DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Thanks Y'All

Exactly. They are doing what the tax codes allow.

The word indoctrination coming from someone that calls anything that helps the common citizen communism is rich.

We don't "have to" either. As we have seen in the middle east and as we saw in Vietnam, we "decide to". We spend trillions on wars for reasons simply created and often times unfounded rather than spend that money on our own people and country.


This is the same exact logic that has helped create the military industrial complex that Ike warned us about decades ago.

I don't even like the term fair share when it comes to personal taxes.

When you look at it in terms of dollars paid each year, I'd say they pay more than their fair share. If one person is paying $1000 and another is paying $100, I'd say neither is paying a "fair" share.

I am not saying people who make more shouldn't end up paying more, but we need to dump this "fair share" frame of mind.

Their fair share is a term to describe percentages. They should be paying the same percentage rate as the average tax payer. Not a smaller rate. Most everyone knows that's what it means and there's no excuse why they should be paying a smaller percentage.

Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary

https://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/index.html

While I don't see Buffet stepping up to the plate and offering to pay a higher tax rate, it's obvious this needs to be fixed.

And again (and like you said) when you have someone who's taxes can go from astronomical to basically 0 all because of some weird loophole, then the concept of 'fair' is even more ridiculous.

I believe that when you have tax deducted from your regular paycheck - a portion is exempt, and you pay proportionally through all the tax brackets. When you get taxed on commission all of it is taxed at your highest bracket. That's what I've always thought/understood.

As for the hypocrisy of Biden ... sure. I bet you'd call him an idiot if he didn't minimize his tax payments legally. So he can't win. No change there.

Well we all know you don’t have an English degree.

The sad thing is he seems to actually approve of those making billions paying a much lower tax rate than he does.

This is a good discussion.

FYI - what mgh refers to is what I was referring to. The whole tax revisions and implementation of trickle down started a spring board to turn what was a clear division between classes into a grand canyon divide. Next to Reagan, I honestly think Clinton was probably the next largest culprit.

I actually do understand the concern about implementing taxes on wealth that has not definitively been "earned" yet. I get it. The problem, though, is that extremely wealthy individuals and corporations have now had decades to manipulate the tax code, lobby to implement/prevent certain legislation, and essentially cheat the system. If it all had been nipped in the bud, or corrected at the onset, perhaps we wouldn't be in the situation that we are currently in. Regardless, we are where we are and we're at that "oh crap" moment of how to deal with it. One side is coming up with a plan (disagreements obviously as to whether it's good or not) and the other side seems content to both criticize the plan and go even further to say that there's not a problem, which is very, very detached from reality.

I see your point regarding how systems worked in the past, but the fact of the matter is that our government is relatively young when comparing it to the historical stage. It was designed to give more power to the people, but just like any other government, it has become corrupted by selfish individuals. In the case of every single powerful entity, regardless of its construct, whether it was an emperor, king, dictator, etc. the fact of the matter is that it wasn't necessarily the government telling the people how to act. It was the corrupt, wealthy, power-hungry elites that were telling the government how to act in order to further their own interests. To that end, what we have is similar. The design and flow of the government has been compromised by those who seek to manipulate it for self gain or aggrandizement.

I don't know what the perfect solution is. I know that we - as a nation - are very capable of finding innovative solutions, but in order to do that, we have to have enough people out there to actually call out a problem for what it is. We haven't reached that level yet because one side is putting blinders on its constituents and the other is woefully inept.

Sorry, my last post was something that I started typing out this morning - and then work happened - so I missed the rest. I do enjoy having this website open on one window for my occasional reprieves.

Back to the topic that has been discussed since I reviewed this morning. I think we can almost all be in agreement that the tax code is manipulated and needs to be reformed to close out loopholes for the ultra wealthy, who, like you said are just following the law (or paying a team of accountants to follow the law). The problem becomes that I just don't anticipate Congress actually doing anything about it, because the majority of them are financed by the people who would be negatively affected by closing the loopholes (and that's on both the Ds and the Rs).

I'm slightly curious about this. When a business owns a vehicle they can write off the depreciation of that vehicle each year. Now they haven't actually realized that depreciation because they still own the vehicle and haven't sold it. If they chose to sell it they would then realize and absorb that loss. How is that any different than owning stocks? So on one hand they still own something they can write off because it loses value but on the other hand can't be taxed for something that gains value? Is that what those who oppose this are saying?

