23 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesi do not know about the American system, for in the UK we have VAT, value added tax, which is added to every stage of manufacture and added to goods and services at different rates depending on the type of goods or service for businesses with an annual turnover in excess of £50,000 per annum, this is not an expense in the same manner that an overhead is an expense! it would as you say, have if my memory serves me correctly, a debit entry in its own account and a credit entry in some taxes payable account (because we owe this to the government), however in the governments accounts, the opposite would be true, for there would be a debit entry in the taxes received account but also a credit entry to the capital account, which is what the government owes to its creditors, you and I, thus when we deposit money in the bank, the bank credits that money to our account, stating we are a creditor and on its own accounts debits it as being a debtor to us, and when we take money out of the bank, it records in our accounts a debit entry for we are a debtor and a credit entry in its own account, for it has given us the money and is a creditor to us!
That's certainly not the way things are in the United States.
In the basic system of double-entry accounting that I am familiar with, the transaction to account for paying taxes would be a credit to a cash account and a debit to a tax expense account.
If what you say is true, the transaction would have to involve a debit to an accounts receivab ayments. If Scots do it that way, then they are far more optimistic or naive than Americans.
however there is in what you state in the last paragraph, the practice of making provisions, provisions for depreciation for example, these are nothing more than nominal accounts, for what business actually sets aside a provision for depreciation on the basis that's its machinery will be come out of date and need replacing, none! if the business is profitable it will merely obtain a loan and fund it that way. these as far as i can tell are used mainly to reduced taxable profit and thus liability to pay tax.
23 Jan 09
Originally posted by NemesioIsn't it great when you argue with yourself?
It's the quintessential unanswerable question. If you answer 'yes,'
then it implies that you used to beat your wife. If you answer 'no' then
it implies you continue to beat your wife.
Your question about whether I was either an anarchist or a hypocrite was
an example of such a question. For someone who claims to dislike binary
opposition, it was an ...[text shortened]... ware that my question was referring to something you
had not heard before).
Nemesio
23 Jan 09
Originally posted by NemesioI apologize if this is out of context and I have misunderstood. Are you saying that the bailouts happening in the US do not have the consent of the people? I realize there was no referendum, but was there a public outcry against them? If both major political parties support the bailouts surely either your democratic system is severely flawed or the tax payer is consenting?
You are correct inasmuch as they aren't identical, but the basic theme is the same:
the government under the guise of 'for the public good' is giving businesses
which practice their particular business in an inferior way some sort of
economic boost using taxpayer money and without the consent of the
taxpayer.
24 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaKeep dodging by being smug, pointing out other people's supposed character
About as much as when you stopped beating your wife.
flaws and being generally evasive in an effort to disguise the fact that your
assessment of Rand's book was diametrically opposite to what she actually
maintains. I'm sure no one has noticed.
Nemesio
24 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioI don't really care if nobody notices that the whole argument is an obvious hasty generalization (regarding government programs) added to a slippery slope (all the way down the path to socialism).
Keep dodging by being smug, pointing out other people's supposed character
flaws and being generally evasive in an effort to disguise the fact that your
assessment of Rand's book was diametrically opposite to what she actually
maintains. I'm sure no one has noticed.
Nemesio
As for you, why should I bother to discuss someone who writes an inordinary amount of paragraphs about my criticism of a phrase that you yourself already admitted was hyperbolic?
Just keep going. You don't need me.
26 Jan 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadPolls showed very heavy majorities against the various bailout schemes. It's naive in the extreme to expect the elite to not help their fellow elitists with whatever tools they have. The prevailing ideology among the ruling class in the US will not allow the collapse of large numbers of big corporations and banks. And that is true of both parties.
I apologize if this is out of context and I have misunderstood. Are you saying that the bailouts happening in the US do not have the consent of the people? I realize there was no referendum, but was there a public outcry against them? If both major political parties support the bailouts surely either your democratic system is severely flawed or the tax payer is consenting?
26 Jan 09
Originally posted by no1marauderThanks for the information. Clearly the media I have access to is biased. I had the impression that the only objections were to the methods of the bailouts (eg bailing out a company whilst allowing the CEO to keep his fat unearned bonus) - and not the concept of bailing out for the good of the economy.
Polls showed very heavy majorities against the various bailout schemes. It's naive in the extreme to expect the elite to not help their fellow elitists with whatever tools they have. The prevailing ideology among the ruling class in the US will not allow the collapse of large numbers of big corporations and banks. And that is true of both parties.
26 Jan 09
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadhttp://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/03/auto.poll/index.html
Thanks for the information. Clearly the media I have access to is biased. I had the impression that the only objections were to the methods of the bailouts (eg bailing out a company whilst allowing the CEO to keep his fat unearned bonus) - and not the concept of bailing out for the good of the economy.
http://www.latimes.com/business/investing/la-na-econpoll24-2008sep24,0,5568395.story
Poll wording affects the results (naturally) but it's fair to say that most Americans don't support the idea of using public money to bailout large private corporations. Most don't believe that it would be "good for the economy".