|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,296
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,296 |
Quote:
Fix the tax laws so that not only the middle class pay, but the wealthy as well. There should never be a situation where someone earns a million and pays no tax
What about if your business lost $2 million last year and made $1 million this year? Should that evil millionaire not get some relief for the lost year? Take that write-off away from the tax code and watch even more millionaires stay away from the risk...shut their doors...not create or save or keep jobs...and live off what they can safely get. (It will be plenty for them to live on.) Then we can all lose.
In any evernt, you are focusing on such a ridiculously small number of people that it is frustrating.
...not only the middle class pay? 
What is middle class to you? You've seen it a hundred times...the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of the total federal income taxes. It's a fact. The bottom 50% of income earners pay less than 10% of total federal income taxes. It is a fact.
The middle class is NOT in the top 10% of income earners. The upper class to middle-upper class - and those evil rich people who create jobs - are the ones paying 70% of the tax...NOT the middle class.
Please stop buying into the rhetoric, soundbites, and deception.
Warren Buffet? Corporate jets? Seriously.
Buffet is one of 400 billionaires. Charge each one of those evil billionaires a $1,000,000,000 surtax every year...collect the $400,000,000,000 and put it towards the deficit...then see that the deficit is still at over $600,000,000,000
Eventually, those billionaires will be broke and we will still be spending too damn much money. And the golden goose will be cooked.
Cut spending RIGHT NOW...cut waste YESTERDAY. Get some traction on the deficit...balance the budget (if we can ever get one from this POTUS)...let the economy do it's thing...and when things get back to normal, talk about a tax increase to reduce the DEBT. Not the deficit (annual), the DEBT (constant).
Increasing taxes for a government that equates a "spending cut" to "reducing the increase in spending" leaves us with a government that does not deserve one more penny of tax dollars until they get spending in order.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,632
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,632 |
Ron Paul is a flat tax guy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,075
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,075 |
Quote:
What do you think waste is?
It's spending.
There is waste in every department at every level of government. I would bet that a minimum of 25% of every dollar spent by the federal government is wasted. That's a lot of money.
You like Ron Paul, right? He's a NO tax increases under any circumstances guy. He believes that we can get the budget under control without increasing taxes. I have seen a plan that says that we can just cut spending by 1% per year for 7 straight years and by year 7 we are no longer deficit spending. If we do that, and cut a little deeper into the waste, we can also start paying down debt. It just takes the will to start.
Yes, waste is spending.. no doubt about it. But it's spending that gets hidden as pork. A senator from Iowa (or anywhere) brings money home as a grant or something and then he uses that as a way to show how he's helping his own people. And they do it to get re-elected.
Waste is also in the dumb things we do.. Our government does things that a well run business would never do. They make a budget, stick to it and don't let spending get out of control. that's what we need to do in America..
As you say, there probably isn't a department in the Government that doesn't over spend on things.
Look at all the damn temp housing we bought for Katrina victoms.. My understanding is that most of them are sitting idle and never used,, but we sure as hell paid for them. Somebody saw us coming.
I think between you and I we could find another 1000 things like this if we looked hard enough.
Ron Paul is indeed a no new taxes kinda guy (not sure I'm saying that right but you get the drift) EDIT: isn't he a flat tax proponent?
And yeah, I'd vote for him in a second..
But anyone that says the wealthy are paying thier fair share is way out there wrong. As long as we are talking about it as a percentage of income, why should one person pay 33% and someone that makes 10 times that pays 17%?
they gotta pay just like I do, like you do, like everyone on this board has to..
And please don't give me this class envy crap..that's what people say when they don't have a responsible and reasonable argument as to why a wealthy person should pay less (as a percentage) than average working people. it's just logical that those that make more should pay more (again, as a percentage).. If I gotta pay 33%, I don't want to hear about a guy paying 17% that makes ten times more than me.
let him pay the same 33%.. I'm ok with that.. or, better yet, require me to pay 17%.. I'm ok with that also
Just don't freakin treat me differently than you do a wealthy guy.
Cut spending.. you bet
Cut waste.. you bet
tax us fairly and collect it.. you bet.
Last edited by Damanshot; 08/20/11 03:43 PM.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,075
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,075 |
Quote:
Buffet is one of 400 billionaires. Charge each one of those evil billionaires a $1,000,000,000 surtax every year...collect the $400,000,000,000 and put it towards the deficit...
this is an argument that Purp gave me the other day and I just didn't feel like arguing it then..
But damn it,, if you get an extra million for 400 wealthy families, it's 400 million that wasn't there yesterday.. and damn it,, just like the IRS wants my thousands, they damn well should want thier millions..
I'm not talking of corporations, that's a different matter..., you know it is.
I'm speaking of individual income.. Family income.
I want a FLAT TAX rate that's flexible but fair. that will be a damn hard thing to do, but in the end, I think it would be worth it and will level the paying field (no, I didn't mispell that)
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,296
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,296 |
D,
It's not a million in my example...it's a BILLION...lots of billions...and would not even cut the annual spending deficit in half.
The media has you and others focused on Warren freakin' Buffet and Obama has people thinking that corporations are screwing over U.S taxpayers because they are able to write off corporate jets in one year rather than 7 or 10. The jets aren't free you know. The deception is incredibly effective.
Ok...go after the Buffets of the country. Tax the crap out of them...all 400 or so of them. But don't compare people who EARN $250k+/year with the Buffets of the country. Again, the deception in this regard has been remarkable.
Talk about billionaires paying capital gains tax rates and corporations writing off jets and then equate those people and corporations to the "rich" as being people making $250k+/yr.
It's apples and oranges.
FYI: The middle class also enjoys the capital gain tax rates...many of them at a capital gains tax rate of 0%...especially seniors on a fixed income.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,632
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,632 |
This would be a good start: Bring home all the troops, quit trying to be the worlds police.  Keep more to ourselves as a foreign policy. (Like China and Russia) - note: You don't see any jihads being declared against China. Bring back middle class jobs via Tariff and Trade restrictions. Restructure the IRS and tax code. Cut spending by limiting bills (proposed legislation) to 1 item and end the pork. Take the fat out of Government contracts by using the same tactics Corporations use to bargain for materials, products and services. Hire business pros to manage acquisitions for projects. End Foreign Aid. Take care of our bills and our people first. End all Government Subsidies. Let the markets adjust. Legalize all drugs, with little regulation and impose taxes. (Including alcohol production) Create an environment that fosters Mom and Pop businesses. Restructure malpractice limits and frivolous lawsuit protections. Maintain regulations for health and well being consumer protections, but relax or restructure other consumer protection laws (regulations). Restructure and heavily regulate the insurance industry, Banking and Wall Street. Invest in infrastructure, mass transit, communications and power grids. Require all media to provide free political ads in equal amounts to each candidate or party, not to exceed 3% of product. Eliminate campaign funding from third party contributions. Let each Party's candidate have an equally funded campaign war chest funded by the government. Do not limit those parties to Republican and democrat. Forbid politicians to have one on one contact with lobbyist. Make all Lobbyist communications with politicians be in print, audio or video and public domain. Forbid additional earnings, gifts or any other monetary gain by sitting politicians (including spouses) other than their government pay. Reduce all politicians pay to the average american's income. Then make all politicians responsible for their own health care. The government could pay the same percentage as the average business does for it's employees. No additional benefits, clothing allotments or travel perks for sitting politicians, other than travel that is necessary for the job. Reduce campaigning time to 3 months for all elections. Cut all entitlement programs and transition those to states. Cut all education funding and transition that to states and private sector. Lower working age to 14 and retirement age to 70. Allow 48 hour work week before overtime requirements. Require 2 weeks unpaid vacations, unpaid maternity leave and unpaid medical leave for non-vital medical treatment. Make parents legally responsible for their kids financially and criminally until age 18. Regulate and enforce socially acceptable actions and attire by law. Put a lot more violent criminals to death. Separate Church and State. Maintain a strong, high tech "defensive" military.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,543
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,543 |
The wealthy pay almost the entire tax bill. I don't know how anyone can say that the don't pay their fair share.