I think the difference there is that the vehicle - unless it could be repurposed as some sort of "classic car" - will never increase in value, whereas stocks on the other hand, may very well decrease in value. It's obviously less likely for blue chip companies, but still possible, when you look at recessions and whatnot.

So, while I think it's a valid concern that the stock may depreciate, I think the problem has to be acknowledged and something has to be done. I definitely think starting with closing the loops in the tax code is a good start, but it still leaves the issue that there is enormous wealth accretion and disparity measured against the other side of the equation that it is not a "realized gain." So while the current approach may need to be flawed, I think the Republicans need to step up with something better than "It's a bad idea. Let's just keep doing what we're doing."

I'm guessing that depreciation is only legal regards an asset - it's a tangible thing that has value but the value goes down over time. That is nothing like an investment. Stocks go up and down. You can't pay tax on something that potentially then goes down in value.

If you lose money with investments you can off-set them against tax due - but you can't get tax back. If you paid tax on an investment that "on paper" and subsequently it was worth much less or nothing - Uncle Sam isn't returning your tax dollars.

So - no, I think the idea of paying tax on un-realized gains is nuts. Yes - I think the wealthiest need to simply pay a 'fair share' .... ironically I doubt any of them pay even remotely close to the 44% Diam mentioned. Trump and company are paying in the teens .... maybe.

You just answered your own question.

And I'll add, this (even though my 'bold' thing didn't work). There appears to be some ignorance about tax laws being posted. Especially depreciation for business assets.

Percentages are a wonderful thing once you know how to use them. Businesses use them, legally, to offset tangible property expenses. Just as home owners can write off the interest on their mortgage, businesses are allowed to write of a PERCENTAGE of real property.

Had some friends that had a rental. They bought a mower, a fridge, etc. For the rental. Husband said "Well, we'll just write them off on taxes." I said nothing.

Tax time. He was thinking that $800 fridge would subtract $800 from his tax liability. He was wrong, same with the mower.

Another person, truck driver. Missed a quarterly payment. His answer, when I asked why, was "How can they expect me to pay it if I don't have it?" I said nothing.

Then, his 'ex IRS agent' tax preparer told him, later, that if he didn't buy a new trailer, he'd owe X amount in taxes. $10,000. His 'expert' told him if he bought a trailer, he wouldn't owe this year. So, the guy bought a new trailer he didn't need. Spent $50,000 to get out of $10,000 in taxes. For that year. He took on payments for 6 years, to get out of paying $10,000 in taxes. he saved $10,000 that first year. he spent $50,000. Do the math.

I don’t see how I answered my own question …. Please elaborate ….

The top 1% of earners pay 40% of the overall income tax paid in this country and at a HIGHER TAX RATE … there’s a key point there … that’s just income tax … there also paying higher property and school taxes as there houses are worth more … there paying more sales tax for there expensive cars, boats and other toys …

The top 5% of earners pay 70% of the overall income tax paid in this once great country of ours …

The UNINFORMED or IGNORANT fall for the “they need to pay there fair share” when there all ready paying more than their fair share …. and then there’s the INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST who just lie about it …

How many billionaires do these dolts think there are … around 700 give or take …. How much actual revenue do they think this is going to generate … dolts ….

Meanwhile everything this idiot president/admin does is hurting lower income households … but the dolts don’t understand it or don’t actually care about that ….

They tax each check on what I make for that check. It'll come back. I sold cars for years. The taxes taken out of the commission check were based on what that check was, assuming (they) I made that every check. The taxes I paid on my draw were so much lower. At the end of the year, everything evened out, as it should.

I will say that I don't think people actually understand how much business owners pay in taxes and "hidden fees"

when someone makes 36k a year, the employer is paying

taxes (about 6k)
health insurance (50% at mimimum) somehwere around 6k
dental
vision
long term disability
life insurance
401k
1-2 weeks PTO
unemployment insurance
workers compensation
social security
medicare


They are paying about 50k a year to pay someone 36k.

I think your numbers are off, a good amount. But, your point stands: Employees don't realize how much the employer pays for the employee to be employed.

