diesopain: "The One for all,All for one rule doesn't apply to this issue."

Quote:

Originally Posted by diesopain Re: Singapore Tax loopholes (income, GST) that open the Pandora's box of human evil. The One for all,All for one rule doesn't apply to this issue. So what corporate taxes increases, will it bring down Income Taxes? 0.0 it doesn't work that way because corporate is corporate and income tax is income tax there is no link between both of them.Unless you are telling the government to make corporate pay more taxes so that the government will reduce income tax which is very unrealistic because they can just increase corporate taxes and income tax remain the same level.Which means a cut in your Pay

Just curious what U mean by "All for one, one for all" in this context: "Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno is a Latin phrase that means "One for all, all for one" in English. It is known as being the motto of Alexandre Dumas' Three Musketeers and is also the traditional motto of Switzerland." [wiki: Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno]

I'm just saying that govts shouldn't place corporations, which are merely 'vehicles of profit' higher than real humans in terms of tax exemptions and discount rates.

Society should primarily consists of real humans, not corporate identities (aka 'separate legal personalities') that some devious individuals (shareholders) use as vehicle of profit whilst being shielded from liability.

A case of which is illustrated by: Walkovszky v. Carlton; [276 N.Y.S.2d 585, 223 N.E.2d 6 (1966)], summarized as follows:

Quote:

Carlton owned a fleet of 20 taxicabs. But instead of having a single corporation that owned all twenty, Carlton owned 10 separate corporations that each owned two taxicabs. One of the taxicabs ran over Walkovszky. Walkovszky sued, but the single taxibcab corporation only carried $10k in insurance, and had no assets other than the two taxicabs (which had big loans on them). Unable to get money for his injuries from the corporation, Walkovszky asked the Court to pierce the corporate veil and allow him to sue Carlton directly, as well as the other 19 taxicab corporations. Walkovszky argued that Carlton's business scheme was fraudulent because he was improperly sequestering assets to artificially limit his liability. If Carlton had only one corporation, then it would have 10x the assets, and there would be enough money to pay for Walkovszky's injuries. Carlton argued that each of his 10 corporations was completely legitimate and in compliance with all laws. Carlton had the minimum amount or insurance required by Statute. It's just that the minimum insurance was pretty low. The Trial Court found for Walkovszky. Carlton appealed The Appellate Court reversed and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Appellate Court found hat the only time they will pierce the corporate veil is if there is fraud, or if there is evidence that the corporation is 'undercapitalized', but Walkovszky did not show evidence of that. The idea of undercapitalization is that the corporation was purposely not provided with enough assets to be able to legitimately do business in order to limit the amount of assets the corporation had at risk if someone made a claim against it. The Court found that Carlton's other 9 corporations were irrelevant. Since the specific corporation that ran over Walkovszky was legitimate and not undercapitalized, then there was no basis for the Court to pierce the corporate veil and go after Carlton's assets. The Court noted that there are a lot of people who own a single taxicab corporation with only one or two taxicabs, and if the Court allowed Walkovszky to go after Carlton's personal assets, it would set a precedent putting all those small businesses at risk. The Court found that Walkovszky's complaint did not allege any fraud or deceitful intention on Carlton's part. In a dissent it was argued that principles of equity dictate that Walkovszky be given the chance to recover for his injuries. Walskovsky went back and amended his complaint to say that Carlton was carrying on the business in his individual capacity. That means that Carlton was operating the corporation in a way that benefited him personally, and not in a way that benefited the corporation. The Court accepted this claim. Carlton then settled.

The point being that since corporations are merely 'separate legal personalities', it is important to prevent disreputable real individuals from profiteering from the use of such 'persona ficta(s)' vehicles to evade person income taxes, as such, corporates should be taxed at the maximum personal income tax rate. The example I'd cited of Mr X earning $680k p.a. is a case in pint that the current govt seems oblivious about, which in this instance would have resulted in government tax revenue being short changed by >$114k p.a. through such loopholes.

Thus the close relation between corporate taxes and personal income taxes where in the calibrating of both must be in tandem. I'm just saying that to close such loopholes, corporate taxes cannot be any lesser than the maximum personal income tax rates as it is ridiculous to grant such 'persona ficta(s)' privilege in excess of what real humans enjoy.

Corporates also need not be made into 'horses on steroids' such that blind profiteering becomes the sole objective of CEOs- such myopia is doomed to failure- if not social, then surely environmental- a self defeating proposition as such.

As is already the current case: 'Countries with the Biggest Gaps Between Rich and Poor', (by Bruce Einhorn): "No. 2 Singapore-.. Ratio of income or expenditure, share of top 10% to lowest 10%: 17.7". [BW,16Oct2009].

Perhaps if life could be put in perspective and the corporate rush for profit be better calibrated, then whatever the nominal value of one's salary might be, one's quality of life in real terms would have increased.

That is what it would take for us to call Singapore home. Till then, Singapore will remain 'animal farm' [YouTube] a place where revolution after violent revolution is planned.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."-- Benjamin Franklin


Definition(s):
- 'Legal personality': [wiki]: "Legal personality (also artificial personality, juridical personalty, and juristic personality) is the characteristic of a non-human entity regarded by law to have the status of a person. A legal person (Latin: persona ficta), (also artificial person, juridical person, juristic person, and body corporate, also commonly called a vehicle) has a legal name and has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and liabilities under law, just as natural persons (humans) do. The concept of legal personality is perhaps one of the most fundamental legal fictions. It is pertinent to the philosophy of law, as well as corporations law (the law of business associations)."

References:
- 'Countries with the Biggest Gaps Between Rich and Poor', (by Bruce Einhorn): "No. 2 Singapore-.. Ratio of income or expenditure, share of top 10% to lowest 10%: 17.7". [BW,16Oct2009]

===========
At/ related:
SGclub:
21Feb2011: Singapore Tax loopholes (income, GST) that open the Pandora's box of human evil