I mean, when the top 10% of wage earners pay almost 70% of federal income taxes.
The top 25% pay almost 87%.
The top 50% pay over 97% of all income taxes.
The bottom 50% pay less than 3% of all federal income taxes.
What is so unfair to those making less money? That they don;t pay anything at all? Yeah .. I think that's unfair. That those at the bottom are likely to get a government handout at tax refund time ..... courtesy of those of us who pay taxes? I dunno .... is that fair? Actually I do know. It's not fair that the tax system is used as a social program.
As far as different people paying different amounts (percentages) .... perhaps someone is in business and suffered losses that year. Perhaps they had massive stock losses. (which is entirely possible) There are any number of reasons why. Maybe there are just too damn many loopholes and deductions that have no business being in the federal income tax code.
I have long been a proponent for a simpler, flatter tax code without all of the social engineering built it. The IRS should collect taxes period. It should be a one way operation. Make the tax code simpler, flatter, and eliminate 99% of the crap that can be deducted today. Reduce corporate taxes and increase the sales tax by 1% to accomodate this change. Let corporations bring their overseas money home so that it can be out to work here.
I may sound like a broken record ..... but we need simple, common sense changes in this country. Every citizen should be responsible for his/her fair share. Everyone should contribute something. Maybe if everyone had a part of the bill, everyone might give a damn about how our money is spent.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,696
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,696 |
If we did not have a poorly structured tax code, there would be better equity but using the federal income tax as the benchmark for who pays is misleading.
Flip it around ad you get a different result, state tax, sales tax, gas tax, excise tax, etc, the poor pay a greater percentage than the rich, so it is just not the federal income tax that should be used as the only measure as to what a person is taxed.
How a person can rationally define capital gains as a different type of income is beyond me. It makes up for those earned income credits as well.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
Quote:
I have seen a plan that says that we can just cut spending by 1% per year for 7 straight years and by year 7 we are no longer deficit spending.
Opinion: Rep. Connie Mack’s penny plan for spending cuts worth another look
By Lanny J. Davis
08/04/11
The Hill
Now that the national debt-ceiling deal is done — and liberals like me are unhappy and conservatives, deservedly, have more to cheer about — Thanksgiving 2011 will be about more than good turkey. This is the deadline for the so-called “super” congressional committee of six Democrats and six Republicans from the House and Senate to cut at least $1.2 trillion in the projected budget deficit for the next 10 years.
I favor at least one-half of this $1.2 trillion to be funded by a combination of tax reform — closing tax loopholes — and increases in marginal tax rates of upper-income taxpayers (including me).
But if you are an anti-tax conservative who sincerely believes that you have to cut spending and not “feed the beast” with more revenues, then one approach on spending cuts for the supercommittee to consider is the simple and creative “Penny Plan” introduced by Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.).
Mack’s bill, H.R. 1848, would cut one penny out of every dollar actually spent by the federal government from year to year for the next six years, from fiscal 2012 to 2017. Beginning in 2018, there would be a budget cap of 18 percent of GDP (the average federal revenue as a percentage of GDP over the past 30 years). And by 2019 America would finally have a balanced budget — that is, assuming revenues naturally increase from the current 14.8 percent of GDP to 18 percent of GDP by 2019, after which the budget would be in surplus.
There is an automatic spending-cut “trigger” under Mack’s plan — one he came up with well before the trigger used in the recently passed national debt-ceiling bill. If Congress failed to enact a budget implementing the 1-percent-actual-spending cut required under Mack’s measure, there would be automatic, across-the-board actual cuts in all federal programs to meet the 1 percent reduction, and that means all: in defense, Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, defense and national-security spending, everything.
Mack’s plan might seem draconian to some. It would cut the accumulated budget deficits by an estimated $7.5 trillion over 10 years — more than three times the amount achieved by the debt-ceiling deal Congress approved last Tuesday.
But it actually has a rather modest impact on reducing our total national debt. It won’t be until eight years from now that the budget will be in balance and the national debt starts getting paid down.
We had $1 trillion in surplus — money in the bank — when Bill Clinton left office on Jan. 20, 2001, just eight years after he began his presidency inheriting a $300 billion deficit. Now we are heading toward a $15 trillion debt. How did this happen? Both parties are guilty.
I am a liberal Democrat who believes that the national debt and annual deficits are the country’s greatest moral issues. We cannot continue to use credit cards to pay for wars, corporate jet write-offs and Social Security and Medicare — and leave it to our children, grandchildren and probably great-grandchildren to pay our bills.
That is simply wrong. It is a moral stain on our generation if we leave this red-ink legacy for generations to come to deal with.
Mack’s Penny Plan might be imbalanced, from my perspective, lacking in the revenue-raising component endorsed by the bipartisan Gang of Six and the Simpson-Bowles commission. I believe Republicans will have difficulty in the 2012 congressional and presidential elections defending the proposition that the national debt can be significantly paid down from budget cuts alone, or that the wealthier in our society shouldn’t pay more or at least stop taking advantage of tax loopholes to pay less.
But since the “balanced” solution of both increased revenues and spending cuts is supported in virtually every poll by substantial majorities of all voters, including large numbers of Republicans, Democrats need to find a spending cut formula that they can live with. The Mack Penny Plan seems a good place to start — it is simple, it makes common sense, and with some adjustments protecting the poor and the unemployed, it could be seen as fair even to many of the most liberal Democrats.
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/lanny-davis/175459-connie-macks-penny-plan-worth-another-look
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,296
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,296 |
Quote:
If we did not have a poorly structured tax code, there would be better equity but using the federal income tax as the benchmark for who pays is misleading.
I get where you are going with this...and there is merit to it. But in all fairness, the talk is always about federal income tax...so...not only is federal-income-taxes-paid-by-who a benchmark, it's the only benchmark.
Quote:
Flip it around ad you get a different result, state tax, sales tax, gas tax, excise tax, etc, the poor pay a greater percentage than the rich, so it is just not the federal income tax that should be used as the only measure as to what a person is taxed.
The "rich" pay more in state income tax as well. But...that paragraph is exactly why the "Fair Tax" isn't fair. (If someone tells me that under the "Fair Tax" there will be "concessions" for those less fortunate, I will tell them that the current tax code started out quite simple as well...and concessions have regularly been made to it ever since.)
Quote:
How a person can rationally define capital gains as a different type of income is beyond me. It makes up for those earned income credits as well.
Take away the incentive to put money in the market, and the risk v reward will result in people pulling money out of the market. I don't think we need that right now.
The money that people invest - and enjoy capital gains treatment upon - is money that had to be earned first at some point. Earned and taxed...THEN invested.
Capital gain income is also not subject to FICA or Medicare. (But it can be income for the Medicare surtax starting in 2013 as part of Obamacare.)
Take away capital gain treatment for anyone with income of a billion...so we can get more money from Buffet and the other 399 billionaires that appears to be the focus. (Not your personal focus.)