Wife has an opportunity to join a class action lawsuit. Filed by some dilweed, but it got enough attention that some attorney's took it on. (multi national, multimillion dollar company)

The lawsuit is about the extra 5 minutes a day employees are required to be clocked in. It's for parking issues, and traffic issues. But some butt filed a lawsuit.

Wife got the class action papers a week or so ago. Asked me what I thought. We did the math. With the date limits of 1 year, it would benefit her by a whopping total of $450 or so. 5 minutes a day, 25 minutes a week, 52 weeks. I said nothing.

Then she piped in "well, that's that much money, but if I sign up for the class action suit, and too many do, they might make our breaks and lunch non paid."

good thinking. Plus, the lawyers would take most of the money. That's how class action lawsuits work.

And, "Remember when you were working 3rd. On Sunday nights you didn't have to report to work until midnight, because the owner of the company didn't believe in working on Sundays?" You got paid an extra 30 minutes a week because of that.

Nah, people that don't run businesses don't see the costs those businesses deal with. That's why I disregard most posts about businesses.

They should. At some point you need to look at dollars paid.

I guess your stats come from fox news because you are wrong:

The richest one percent earn about 21 percent of the income and pay 24 percent of the taxes:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/fact-check-richest-1-dont-pay-40-of-the-taxes.html

The rule of thumb is that total employee compensation is about 33 percent above their hourly rate, that includes salaried employees as well.

It has been that for as long as I can remember.

I know it to be accurate from payroll and other expenses. I see the costs. I write the checks.

Good. You seem to get it. A vehicle bought for a company is a capitol asset that can be written off the same as if buying a new and improved 50,000 gallon boiler for a motor plant.

In all of this I don't want people to think I am sticking up for billionaires. Well, I am, but only in fairness. I am not for them paying zero tax. I can see a minimum tax they should pay. It shouldn't be zero. It should also be stepped up at various income levels, which it already is...and should be.

One needs to look at the reality and make proper comparisons. If you go to the store and buy one shirt, you pay a price. The store that you shopped at might buy 10,000, or 100,000 of those shirts to stock their stores. They pay a lower price. They get a volume discount that you don't get. To me it is the same with taxes. As you pay more and more dollars as personal income, the bigger the discount you should get.

Some people get hung up on percentages, and that is foolish. The bottom line in all of this is $$ on personal income. How much money should 1 person pay to be a equal share?

One person pays $$ and another pays $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Go back to the store ...if the cost of the shirt is $40, does a person who can afford more be required to pay $80? LOL

Again, no doubt people making more end up paying more, or should, and in reality do. What's being proposed isn't taxing the rich. It's out and out stealing their money.

Oh..something I haven't even mentioned. The proposal from the left wing nuts is very likely illegal. A very good argument could be made that what they are proposing is a property tax, not a income tax. Only states and local governments can levy a property tax, and they would never do this. They would end up with everybody with any money leaving for states that are tax friendly.

Go with a minimum tax...a step up to maybe 15% or so, AND work on getting more people to work in good jobs to get more people paying more in taxes to keep this big wheel turning.

Well of course earning more means you should pay more... that's how it works when your taxes are a percentage of your income. And in my opinion, income should be any new money made regardless of source or how it was made. But when somebody like Trump pays $1500.00 in personal income taxes after making millions a year or having 3-4 billion accumulated... I mean I'm all for being fair, but this system serves the rich, they can pay a lot more as far as I'm concerned... It all eventually comes back to them anyway.

continuing my last post:

But the status quo isn't going to cut it anymore. People are tired of struggling while billionaires jet off to space... Sadly, I couldn't care less about the jet setting space cowboys. However, I see how much and how far that kind of money would go toward making people's lives better and can't help but ask why we wouldn't want that instead? Just looking at the difference between the 3.5 trillion dollar BBB bill and the new 1.75 trillion dollar pared down version... at least what an average Joe can know at this point... Sure, looking like the centrists and republicans are still rigging things for the rich. So much good could have been done with the full package, 6 trillion, not 3.5 or 1.75 trillion... but we are constantly told we can't afford to make normal American lives a little better because it would cost somebody else... Yes, the tax breaks and perks the rich and corps get are SO GOOD, that we can no longer invest in our people. Umm, I find this thinking upside down and backwards. Not based in fact at all but just BS rhetoric from those who want to preserve the status quo. While people like me think that this kind of socioeconomic investment in the American people would not only pay for itself tenfold eventually, but would reset the playing field for middle class America and preserve our democracy.

