewer tax payers than the top rates do today. The tax reforms of the 1980s did reduce rates but they also eliminated the tax shelters.

Effective tax rates matter more than stated/marginal tax rates. Effective tax rates FOR EVERYONE have been on the decline since 1979 (I don't see any info for effective rates prior to 1979 online). There have been a few upticks since then but the trend has been clearly down. Its been a matter of politicians being our friends not our parents (while at the same time increasing spending by more than we take in -- by a lot). As noted in another thread, we should increase taxes (ON EVERYONE) and reduce spending to make up the difference.

You're ignoring that that you owe some of your success to the government. After all, you did not personally fund the entirety of the infrastructure that helped you achieve that success. Others helped, including people who, for one reason or another, simply won't have the same opportunities for success that you had.

Under a pure flat tax system, if you make 10 times what I do, you will pay 10 times as much taxes as I do. Is there a reason to think that you benefited more than 10 times as much as I did from the government provided infrastructure?

djDaemon said:
See, I see it as finding the right parameters that enable a sustainable economy, at least from the revenue generation perspective. I don't want to punish Scrooge McDuck, but I do want to ensure the whole system doesn't fall apart, leaving me unable to have a similar level of success.

This is an important point to make. It raises the questions, however. First, who says the system is falling apart, and who is to say that it wouldn't bring down rich people as well? Second, did well-to-do people not find themselves unemployed or otherwise not affected by the last financial crisis? I know I sure as hell was affected by it.

But, I am paying more to the government than someone who's making less that I am. I am paying back more to the society that allowed me to be successful. 30% of $150,000 is more than 30% of $50,000. You won't be able to give me a good reason that I should pay a higher percentage than someone who makes less. Saying people won't have the same opportunities that I had is a cop out. Why is that my fault? Why do I owe them? I may have had to work harder to make opportunities for myself in order to achieve the same salary as someone who had those opportunities more or less dropped in their lap; should I demand they owe more than I do because they might have had it a little easier? If so, who decides how much more, and where the hell is that line drawn?

For the record, when I say "I", I'm being entirely hypothetical; I'm supporting my family of four on a 5-figure salary in one of the most expensive places to live in the US. I may never be "rich", and that's fine...but it's still my belief that the more one makes shouldn't mean they pay a higher percentage in taxes.

CP Chris said:
I think it's perfectly fine to expect them to pay a little more to support the system that allowed them to get to where they are.

djDaemon said:
I do want to ensure the whole system doesn't fall apart, leaving me unable to have a similar level of success.

You're ignoring that that you owe some of your success to the government. After all, you did not personally fund the entirety of the infrastructure that helped you achieve that success. Others helped, including people who, for one reason or another, simply won't have the same opportunities for success that you had.

Well right here explains a lot. We just have fundamental differences in belief in the role of government.

This line of thought is so out of my realm of comprehension that it might as well be alien technology.

I'd be more inclined to say people are successful in spite of government than because of it. :)

Regardless, even if I follow that line of thinking, then I'm still solely in Vater's camp. With a flat tax if I make three times what you make, I pay three times what you make. I pay more for having more.

And, also like Vater, I use "I" in the third person sense.

And if others haven't had the same opportunities, but use the same infrastructure and governement then it proves the individual makes the difference. You can't credit the government in one breath and then say we all don't get the same chances in another.

I know the following is not necesarily reasonable, but just to play devil's advocate, why do we still think it's ok for the wealthy to subsidize government for the less wealthy? The ultimate "fairness" would technically be a flat fee, not a flat percentage. Each person picks up their share based on being a person using the system, not how much they make under (note I didn't say "because of") the system.

Lord Gonchar said:
You can't credit the government in one breath and then say we all don't get the same chances in another.

It must be one or the other? Government (via infrastructure or whatever) can play *a* role, while personal circumstance plays *a* role. It need not be so black-or-white.

I also question your insistence that, in your response to Brian's comments, you don't feel comfortable making judgement calls on the issue, while at the same time, you're making judgement calls on the issue. :)

Heh. Touche. (I won't call straw man)

Seriously though, I think you still made my point. Government can't be solely credited with one's success or failure. That seems to me to be one of the poorest arguments for expecting those we decide are "wealthy" to pay a higher percentage of their earnings.

Government, like economics in general, functions "on the margin"....there is no way you can pinpoint a *single cause* of anything in social sciences - the world is too complex. Which is why we are forced to accept the concept of bounded rationality....at some point, collecting and analyzing yet more data in order to make a decision....ends up with the costs of data acquisition and analysis overwhelming any gains that might be gotten FROM that information...

And so we end up making policy in much the same way - since we can't expect *anyone* to read through all of the tax code, or the Affordable Care Act... :)

It's not the evil media. That's a cop-out for non-thinkers

The old "its not because I say its not" rebuttal... the art of effective pursuasion is one of the finest attributes of the "thinking" man. :)

That so many people feel they owe no debt to a society that's helped them achieve success is disturbing to me.

I assign "society" very little credit to the success of the average man, particularly when one lives in a society based upon the prinicipals of freedom. Yet I'm astonished and humbled that so many of the wealthy in this country do give back so much of their time and money...to those less fortunate.

What disturbs me is watching the political class demand restitution come from "other people's money." If ever their were an appropriate time to utilize the "douche" label, this would be it. Warren Buffett/Obama et al can give all their money to the government if they desire. When they demand everybody else do it...they become douches. What people choose to do with their own money is of no concern to others if we truly strive for freedom.

I do want to ensure the whole system doesn't fall apart

If this were true, you would spend all your time and effort addressing government SPENDING rather than continue fruitless "fairness" dialogue that will not lead to agreement, let alone avert an aconomic catastrophy, even if we could agree.

First, who says the system is falling apart

Meet history. Greece? Europe? Rome? Take a pick.

To believe we can tax our way out of 40-50 TRILLION of unfunded liabilities is bafoonary. It is simply a matter of time, math, and circumstance. A house of cards will eventually fall. It should not take any person/authority/politician to convince ANYBODY to run a couple addition/subtraction equations and come to your own undeniable conclusion. Maybe our investigative media complex is working on that as we speak. ;)

Now illuminating the results of these equations will not win you elections, or popularity contests on message boards, but the math does not lie. The system WILL fail. The piper will get paid AND the promises between our goverment and the citenzry will not be fulfilled. There is simply not enough money to pay for the promises made.

Our votes are bought and paid for...like any banana republic. The difference here is that the majority of our have been bought legally. The politicians promise more spending/benifits and those who bother to vote reward them for their promises. The citizenry marches on, safe and secure in the thought that their Social Security, Health Care, welfare, etc will all be there as promised.

...who knows how this story ends?

Aamilj said:
If this were true, you would spend all your time and effort addressing government SPENDING...

Dude... we get it already. And I don't think anyone here disagrees that spending is out of control. But that doesn't negate the validity of discussing the other half of the equation, which is revenue generation.

I'm with you there. I don't think it's responsible to talk about reduced spending and reducing taxes. That doesn't make any sense. That's never going to get us ahead.

No one disagrees that spending is out of control, yet everyone seems to be entirely focused on raising taxes on the 1% while at the same time passing the single most expensive entitlement bill in US history.