But wait...the threshold is income of $250k and...well...you know.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,296
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,296 |
Good read. However.... He follows the BS line in talking about "corporate jets" again and saying "...or that the wealthier in our society shouldn’t pay more or at least stop taking advantage of tax loopholes to pay less." Pay less than what? Interesting how they so easily go for the soundbite but don't explain the FACTS about who pays what and they never define "wealthier". Anyway...how many of you have heard of a government entity scrambling to spend money at the end of the year because it's "in the budget" and "if we don't spend it this year, we will get less budgeted for next year"? I like the 1% plan. I think they could make it 10% right now. Then maybe 1% every year after that. Good stuff tho.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
I agree with your 10% plan ... call it the "Dime Plan" and run for Congress - I'd vote for you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,296
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,296 |
I think taxes are going up on the "rich" people who already shoulder MORE than their fair share...and when it does...I hope credit is given where credit is due. I won't be holding my breath.
I would be a supporter of a tax increase where all NEW revenue went directly to reduce the debt. Of course, the budget MUST be balanced first and the economy must NOT be on the brink of another recession.
I think people could get behind that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
I'll say it again ... we don't need more taxes, we need more taxpayers. Its not just a slogan. Do away with bureaucratic regulation and then lower taxes for small businesses and corporations, and you will turn the American economic behemoth loose.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=3&src=tpBack in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation. Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent. The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.) I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering. ---------------------------------- It's like the King saying "stop worshipping my feet and get a life" but his underlings suck even harder....amazing...repeating "arguments" against reality out of the horse's mouth again and again and again, doesn't make them better arguments or better medicine for the problems The problem for sure isn't the wealthy not having enough money to open up jobs....by all stats out there to even think this seriously is pretty stupid, sorry...the problem is that jobs get CUT because nowadys MORE (read: profit, production/economy growth) can be produced with LESS jobs...now, that's pretty problematic per se, since it cuts out a lot of people...but the bigger problem is that those LESS WITH jobs who STILL produce growth, don't get anything from that growth for decades now (real wages stagnation for middle class)...jobs got more stressful due to "optimizing" philosophy (ask your parents or just look at anti-depressiva prescriptions and mental illness increases) AND redistribution of produced wealth is not shared/withhold from actual producer...that are the 2 biggest problems... You could give many people more jobs by making them all work less...just pay them adequately...if "profit or optimizing" wouldn't be the ALL BE, make a conscious decision of well being being #1 instead of profit and fair destribution of produced wealth and people would be better off...instead, they worship the morons that put us in this situation, who pressure the poor and the middle class full court into "stress" with their "higher, faster, wider"-philosophy...it'd be comical if it wasn't so existential But yeah...the wealthy needs even more...so that 1 magic day more can trickle down to their worshipping slaves on their skinned knees begging for crumbs of the pie falling off of the "job creators" saturated mouths....keep praying
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,543
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,543 |
In 2008, we entered a recession. The market tanked. I would guess that many "rich people" wrote off a bunch of losses, accounting for fewer taxes.
In 1992 we were coming out of recession. The stock market was adding value, and increasing in price average for the 2nd year in a row.
In 2008, the opposite was true.
Further, in 2008, major corporations like GM, Chrysler, and many financial organizations were in serious peril.
It is a frivolous comparison at best.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,296
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,296 |
He is talking for himself and maybe another 400 people...maybe. 400 of 300,000,000 They might act a little different than the other 299,999,600 people who are not "super rich".  Steal an extra BILLION per year from him and his peers...and we STILL have a deficit of over 600 BILLION PER YEAR. Bleed them dry...and we still have an incredible YEARLY deficit. It is classic...you have bought the deception hook, line, and sinker. Spending is the problem and it must be addressed right now. The top 10% of INCOME EARNERS pay 70% of all federal income tax. Buffet is not an INCOME EARNER. You want more of his money? Go get it...phase out long-term capital gains rates once you have $250,000 of capital gain income...come up with a plan to specifically tax the people...the super rich...who are the source of the propaganda. But STOP comparing him and his 400 friends to people who EARN $250k+ per year. STOP the deceit and class warfare.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
Steal an extra BILLION per year from him and his peers...and we STILL have a deficit of over 600 BILLION PER YEAR. Bleed them dry...and we still have an incredible YEARLY deficit.
It is classic...you have bought the deception hook, line, and sinker.
Spending is the problem and it must be addressed right now.
I didn't expect anything else than this debate deflection "argument"...look at every thread around here about eitehr tax, wealthy-welfare guys or trickel down economics....who the hell said there's a magic bullet to solve the ENTIRE problem? God himself wouldn't stop capitalist nations from being indebted, it's inherent to the system...the "best" running nations (yes, with the AAA grades, lol) are just a little LESS indebted
It's pretty telling when you guys go all moral at the prominent welfare lady YTwon called out by name (!) that sucked 22k over her lifespan out of the welfare system but are like "400 billions? Peanuts!...and it won't solve anything"...classic sado-masochist brainwash rhetoric: worshipping/bucking to those above and going all sadist, kicking those beneath the social chain...just ugly and hypocritical
Class warfare? lol...you know what's class warfare? The hoax "trickle down economics" is and the Koch brothers sponsoring Tea Parties to spread this hoax
Funny how this political debates have gone these last weeks...after pretty much having shown that trickle down is a fairy tale and that tax cuts for the rich don't mean less jobs and that welfare guys aren't ruining the country...you just deflect the debate over to "spending is the problem"
Btw, forgot to ouline another classic fairy tale, when you wrote:
"Take away the incentive to put money in the market, and the risk v reward will result in people pulling money out of the market. I don't think we need that right now."
You know in which market that extra money the wealthy have is put in? The Casino markets where CDS and other non-real productiv things get dealt...next to nothing will go to JOBS...hello? The rich are paying record LOWER taxes...are there more jobs? No...why? because it's all about demand....but how is there going to be increased demand if 90% of the population are experiencing stagnant wages for DECADES now...the have less to spend...and welthy guy you just screamed at a Tea Party to get tax cuts still has only 1 stomach to eat 1 pizza...the rest? He "invests" in the Casino the world economy has evolved to...nothing's trickling down...the number of wealthy guys with even more money has INCREASED...but oh look...the number of jobs have not (in fact they have decresed...see my last post on producing "more with less" without giving them their fair share of the growth)...DEMAND creates more jobs
Best way to generate demand and thus make the "job creators" think twice to hire new people is to finally redistribute the money to those who produce it...and that's not only the owner or CEO of a company...demand comes from the masses NOT from the elite...the elite just consumes more luxury stuff, not the stuff that is being produced in BIG job sectors...that's where stuff for the MASSES gets produced..problem is the masses don't have enough "luxury" anymore to consumate that stuff, since their wages are stagnating...where is all this surplus value going to? Care to elaborate?
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,543
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,543 |
Wow ..... so facts are a bad argument as far as you're concerned.
I knew that .... I just never expected you to admit it ..... again.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,296
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,296 |
Quote:
Wow ..... so facts are a bad argument as far as you're concerned.
I knew that .... I just never expected you to admit it ..... again.
I could not have said that better myself. I tried...but had to stop because it seemed so fruitless. Thanks for boiling it down for me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
Wow ..... so facts are a bad argument as far as you're concerned.
I knew that .... I just never expected you to admit it ..... again.
What facts? That the spending has to get cut too? That's a GIVEN...who argued against it? and AGAIN you're making up strawmen arguments to deflect from the discussion at hand
When you argue about something specific, you don't have the best argument saying "the sky is blue"...that's what you guys have done the last few days...keep ignoring every discussion we had weeks ago and keep repeating "the sky is blue" if that makes you feel better
Yes, God himself won't get rid of the 16 trillion deficit...now tackle the points or let it go
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,543
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,543 |
Quote:
The rich are paying record LOWER taxes...
And a lot of that is because they are incurring record (or at least huge) losses on investments that they are able to write off.
I would bet that the rich paid less taxes as we were suffering through the Carter recession too.