Then we have people that don't want to pay taxes on vast earnings, paying armies of people to protect their interests over the interest of other Americans. Nobody can tell me these programs would not be transformational. But 2-3 percent of the population does not want to give back after finding/earning success and wealth. And they call a few friends, line the right pockets with "campaign donations" to get the entire republican party to say, "no, we don't want to help working people." And then it only takes one dem in the senate to sink it all, but there was more than one taker to protect their donors and their own money... So, they compromise and put out packages stripped of most of the good things for working people but still having things that help the elite and corps indirectly gain more money and power. The infrastructure bill privatizes roads in America... Imagine how the rich that win those contracts WON'T collect fees or tolls for those roads, because your imagination will be the only place those charges don't exist.

Our air and water are full of toxins, climate change weather effects are threatening our future survival as a species, medicines and healthcare are only for those who can pay, homeless numbers rising, the death of US manufacturing, rigging the economy for the elite, our current legal/judicial/prison system rigged to serve the elite, etc. all done in the name of profits or protecting the elite.

As far as taxing investments and profit that is only theoretical until it is realized - yes I am on board 100%. That's flat out stupid.

As far as % versus a number? No. I think % is the fairest way to do it - and you don't stop paying your % once you reach a certain dollar amount of tax paid - you simply pay your %. Assuming the numbers Bone posted are accurate (and I believe them to be) - then the top 1% of earners making 21% of all income but paying 24% of taxes does not work for me. There are over 10% of Americans living BELOW the poverty line. That's an income of less than $12,784 per year. They should not be taxed. We have 1/3 of earners classed as 'lower class' - with a meadian income of about $25K. The amount of income tax those individuals pay needs to be very low. . . . . . . so the the top 1% only paying 24% might sound good in comparison to their 21% of income - but you need to look at the big picture.

Trying to equate paying more taxes to buying a shirt doesn't work for me - I don't see how that analogy works. It actually works in favor of the wealthy paying more. If you are in that low class bracket - you are probably spending most of your money week to week. That means as a proportion of your income you are paying sales tax on most/all of it after rent/mortgage etc. For a wealthy individual - they pay a negligible amount in sales taxes etc as a % of their income. The theory was always that they spent money on luxury goods and big ticket items - the reality is they still pay a smaller % of sales tax compared to their income - it's as simple as wealthy people do not spend their entire paycheck month to month.

No, no you don't. When you make less money it doesn't take much to hurt you financially. When you make a hundred million, (which is the lowest end of these tax hikes), paying more actual dollars doesn't hurt you making a living at all. The most fair way is to make sure there is a minimum tax rate the very wealthy pay. The rest of Americans have to do the same thing.

Diam is going around lying claiming that those with a higher income pay more taxes. Which may be true to a certain point. Where his lies come in is this tax hike will only impact those making 100 million or more each years. These are people that have high priced accountants and corporations who pay huge sums of money to people in order to exploit every way they can to avoid paying taxes. None of this will even impact the vast majority of people he is talking about.

But no, there should never be an amount of dollars that's capped as the top tax payment. What would you call that anyway? The "I'm too rich to pay more" exemption?

Amazon had to pay federal income taxes for the first time since 2016 — here’s how much

In 2019 they actually had to pay taxes for a change. 162 Million on a pre- tax income of 13.9 billion.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/04/ama...taxes-for-the-first-time-since-2016.html

Amazon has secured $670 million in tax breaks this year, watchdog says

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-tax-breaks-670-million-good-jobs-first/

So they're getting 500 million more in tax breaks than they are paying in taxes.

Thus far all you've seemed to do is make excuses for this kind of BS. I'm shocked you aren't calling this corporate communism/socialism. That's what you call it when the average American gets any help.

Well the flip side of that is Cities an States are offering big tax incentives for corporations to come come to their geography and create jobs ... it's not the fault of the company to take advantage of those, and city/state should only offer such if it provides long term benefit. At a federal level - there is no good reason for corporations to get tax breaks. I mean I know Trump gave the Farmers $28 BILLION ... which if that happened under the Dems, the Trumpians would be going ape schtick - but we shouldn't use that as the norm.

