DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Tax Overhaul Pt. 2

Is it a business trip?

You keep saying this like you're making a point, but again stock markets have been around since Colonial time and they are always a collection of most of the wealth of any society that is ran by a small amount of people. Ideas like yours are the banal platitudes of fantasy given to quell your mind.

So his status is assless worker? Yep that is weird.

What?

Ain't a damn thing in this post that makes sense. At all.

If you "owe" 51% of a company. (I think you mean "own"), how the hell are you collecting 80% of the companies profits?

Dude, hit the sack. You are embarrassing yourself. but, pot is good, right?

This post just proves you have no clue.

Of course a high % of the wealth in the market will be owned by a small % of investors. It is called capitalism. There is no way possible for there to be any other outcome. If the money is redistributed all that would happen is that there would be less "rich" people and more poor people. Sorry, capitalism produces losers and not everyone can win. Competition is tough.

I think it's past your bedtime. You're just not following along like your 4 PM self would. That Freon buzz must be wearing off. You're saying that the rich shouldn't pay more in taxes because they already pay a lot of taxes compared to everyone. However, they own most of the wealth, thus it would make sense for them to pay the most. What they aren't doing is paying their fair share of taxes. They are paying less in taxes than they should. Again, you say that's OK because they are paying the most. So then why shouldn't someone who owns 51% of something get >52% of the profits. After all they are already going to make the most already. The specific numbers don't truly matter. This is the logic behind your tax idea.

Then the system is built to keep the little guy out of the stock market and out of the easy wealth.

I think I can handle my bedtime. When it comes to tax philosophy we are obviously going to disagree. Have seen you use that tiring freon buzz on another poster, so please it is tiring. I noticed the liberals on this board spend more time thinking about name calling other posters than thinking logically.

I wish someone would define the term "rich" so we can all be on the same page.

Having "rich" people pay even more taxes than they do (currently 39.6% federal income tax), would not make anyone's life any better. What is the "fair share" amount? 80%?

If you tax people too much, not just the rich, but any taxpayer, the economy would tank. That has been proven. Remember the 70's?

The rates were lowered in the 80's and the economy exploded.

That post wasn't a response to you. While I'm not really a fan of the "Re:___" poster function on our forum, it does help clear up these sorts of misconceptions.

I wish we could define "Rich" more specifically, but I'll go along with you two and say that the top tax bracket is the rich. What should the rich pay? ~60% effective tax rate would be a good start. Although, taxing corporations is where money also is. In fact, this would make many people's lives better. Remember the 50's and 60's when America's economy was at its strongest? Instead of the wealth accumulating at the top, we saw the middle class become its strongest as wealth was able to rain down upon them.

After the 80's tax cut, we saw the wealth trickle up into the top 1%, which is why the federal deficit exploded and created the tumultuous economic climate of the 90's.

The estate tax is fair IMO I mean if the Government can tax the poor on our Social Security (which we paid in taxes already) then the rich should be treated the same way.

Jc

It's simple. We tax on sale of goods a capital gains tax. Transferring wealth to your children is no different than transferring to a random person except the emotional aspect. If anything the unfairness is we only kick in this tax until 11 million for married couples. If it was a flat rate tied to regular cap gains...

If you disagree with the estate tax , you disagree with Teddy Roosevelt. It's your right to do so, but his views on it turned me around in recent years. I recommend reading his thoughts on it.

Good point ... comparing SS tax to Inheritance tax is comparing Apples to Apples ...

Rich pay way more in SS tax than the poor ... u have any clue how SS tax works? .... any at all?

Poor people pay NOTHING IN INHERITENCE tax so if u want to treat rich and poor people alike ... there u have it ...

How about them apples ..... ...

Why no I don't have a clue I probably forgot more than you even know bro.

BTW Rich people don't even pay into social security on any amount they make over $127,200

I’m fully aware of where the cap on SS is and have been for DECADES ....

and there ain’t a shot in hell u forgot more than i know ...

Don’t deflect from your original premise of comparing SS tax to Inheritance tax ... its just a BS comparision and u know it ...

Its not my fault u mentioned that poor and rich people should be treated alike ... you opened that can of worms, not me ...

And the FACT is in regards to SS ...

The rich pay more in actual dollars on the front end ... u made that point for me when u tried to educate me ... thanks .. *L* ...

and they pay more in taxes both % and in actual dollars on the back end ... and if u know as much as u say u know ... YOU KNOW THAT ...

Nope. Just spending scads of taxpayer money to play golf at his resort, Mirage-O, or some such.

You do know what worms are good for don't you? Yep bait, Now pay attention before you hook yourself again.

I replied to 1963 about him saying taxing people on money that was already taxed at some point was wrong. I responded that the government does the same thing with Social Security. You swim by and start rambling on about Apples, The Rich paying more taxes, and the poor not paying INHERITENCE tax, and calling me clueless about Social Security. All of which had nothing to do with my comments to 1963.

U could of just led with that ... would have put this to rest after 1 post ...

Pay attention bro ...

In that regard u are 100% correct ...

The INHERITANCE TAX is still BS ... as is taxing SS ... that’s HORRIBLE ...

We can agree on that 100 percent

looks like there's drama in the House with the tax bill.