Actually though ..... taxes, as a percentage of income, have dropped since Obama took office. Kinda funny there. He opened up all kinds of loopholes for "green energy" investment ...... much of which has been taken both as the tax incentive, and as a loss on their taxes as some predominantly green enegry companies start going bankrupt.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,543
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,543 |
I also wonder just what points you want argued?  In 1987, the top 1% paid 25% of federal income taxes. This number has steadily increased throughout the years, with tax cuts and minor restructuring of the tax code to a point where their share is almost 40%. Today the top 0.1% pay the same percentage that the top 1% used to pay. The number was 19% pack in 1981 ..... but there were some changes to AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) that skew those numbers. In 1987, the "bottom 50%" paid 6% of all federal income taxes. It's less than half that today. Taxes have gone up on many people .... yet you seem to think that they have gotten a huge break. Federal income tax revenues actually went up when Reagan cut the marginal rates. They went up when Bush cut the marginal rates. Further, to qualify for the "top 1% doesn't take a million dollar income. It takes an income of $380,000. Yep ..... those are your evil rich, who should be screwed to the walls while their worldly possessions are stripped away from them to pay for everything. The top 0.1% has an income threshold of $1.8 million per year. So ..... you probably don't hit a million in annual income until you get to somewhere around the top 0.5% or so of income earners. So the top half a percent of income earners have an AGI of somewhere around a million up. That's not a lot of people. Maybe 700,000? Maybe? Get $500,000 from each and what does that give you? $350 billion? The budget deficit if $1.7 trillion. Taxing people into bankruptcy isn't going to get things turned around. You can try to debate it all you like .... but without massive spending cuts, we're headed the way of Europe ...... into insolvency ..... massive painful cuts ....... and riots in the streets. Yea. We need to start cutting spending immediately. We can't tax out way out. We may need to add revenues and taxes later ..... but not until we cut the monstrosity that is the federal budget. If we add revenues at this point, this President will want to spend them. Hell, there is already talk that he wants a bigger "stimulus" package than the one that flopped and failed so miserably earlier in his term. That'll help get the deficit under control for sure. Also .... I find it amazing that you, who has never participated in the US tax system, at least as far as I can tell, feel that you are such an expert in what happens here. One Link for IRS info
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
I also wonder just what points you want argued?
Umm...those I make maybe? and you keep arguing around or just avoid?
1. Trickle down is a hoax
2. How is demand created?...stimulus don't work, since artificial but show the intention that demand is from bottom to top (stimulus for the masses to buy)...NOT the other way around...you stimulate NOTHING if you let the wealthy amass more money...
3. If trickle down is no hoax, which despite multiple examples you still believe in and talk in those terms, how come that economy didn't care if tax rates for wealthy were low or high...obv economy has its own rules with up and downswings and has nothing to do with tax rates
4. Is there room to increase taxes on the wealthy? and if yes, why not increase them?...your point about more wasted spending if done so, is completely hypothetical btw...nobody trusts governments, that's another given but even if they waste that extra money from the wealthy on infrastructure, society is still better off to have safe, new bridges and streets instead of that money in the rich's pockets...that's my point: what does it do there? Casino gambling on CDS, yacht in Monaco or gets horded....it doesn't go around productively
5. Why are real wages stagnating for the midle-class and poor although producing annual economy growth?...often with less and less people, since "optimizing" is the latest flavour. Into what pockets does that growth evaporate in? If economy or the magic hand can't distribute that wealth properly for whatever reasons (greed and power are my 1-2 here), than the "referee" politics was meant to be should in form of taxes...just look at the most socialist sport and league that is the NFL....a player that makes minimum but starts and is a decent player gets an extra bonus from the league and player pool...how socialist but I think everyone sees it as being just fair...who gets the bonus in real life? See?
6. Why do you want welfare to get cut or get taxed too? Hey after all, that's more in the budget and will get waste-spended elsewhere, right? You can't argue both ways and still pretend to have a backbone
7. 300k/year is a lot..people over here get taxed at 40-50% with that income and still have way over 10k/month to live on...I think they'll be fine..and nobody's crying a river here about that
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Quote:
I also wonder just what points you want argued?
2. How is demand created?...stimulus don't work, since artificial but show the intention that demand is from bottom to top (stimulus for the masses to buy)...NOT the other way around...you stimulate NOTHING if you let the wealthy amass more money...
Then why is Obama attempting to put out another stimulus?
3. If trickle down is no hoax, which despite multiple examples you still believe in and talk in those terms, how come that economy didn't care if tax rates for wealthy were low or high...obv economy has its own rules with up and downswings and has nothing to do with tax rates
4. Is there room to increase taxes on the wealthy? and if yes, why not increase them?...your point about more wasted spending if done so, is completely hypothetical btw...nobody trusts governments, that's another given but even if they waste that extra money from the wealthy on infrastructure, society is still better off to have safe, new bridges and streets instead of that money in the rich's pockets...that's my point: what does it do there? Casino gambling on CDS, yacht in Monaco or gets horded....it doesn't go around productively
5. Why are real wages stagnating for the midle-class and poor although producing annual economy growth?...often with less and less people, since "optimizing" is the latest flavour. Into what pockets does that growth evaporate in? If economy or the magic hand can't distribute that wealth properly for whatever reasons (greed and power are my 1-2 here), than the "referee" politics was meant to be should in form of taxes...just look at the most socialist sport and league that is the NFL....a player that makes minimum but starts and is a decent player gets an extra bonus from the league and player pool...how socialist but I think everyone sees it as being just fair...who gets the bonus in real life? See?
6. Why do you want welfare to get cut or get taxed too? Hey after all, that's more in the budget and will get waste-spended elsewhere, right? You can't argue both ways and still pretend to have a backbone
7. 300k/year is a lot..people over here get taxed at 40-50% with that income and still have way over 10k/month to live on...I think they'll be fine..and nobody's crying a river here about that
Why is the solution to every problem to Democrats is "raise taxes"? And of course, they are going to say tax the rich, because they have turned the rich into some evil entity that the public should depise. Then they accuse others for "class warfare" when they have been committing class warfare for years by demonizing the rich. It's a lot easier to raise taxes and support them when it is other people's money.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
In 1987, the top 1% paid 25% of federal income taxes. This number has steadily increased throughout the years, with tax cuts and minor restructuring of the tax code to a point where their share is almost 40%. Today the top 0.1% pay the same percentage that the top 1% used to pay.
The number was 19% pack in 1981 ..... but there were some changes to AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) that skew those numbers.
In 1987, the "bottom 50%" paid 6% of all federal income taxes. It's less than half that today.
And how about some stats on income inequality?
How much has the income of the top 1% gone up since 1987? How much has the income gone up for the bottom 50% since that time?
Those questions and answers factor into the equation as well.
With that aside, I just stumbled across this.
http://tycoonreport.tycoonresearch.com/articles/195730063/soak-the-rich-warren-buffett-may-be-right
“An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.” - Plutarch
In a New York Times Op-Ed piece published on August 14, Warren Buffett demanded that America stop coddling the rich, raise taxes immediately on those making more than 1 million dollars, and impose even higher levels on those making more than $10 million.
His comments reinvigorated the debate over who should be paying more taxes. Sooner or later, tax revenue in the United States will need to rise, so in that sense Mr. Buffett may be right, but focusing on taxing the super-rich misses the point.
The problem that this nation faces when it comes to tax revenue is that everyone is trying to slap a Band-Aid on a skull fracture. The tax system as it stands is broken and needs a complete overhaul.
Obviously, fixing the national debt cannot be done with tax increases or spending cuts alone. Both sides of the aisle agree that significant spending cuts at the Federal level need to happen, and hopefully by November the politicos in Washington will have some sort of agreement on that front.