Often times companies and corporations agree to terms they never fulfill. Especially when it comes to the number of jobs they actually create. And many times these companies go belly up and bankruptcy prevents cities and states from ever collecting on those obligations. In the case of Amazon fulfillment centers most of their employees never make enough in wages to contribute to the actual tax base. So sure, I guess if creating jobs that basically hover close to or below the poverty level, depending on the size of the household is the goal, while not actually increasing the tax base is the goal, it ends up being a success.

What is so funny is if that same government, be it city or state were to do the same by giving workers those same dollars, those who promote this would call them a welfare state. When they do it for corporations you never hear them call it corporate welfare. So in summary, Amazon fulfillment centers jobs do very little to increase the tax base because those workers make so little. Amazon gets huge tax breaks to move there. The result is a big net loss to the tax base actually cutting the tax income for states and localities. And those who advocate this say the government shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers.

I'm certainly not saying it's illegal to do these things. I'm saying it should be.

Tennessee just gave Ford a 900 million dollar tax abatement deal to move a facility to Tennessee. Can you imagine just how long it will take the state to recoup that money? If Ford doesn't move those jobs before it ever comes to fruition.

Ford's profits for the first three months of 2021 was 3.3 billion dollars.

On a purely hypothetical basis (I have no idea how one would put this into numbers when it's on a scale like Amazon's), if a company could prove that they are bringing in as much or more value than their tax breaks, then I'm ok with it. Where the disconnect between this and current reality is probably the accountability aspect.

I think looking at wages in their fulfillment plants and what wages you would have to make to pay into taxes helps explain a lot of that. In Tennessee as an example there are no state income taxes. So if the state gives out a huge tax break the only way they have to collect is via spending taxes. A family of three earning 18 dollars an hour with one child pay nothing or virtually nothing in federal income tax. And Tennessee has certainly given out huge tax credits for such fulfillment centers. So have many other states.

On the flip side of the coin Nashville just got the Amazon Headquarters to move here. Those are high paying jobs which should actually benefit the state.

It's not so much the enticing companies to move, it's the making sure they're holding up their end of the bargain. I don't buy the argument that the State is investing by dangling these tax incentives. It's a partnership and both need to contribute.

If you don't like the tax code, look at who writes it: Congress.

R or D. Guess what, the tax code is written so it sounds good to common folks like us. Hidden is loopholes, etc, for the companies and individuals that contribute to congressional elections. And guess who gets rich? Congress.

That $900 million tax abatement for Ford to build a plant in TN? If TN didn't do it, those jobs (good paying jobs) would go elsewhere. Certainly there are guarantees that Ford will do what is required to get the tax abatement, and if not, it's null and void anyway.

What are the details of that abatement anyway? Over how many decades does the abatement allow for it?

I'm just wondering at what point is enough, enough? You see Tennessee as an example gives two years of tuition free community college. There is no state income tax. We are told this is designed to attract workers and provide an educated work base that will attract businesses here. We are currently ranked 7th in the nation as "Best state for business" which also includes little business regulation. So I think the question at some point becomes, just how far should a state be willing to go to attract jobs? At what point is enough, enough?

Forbes' Best States For Business: See Tennessee's Ranking

https://patch.com/tennessee/nashville/forbes-best-states-business-see-tennessees-ranking

I think the issue runs deep. We saw corporations get a tax cut well in excess of a trillion dollars. We saw them get zero percent interest loans of 900 billion dollars. We see many of them paying zero or very low tax rates. Now we pile on huge tax abatements like the one Ford got for 900 million dollars to bring a new plant to Tennessee. A company who has already shown to have made 3.3 billion dollars in the first three months of 2021.

At what point do people understand that the average American taxpayer is tired of supplying multi billion dollar corporations with welfare to further line their pockets?

You seem to miss the fact that many of these deals are never kept in the first place. And there's usually nothing they can do to recoup their money. You also miss the fact these deals often never accomplish what they claim they will.

Handing Out Tax Breaks to Businesses Is Worse Than Useless

A new study exposes the futility of the $45 billion that states spend on economic development incentives.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-07/business-incentives-are-ineffective-and-wasteful

So, you're in favor of tuition free community college (paid for the the citizens, mind you) yet not in favor of tax breaks to bring huge business to your state?

You simply cannot be in favor of the former, and not the latter. Well, you can, I guess.

And, pit, you seem to like that TN has no income tax. Isn't that, in and of itself, a tax break?