I sure hope so. They need to fix some things in the bill.

i agree. they need to throw it out.

Hold your horses there Swish.

Put back in the personal exemptions and I am all for the bill.

throw the bill out.

I think you know that will not happen at this juncture.

who knows. i've learned to never say never.

That's true.

But it would be an upset, like us beating the Steelers.

The GOP seems to want it's cake and eat it too. They want to preserve deductions that may help prevent the anger of the lower/middle class when they realize their taxes are not really being lowered and they were lied to all while getting this bill done to save face. The only problem is that for every little bone they throw the masses, the cost of the bill goes up exponentially!

This thing is already a 1.5 trillion dollar burden for our children, by the time they are done I bet it's closer to 3 trillion. The funny thing is that most of that money (savings) is going to those who don't need it whatsoever.

It makes no sense at all to even cut taxes now on the rich or corps. They are not going to spend money to get this economy turning harder, only the middle class can do that.

If you make between $75,000 – $100,000, $100,000 – $200,000, $200,000 – $500,000, and $500,000 – $1,000,000, the average tax increases are $873, $1,500, $2,800, and $8,555, respectively according to the Urban Institute & Brookings Institution.

What tax cuts?

That sucks.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/201...deductions.html



The Senate GOP Accidentally Killed Some of Its Donors’ Favorite Tax Breaks

Mitch McConnell never subjected his blueprint for restructuring the world’s largest economy to a single hearing. His caucus never invited experts to offer insight into the bill’s implications for housing, health care, higher education, outsourcing, or tax evasion. This haste had an upside for the Senate GOP: It allowed the party to pass deeply unpopular changes to the tax code before the public had time to learn about them.

But approaching major legislation like an Adderall-addled sophomore approaches an overdue term paper came with a minor drawback: It forced the party to pass a tax bill before they had time to read it.

In hindsight, McConnell should have asked for an extension. While Republicans were manically outlining their plans to take from the poor to give to the Trumps, they also, accidentally, nullified all of their corporate donors’ favorite deductions.

This screwup — like most of the tax plan’s oddest features — was born of a math problem. Due to arcane Senate rules, the Trump tax cuts can only add $1.5 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. Last Thursday, the Senate tax bill already cost about that sum, and then McConnell started making expensive promises to his few holdouts. Susan Collins wanted a $10,000 property tax deduction for Americans in high-tax states; Ron Johnson wanted a 23 percent business-income deduction for the company that his family owns. This left the Senate Majority Leader searching under the tax code’s couch cushions for new sources of revenue.

Eventually, he came upon the corporate alternative minimum tax (AMT). At present, most corporations face a 35 percent (statutory) rate on their income. But by availing themselves of various tax credits and deductions, most companies can get their actual rates down far below that figure. To put a limit on just how far, the corporate AMT prevents companies from paying any less than 20 percent on their profits (or, more precisely, on the profits that they fail to hide overseas).

The GOP had originally intended to abolish the AMT. But on Friday, with the clock running out — and money running short — Senate Republicans put the AMT back into their bill. Unfortunately for McConnell, they forgot to lower the AMT after doing so.

This is a big problem. The Senate bill brings the normal corporate rate down to 20 percent — while leaving the alternative minimum rate at … 20 percent. The legislation would still allow corporations to claim a wide variety of tax credits and deductions — it just renders all them completely worthless. Companies can either take no deductions, and pay a 20 percent rate — or take lots of deductions … and pay a 20 percent rate.

With this blunder, Senate Republicans have achieved the unthinkable: They’ve written a giant corporate tax cut that many of their corporate donors do not like. As The Wall Street Journal reports:

The Senate Tax Bill Favors the Middle Class, Not the Rich

So Republicans need to counter biased claims about the tax bill’s distributional effects. In reality, middle-income households will receive the largest tax cuts, as a percentage of what they currently pay, under both the House and Senate bills

Middle-income groups would get by far the largest cuts as a percentage of current income taxes. For example, households earning between $50,000 and $75,000 would get a 24 percent cut in 2019, while those over $1 million would get just a 6 percent cut.

Read the details here...
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454327/gop-tax-reform-favors-middle-class-not-rich

The majority of American families is getting a big fat tax hike while the wealthiest American's get their much needed and long over due tax cuts.


Enjoy suckers!

Fake News

FLAT OUT LIE!!!!!!

Well that's 1,000 percent BULLCRAP, and the biggest lie ever told on these boards. I already figured my taxes for this year. I figured them for next year as well comparing our current tax rate and your boy's new tax proposels. Your so wrong it's not funny. It is so far beyond fake news it's sickening.

Rob Portman's latest lies

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.s...#incart_opinion

Yo Rob you didn't respond to my emails, but I would be happy to debate you on this subject. Come on your a United States Senator, your a Lawyer. I am a broken down old man with health problems, memory problems, and only a High School Education, yet even I can expose you for the lying scumbag you are when it comes to this tax increase.

Well GM, you will have to take up your accusations with CHRIS EDWARDS of The National Review, founded by William F.Buckley in 1955.

Highly reputable organization.

But I am sure you know more than him.

Good luck with it.

No problem his ass would be grass and I am the lawn mower