But I want to focus on the revenue side of the coin ...
There are flat out too many loopholes that favor the upper end of the income scale, as well as a seriously regressive Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax. The FICA taxes are paid on only the first $106,000 of income. So whether you make $120,000 or $120,000,000 you are paying the exact same $6,400 for this tax; that makes little sense.
The current structure has produced an historic income gap between the haves and have-nots. The top .1% of earners make 800 to 1000 times that of the average worker. Not only is this unsustainable, but it threatens the very core of capitalism, just as it did in the late 1920s and in 2007, both of which were prior peaks in the income gap.
Capitalism functions because the masses spend money buying washers, refrigerators, computers, and televisions. Sure, building Lamborghinis and yachts provide some jobs, but it does not provide the mass level of employment that the manufacture of everyday items does.
So how can we solve this problem?
First, I would propose an elimination of all deductions, including the mortgage interest tax credit at the individual level and foreign tax credits at the corporate level.
Second, reduce the number of tax brackets.
Third, any and all earnings are taxed as income. That includes capital gains, carried interest, and any other form of earnings that are taxed at more favorable rates than the personal income tax rate.
The elimination of deductions on the individual level would correspond with the lowering of tax rates across the board. See the included table for an example of a possible rate schedule.
The first thing you probably notice is that the first $50,000 of income is not taxed at all. Currently the poverty level in the United States is an annual income of approximately $24,000 for a family of four. How anyone can raise a family on that little money is beyond me, but roughly doubling that seems a good start. Realize that most people end up paying little or no taxes after deductions at or below the $50,000 level anyway.
From $50,000 to $250,000 there would be a 7.5% rate. From $250,000 to $1,000,000 in income there would be a flat rate of 12.5%. Over one million dollars, the tax rate would be 20%.
Remember, there are no deductions and no special treatment of capital gains or carried interest; this would purely be a percentage of all income. The result of this is likely to be an increase in revenues for two reasons ...
First off, the tax base would be broadened. There are many people in the 50,000 to 250,000 dollar range that, after deductions and other finagling, manage to pay little or no taxes. Secondly, at the top end, over one million dollars, the 20% level would be an increase from a current effective rate that is frequently below that number. Warren Buffett noted that his effective rate was approximately 17.4% because of the special treatment of capital gains. Revising the code would eliminate that.
To eliminate future wrangling in Washington over adjustments to the bracketing system, income thresholds would be tied to inflation. So for example, if inflation ran at 1% per year, the top end of each bracket would increase by 1%. This could easily be based on core CPI.
On the corporate front, at a minimum, foreign tax credits need to be eliminated. The current corporate tax structure enables companies that paid taxes overseas to take a credit for those payments against their tax bill in the U.S. This is why corporations are keeping so much money overseas; they don’t actually pay taxes on those earnings until they are repatriated, so why bring that money home? It is the reason that a behemoth like General Electric ended up with a negative effective tax rate last year. Yes, we the U.S. taxpayers paid General Electric to keep its money overseas.
Now, I should say, when it comes to corporations there are some legitimate adjustments to income that should be made because it is a more accurate reflection of the cost of doing business. Depreciation, for example, is valid. If I buy a bulldozer from a construction company, it is in my mind reasonable to spread the cost of that piece of equipment over its useful life. Remember, I’m not talking about changing the way corporations account for the costs of doing business, only the way their income is taxed.
U.S. companies have trillions of dollars of cash on their balance sheets, but they are not investing domestically because of significant regulatory uncertainty and lack of clarity on future taxation that might emerge from Washington. Elimination of foreign tax credits and a straight 15 to 20% tax on corporate income should provide some additional revenues and give businesses certainty when planning for the future. Any loss in revenue as a result of lowering the marginal corporate tax rate is likely to be recovered, since any and all income at the individual level would be taxed at the individual’s tax rate.
Whether the right likes it or not, revenues have to be part of the equation as we tackle the national debt. Simplifying the tax code in a manner similar to that described above would both broaden the tax base and allocate the national tax burden in a more appropriate and consistent manner. Additionally, there is likely to be significant savings at the IRS, since everyone’s tax return would now only be one or two pages.
These concepts are extremely important to investors, because a simplification of the tax code ends uncertainty on corporate front, allowing better planning for domestic investment and growth. This will aid in closing an unsustainable income gap, while marginally increasing effective tax rates on those who can afford to pay a little more, and adding consistency to Federal revenues.
Ultimately, this type of certainty will remove one of the major overhangs that has been weighing on equity markets, and produce better returns for all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
Then why is Obama attempting to put out another stimulus?
Maybe you ask him? I'm neither Dem nor am I an Obama supporter...I already said for me it's Jack Johnson and John Jackson when it comes to US presidents
Thanks for the article Phil...exactly what I've been saying, esp. this:
Quote:
The current structure has produced an historic income gap between the haves and have-nots. The top .1% of earners make 800 to 1000 times that of the average worker. Not only is this unsustainable, but it threatens the very core of capitalism, just as it did in the late 1920s and in 2007, both of which were prior peaks in the income gap.
Capitalism functions because the masses spend money buying washers, refrigerators, computers, and televisions. Sure, building Lamborghinis and yachts provide some jobs, but it does not provide the mass level of employment that the manufacture of everyday items does.
Speaking of Gini-coefficient...click on CIA-Gini as a percentage and be ashamed US of A
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,296
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,296 |
Classic. Quote:
But I want to focus on the revenue side of the coin ...
There are flat out too many loopholes that favor the upper end of the income scale, as well as a seriously regressive Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax. The FICA taxes are paid on only the first $106,000 of income. So whether you make $120,000 or $120,000,000 you are paying the exact same $6,400 for this tax; that makes little sense.
What are these "loopholes" I keep hearing about? That line is such complete and utter BS. I want to hear of the top 3 most "unfair" loopholes. Find them and post them.
FICA taxable income has a limit because there is a limit on how much of a social security BENEFIT you can receive at age 62 or beyond. It makes perfect sense if one has a clue on how it works.
If you want no limit on the dollars to be taxed, then you cannot have a limit on how large a person's monthly benefit can grow to...or just say it like it is...tax the rich more because they are evil.
Let's focus on eliminating social security (and disability) benefits for incarcerated felons.
Quote:
The current structure has produced an historic income gap between the haves and have-nots. The top .1% of earners make 800 to 1000 times that of the average worker. Not only is this unsustainable, but it threatens the very core of capitalism, just as it did in the late 1920s and in 2007, both of which were prior peaks in the income gap.
One tenth of 1%? Seriously. THAT is the problem? 
The front page article in the Dayton Daily News yesterday talks about Behr Manufacturing being in need of 55 workers RIGHT NOW. They can't keep those jobs filled because applicants either can't read beyond an eight-grade level, can't pass a drug test, and/or are not willing to work on their feet for an 8 hour day.
The solution MUST be that we need to tax people who CAN do those things.
Quote:
Capitalism functions because the masses spend money buying washers, refrigerators, computers, and televisions. Sure, building Lamborghinis and yachts provide some jobs, but it does not provide the mass level of employment that the manufacture of everyday items does.
He forgot to mention that Capitalism works when government gets out of the way, people feel the need to work so they can survive, and people believe that if they work hard enough they can get ahead.
Quote:
So how can we solve this problem?
First, I would propose an elimination of all deductions, including the mortgage interest tax credit at the individual level and foreign tax credits at the corporate level.
I do not have one single client who qualifies for the mortgage interest tax credit. However, most all of them qualify for the mortgage interest expense deduction.
If this guy really means "credit", then he does not have a clue. If he does not know the difference, then he should not have even written this article in the first place.
Quote:
Second, reduce the number of tax brackets.
Because (6) is too many to keep track of?
Quote:
Third, any and all earnings are taxed as income. That includes capital gains, carried interest, and any other form of earnings that are taxed at more favorable rates than the personal income tax rate.
Will that include the social security benefits of seniors? The capital gains tax rates for seniors? Which is often 0%. Just take away the capital gains tax break for people over a million...or whatever.
Quote:
The elimination of deductions on the individual level would correspond with the lowering of tax rates across the board. See the included table for an example of a possible rate schedule.
Makes sense...I'd LOVE to see the projections on that one.
Quote:
The first thing you probably notice is that the first $50,000 of income is not taxed at all. Currently the poverty level in the United States is an annual income of approximately $24,000 for a family of four. How anyone can raise a family on that little money is beyond me, but roughly doubling that seems a good start. Realize that most people end up paying little or no taxes after deductions at or below the $50,000 level anyway.
Most people? Most? Uh...no. A single person who makes $50,000 pays plenty. A married couple with two kids pays little to nothing. People near the poverty level get back a lot more than they ever paid in if they have a job.
I'm not even going to address rent, food, and utility assistance at that income level. It would interject too much sense into an otherwise poorly constructed and delivered article.
Quote:
From $50,000 to $250,000 there would be a 7.5% rate. From $250,000 to $1,000,000 in income there would be a flat rate of 12.5%. Over one million dollars, the tax rate would be 20%.
Again...I'd LOVE to see the revenue projections of such a change.
Quote:
Remember, there are no deductions and no special treatment of capital gains or carried interest; this would purely be a percentage of all income. The result of this is likely to be an increase in revenues for two reasons ...
Likely. This guy says we need to overhaul the entire tax code and his following answers to increasing revenue are based on "likely". 
Quote:
First off, the tax base would be broadened. There are many people in the 50,000 to 250,000 dollar range that, after deductions and other finagling, manage to pay little or no taxes.
Many people? How many? Seven? That is THE most ridiculous and incorrect statement to date. But why not throw it out there? Someone will buy it hook, line, and sinker and be adequately distracted from the real problem.
Quote:
Secondly, at the top end, over one million dollars, the 20% level would be an increase from a current effective rate that is frequently below that number.
Frequently? How frequent? The EARNED income rate at that level is 35%. Frequently for whom? I bet there is a reference to Warren Buffet in my near future.
Quote:
Warren Buffett noted that his effective rate was approximately 17.4% because of the special treatment of capital gains. Revising the code would eliminate that.
What do you know? There it is.
Let's see...eliminate that particular benefit for Buffet and his 399 buddies OR revise the entire tax code on the many, likely, and frequently basis?
Quote:
To eliminate future wrangling in Washington over adjustments to the bracketing system, income thresholds would be tied to inflation. So for example, if inflation ran at 1% per year, the top end of each bracket would increase by 1%. This could easily be based on core CPI.
Ok?
Quote:
On the corporate front, at a minimum, foreign tax credits need to be eliminated. The current corporate tax structure enables companies that paid taxes overseas to take a credit for those payments against their tax bill in the U.S. This is why corporations are keeping so much money overseas; they don’t actually pay taxes on those earnings until they are repatriated, so why bring that money home? It is the reason that a behemoth like General Electric ended up with a negative effective tax rate last year. Yes, we the U.S. taxpayers paid General Electric to keep its money overseas.
It is waaaay more complicated than that representation. I will stay out of that argument because I have no recent experience with that example and his comment is so broad that I'm not sure of his basis.
Quote:
Now, I should say, when it comes to corporations there are some legitimate adjustments to income that should be made because it is a more accurate reflection of the cost of doing business. Depreciation, for example, is valid. If I buy a bulldozer from a construction company, it is in my mind reasonable to spread the cost of that piece of equipment over its useful life. Remember, I’m not talking about changing the way corporations account for the costs of doing business, only the way their income is taxed.
Thank goodness he believes that corporate jets aren't the problem.
Quote:
U.S. companies have trillions of dollars of cash on their balance sheets, but they are not investing domestically because of significant regulatory uncertainty and lack of clarity on future taxation that might emerge from Washington.
Exactly...and this guy wants to completely revise the tax code on the basis of many, likely, and frequently.
The earnings of companies are passed down to the investors in the form of dividends.. The investors with skin in the game for a year or longer, pay reduced capital gains taxes on those dividends. But not in the future according to this guy.
So on a profit of a dollar, the company pays 15-20% and the individual pays another 7.5-X%.
Quote:
Elimination of foreign tax credits and a straight 15 to 20% tax on corporate income should provide some additional revenues and give businesses certainty when planning for the future.
Should? Many, likely, frequently, and now should.
Quote:
Any loss in revenue as a result of lowering the marginal corporate tax rate is likely to be recovered, since any and all income at the individual level would be taxed at the individual’s tax rate.
Wow...just...wow.
Quote:
Whether the right likes it or not, revenues have to be part of the equation as we tackle the national debt.
Revenue does not require higher rates. Create an environment that encourages growth, risk, and investment and the pie will get larger.
Quote:
Simplifying the tax code in a manner similar to that described above would both broaden the tax base and allocate the national tax burden in a more appropriate and consistent manner.
The above example was simple? More purely speculative than simple. Allocate the national tax burden more appropriately and consistently? The only way to do that is to get EVERYONE rowing the boat together...but it's a better soundbite to have "the rish" pay more. Even though this guy's "rich" person is the same at income levels of $50k thru Warren Buffet territory.
Quote:
Additionally, there is likely to be significant savings at the IRS, since everyone’s tax return would now only be one or two pages.
Likely?
Quote:
These concepts are extremely important to investors, because a simplification of the tax code ends uncertainty on corporate front, allowing better planning for domestic investment and growth.
Apples? Meet oranges.
Quote:
This will aid in closing an unsustainable income gap, while marginally increasing effective tax rates on those who can afford to pay a little more, and adding consistency to Federal revenues.
Unsustainable income gap? Is that the .1% of people he referenced earlier? Those who can afford to pay more? Now it's whether they can "afford" it or not? Do "the rich" get to control the spending of the non-rich and decide what THEY can afford?
Now it's no longer "their fair share" but what they can "afford"? Classic.
Quote:
Ultimately, this type of certainty will remove one of the major overhangs that has been weighing on equity markets, and produce better returns for all.
"Certainty"...the child born from the unions between many, likely, frequently, and should.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Quote:
Then why is Obama attempting to put out another stimulus?
Maybe you ask him? I'm neither Dem nor am I an Obama supporter...I already said for me it's Jack Johnson and John Jackson when it comes to US presidents
Sounds like a duck, looks like a duck.. it must be a goose. For someone who claims not to be a Dem, most of the things I hear from you are exactly what a Democrat would come up with.
Quote:
Thanks for the article Phil...exactly what I've been saying, esp. this:
Quote:
The current structure has produced an historic income gap between the haves and have-nots. The top .1% of earners make 800 to 1000 times that of the average worker. Not only is this unsustainable, but it threatens the very core of capitalism, just as it did in the late 1920s and in 2007, both of which were prior peaks in the income gap.
Capitalism functions because the masses spend money buying washers, refrigerators, computers, and televisions. Sure, building Lamborghinis and yachts provide some jobs, but it does not provide the mass level of employment that the manufacture of everyday items does.
Speaking of Gini-coefficient...click on CIA-Gini as a percentage and be ashamed US of A
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
The problem isn't that the rich are rich. That is not the problem.You are only trying to demonize them for being rich. They are not the problem why there is a larger income gap. Now, some of the rich may have created the problem, but being rich does not equate to being the problem. The problem is that while the rich might be getting richer, the poorer are getting poorer because as our society becomes more and more service based, the wages for such jobs are not as high as those back when we had more middle class manufacturing jobs.
The larger problem is that it's getting harder and harder to find a good paying job without a college degree, and not everyone is made out to get a college degree, even though people think everyone is. A lot of jobs out there now that you could get without a college degree are becoming more and more out of reach because even they are requiring a piece of paper stating that you went to college. The entry requirements of jobs are changing.
The income gap is not as easy as saying the rich are evil. The problem is more complex than that and you only want to penalize someone because they were able to become rich.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,543
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,543 |
Those with huge wealth will almost always add wealth faster than those without. That's just common sense.
If I make $25,000 per year and can only afford to invest $1000 ..... then my returns will be limited.
If I make $3 million .... than I can afford to invest far more ..... and even invest in far riskier propositions with enormous potential rewards, because I have far more than I "need".
If I am 40 years old, making $25,000/year, with a small family, then I want my small investments to be as safe as possible, because I NEED them for my retirement, and family's security. . If the market starts to wreck, I am probably invested in funds that will try to maintain my cash position as best as it possible by selling at certain margins. If I have huge amounts of disposable income, I can buy at the bottom, and wait for the market to rise again. If I have the money to do so, and the market has tanked as it has just done, I can afford to buy millions of shares .... and just wait for them to recover a moderate amount of their value .... and make $3-4 million on a modest recovery.
You ask why those at the top add wealth faster ..... and frankly I really didn't think that I would have to walk you through the steps of how things work ... step by step ... with basic common sense ...... but I guess I did. It's the economics of scale. Rich people have more. Wow. As a result, rich people have more extra. Because of this, rich people can risk more in both good, and bad economic times to get the maximum return on their money.
Further, if no one can afford to invest in anything but "safe" investments, then innovation dies. The "rich" play a real solid role in backing companies way out on the cutting edge ... because despite the risk, that's where almost obscene rewards can be found. Do you begrudge someone the right to risk their money in a venture that has a 50/50 chance of complete and utter failure ....... but also a 50/50 chance of 1000% returns?
You talk about "trickle down", but what has happened is actually the opposite of trickle down. The rich today pay a larger percentage of the tax bill than even in Reagan's era. The poor pay a much smaller percentage of the tax bill than they did in Reagan's time. (or before) The government tries to pour money "down" in the form of expanded tax credits and social programs, but somehow it fails to raise people up beyond the level of that support. If you could see tax return time in the US, you'd see what happens to "free" money that pours down on people. It's not saved. It's not invested. In many cases, a large amount of it goes to a rapid refund facility (and I mean $500-$1000 in some cases) so that the person getting free money can get it just a little sooner. The rest is blown on any number of things ...... from electronics ... to drugs. Yeah ... it does happen.
As far as your stats ..... we're about the same as the UK. It's close enough to be similar than dissimilar.
If you look at countries like Germany, Japan, Italy, and others, those are relatively immature economies, that began their current incarnations as the result of the end of either a World War, or a reunification. Further, those countries pay a much smaller percentage of GDP into military and defense. Imagine how the numbers will begin to skew as time advances, and as their economies expand and grow. Imagine how the rich might well become richer as they begin to leverage their positions to make investments that others will not. Imagine how the rich there are probably already taking advantage of opportunities that poorer citizens cannot. You don't really have to imagine ..... because I would bet money that it is already happening everywhere there is a free and open market.
Now .... I'm curious ........ If you have a country that you would like to hold up as a shining light, please do so we can all look at it, and debate its merits.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
You ask why those at the top add wealth faster
Really? Do I? Where? Oh look, it's another argument avoiding strawman from YTwon...it's getting pretty boring, really "The sky is blue" 2.0...the rich is richer...say what
Quote:
You talk about "trickle down", but what has happened is actually the opposite of trickle down. The rich today pay a larger percentage of the tax bill than even in Reagan's era. The poor pay a much smaller percentage of the tax bill than they did in Reagan's time.
Who cares? Did you just really try to insult my intelligence? They pay LESS of their income % though, they HAVE more in their pockets...the "job creator" doesn't care how much of the gvnt % he pays, he cares about how much of his money he can keep and NOW he pays LESS and still the economy is bad...tax % and economy well being have NOTHING next to no causal effects...correlation-causation brain fart either way
Trickle down is the econmic mindset that more money in the wealthy's pocket = more jobs...that has pretty much been adressed by me now plenty....even the "job creator" Buffett obviously disagrees with you
Quote:
(or before) The government tries to pour money "down" in the form of expanded tax credits and social programs, but somehow it fails to raise people up beyond the level of that support.
Really? They didn't do that before? and again, I dont say to hand out more welfare $s...I want wage increase for working people whos wages are stagnating for decades now
Quote:
If you could see tax return time in the US, you'd see what happens to "free" money that pours down on people. It's not saved. It's not invested. In many cases, a large amount of it goes to a rapid refund facility (and I mean $500-$1000 in some cases) so that the person getting free money can get it just a little sooner. The rest is blown on any number of things ...... from electronics ... to drugs. Yeah ... it does happen.
Even in your worst case scenario...money goes around...also, you'd be surprised at the cocaine waste around Wall Street and upper level society overall...no, the poor doesn't waste more money on drugs than any other class...if anything, it's less since they have way less to waste on that
Quote:
As far as your stats ..... we're about the same as the UK. It's close enough to be similar than dissimilar.
Worst attempt at stat twisting I've read in a while...no, USA is pretty far away from UK in terms of % and even place, who themeselves are further away from many other European countries (Im sure you've noticed but opted to not bring it up)...USA is about the same as Cambodia, Thailand, Nicaragua, Guyana, Nigeria, Iran, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Uganda, Jamaica, Uruguay and Malaysia...nice company
that's FACT..you have a pretty bad income gap despite an economy that is, wild guessing here, much better than in those countries around you....it's pretty evident that you have a distribution problem of said wealth....gues that's what decades of anti-socialist/communist and trickle down propaganda leads to....if you're ok with that? Cool, I'll come visit with my strong euro to watch a football or baseball game or gamble in Vegas...but I'd never want to live in such a country....good luck, you'll need it if you're not part of the elite that can pay for trickle down propaganda
Quote:
If you look at countries like Germany, Japan, Italy, and others, those are relatively immature economies
Amazed at what you think you know, lol.."Immature"...Germany..Japan, yeah, just 2 top Export nations around....if those are "immature"....oh now I get it...."USA ! USA ! USA !"...the "best" country in the world propaganda...ah I get it....yeah ok, you're the best, lol....
Quote:
Now .... I'm curious ........ If you have a country that you would like to hold up as a shining light, please do so we can all look at it, and debate its merits.
I did in other threads with Sweden: great Gini coifficient, great health care, social system, few poor, enough wealthy people etc...you ignored whatever point I made, as usual...made up strawmen arguments to avoid etc etc...why should I go through all this again? You didn't even tackle 1 of my points above in your last post, babbling about "the rich are richer and get richer faster", duh
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Quote:
I did in other threads with Sweden: great Gini coifficient, great health care, social system, few poor, enough wealthy people etc...you ignored whatever point I made, as usual...made up strawmen arguments to avoid etc etc...why should I go through all this again? You didn't even tackle 1 of my points above in your last post, babbling about "the rich are richer and get richer faster", duh
Can we compare a country that doesn't have a population smaller than Ohio? If all we had to do was worry about 9 million people things would be pretty simple. Population certainly has an affect on this percentage, wouldn't you think? Population certainly has a major affect on many aspects of what is being debated here IMO. Find a country to compare that has a population of even 100 million or more - with more population comes a lot more problems that are a lot harder to solve.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,543
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,543 |
Well, I linked to the IRS information that disputes your contention that those at the top pay less.
There may be cases that are different, but as a whole, those at the top pay the most, and those at the bottom pay the least,
It's there on the IRS site, but I cannot make you look, or comprehend it.
Your site had the data on the US/UK that I referenced. It's right there. You don't want to look though.
If you refuse to look, I can't help you.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
I never disputed they pay LESS in total, they pay LESS in %...that's all I care about...if someone makes 1mil he should pay the same 30-40% tax as the 80k guy, don't you think?
I get your "the sky is blue" arguments...I NEVER disputed ANY of them...stop making up strawmen arguments that I or anyone else EVER disputed...this is stupid or just debate avoiding tactics...yeah, the rich get richer faster and they pay more taxes than the poor...wow, you opened my eyes...do you think I don't know that? The sky is blue, killer argument...I already said: they don't care HOW MUCH in TOTAL they give to government, they care HOW MANY % of their income
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
Quote:
I did in other threads with Sweden: great Gini coifficient, great health care, social system, few poor, enough wealthy people etc...you ignored whatever point I made, as usual...made up strawmen arguments to avoid etc etc...why should I go through all this again? You didn't even tackle 1 of my points above in your last post, babbling about "the rich are richer and get richer faster", duh
Can we compare a country that doesn't have a population smaller than Ohio? If all we had to do was worry about 9 million people things would be pretty simple. Population certainly has an affect on this percentage, wouldn't you think? Population certainly has a major affect on many aspects of what is being debated here IMO. Find a country to compare that has a population of even 100 million or more - with more population comes a lot more problems that are a lot harder to solve.
Um, ok?...you do know how percentages work, right?
Anyway: countries with 100+mil population with lower Gini:
Japan 130mil: have the lowest ratio of the average income of the richest 10% is to the poorest 10% and lowest ratio of average income of the richest 20% is to the poorest 20%...comparison: USA is in fine, partially dictatorships, company with Ghana, Nicaragua, Cameroon, Nigeria, Kenya and Cameroon
Even Russia, India, Indonesia, Pakistan..all have lower income disparity across the board
Another good example would be my country: Germany, 82mil...WAY lower across the board
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Quote:
Um, ok?...you do know how percentages work, right?
Nah, I'm just a stupid American who believes hard work should be rewarded. Why would I need to understand percentages? I'm not just talking about the Gini percentage; I don't even know what the hell that is nor do I care. I'm just talking as a whole it is more difficult to solve problems when more people are involved. Especially when you have a huge percentage - around 50% - that don't want things solved if it involves any sacrifice from them.
Quote:
Anyway: countries with 100+mil population with lower Gini:
Japan 130mil: have the lowest ratio of the average income of the richest 10% is to the poorest 10% and lowest ratio of average income of the richest 20% is to the poorest 20%...comparison: USA is in fine, partially dictatorships, company with Ghana, Nicaragua, Cameroon, Nigeria, Kenya and Cameroon
Even Russia, India, Indonesia, Pakistan..all have lower income disparity across the board
Another good example would be my country: Germany, 82mil...WAY lower across the board
I wasn't referring to this Gini percentage; I know nothing about it and I really don't want to learn about it. I'm just talking as a whole about this debate. Solving a problem in a country with 300+ million is very difficult and everyone must sacrifice. I have no problem paying more in taxes if I knew they were going to do something positive with the money. Not "distribute the wealth" as you suggest. If that starts happening, my motivation for working my ass off goes out the window. I work hard, I am rewarded - always have been in every job I've worked in from busing tables, to road construction, to software development to being one of the evil owners of a company. Why people can't figure that out is beyond me. The opportunity is still there for those willing to take risks and actually work hard. You do not seem to believe that but in my experiences you are wrong. But I am just a pawn in the capitalists game I suppose
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
With "distributing the wealth" I mean something that should be done in economy but isn't happening like in other countries...whoever works and produces annual economy growth should get a real wage raise, that's common sense pretty much everywhere...but it's not happening in the USA for many reasons....trickle down and amercian dream mindset is 1 big factor imho...demonizing Unions is another, those 2, philosophically speaking, work hand in hand, same propaganda origin...both are pretty much lies to cover up real social conditions...I know you "made" it...but you're the exception not the rule, you also most likely would hav "made it" in Sweden too or any other democratic country, it had nothing to do with living n the USA...we can debate individual life paths all day, I believe in social stats more (it's like Ichiro hits a HR today and someone says: wow, he is a HR hitter..well bigger track record of stats say No)..and remember it was a Harvard economy prof who said that the american dream "elevator" is broken...not me.
Also, not everyone can "make" it...that's pretty much by default...that said, what american dream "you can make it if you work hard" mindset does is create an anti-social environment (oh look how you guys talk about government..as if it was a gangster...what it is though is a mirror of yourself...what does that tell you?) ...if everyone "fights" for position and power, there will be injuries and cripples left over along the way..oh look, mental illnesses and anti depressiv medication sky rocketed in capitalism...not everyone can make it, that's how the free market works, it's a Darwinistic market...we have a brain to not let it go that way and I argue that we should use it
Japan btw gets applauded in the other thread for their altruism...another example what a more fairly distributed society is capable of
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844 |
I think what django forgets to account for is work ethic.
Japan has it, top to bottom.
Most countries have it. The u.s. does - some of the u.s. that is.
Just talked with my cousin tonight. His son - 21 yrs. old - got a girl pregnant. This will be her second kid. As it is, she gets $500 a month in child support, $300 in "rent" money, and food stamps. He let them move in with him for a while.
He kicked them out after a month. Neither one of them would lift a finger to help around the house. They didn't do laundry, didn't do dishes, and in fact, the girl wouldn't even let the dog out to pee when my cousin was at work. He'd get home between 8-9 pm and she'd say "what's for supper?"
He worked all day, she sat on her bum all day, and she had the nerve to ask what was for supper???
Another family I know - daughter had 3 kids by the time she was 19. Not married, no job. But she got money. Her desires, work goals? None. Quote: "Why would I get a job?"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,543
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,543 |
But overall, they do NOT pay the same or less. The rich still pay more overall.
Look at the IRS charts. The information is right there in black and white. It may not be a gigantic difference .... and maybe not as much as you would like ... but the information is right there in black and white.
The reasons are plain and clear as well. If you invest in a lot of ventures, then you have greater possibility of losses that can be written off.
It's not as simple as you seem to think, nor as simple as you want to make it out to be.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
Her desires, work goals? None. Quote: "Why would I get a job?"
She is right and you are just morally right and direct your anger at her instead of the "job creators" that don't pay enough in a job to make a living....THAT'S the scandal in this whole mess: how can it be that someone that works 8h a day...no matter what he does...how come such a person can't make a living?
There has always been welfare, ther has always and always will be the lazy welfare bum but what CHANGED is WORK that isn't enough to live on...WORK has to pay off again, that's the END RESULT of DECADES of real wages STAGNATING...don't be mad at the lazy welfare girl, she's right..why should she work for 5$/h and 800$/month? SHE is what PSt advocated for in his "pure capitalism" utopia....a low jobber that is NOT accepting the job leveraging for more...what happens? you have the illegal aliens who do those jobs..and they neither are the problem, they just get exploited, something many welfare guys refuse to do...it's the, often not always of course, morally depraved "job creators" that hire Mexican slaves since their US counterparts are on strike...that's reality
That's what I mean by wealth redistribution...WORK has to pay off again. If a lower income worker barely has more than the welfare guy, BOTH are off bad...why is oyur 1st reaction to wish for the welfare guy to get less? Shame on you if you're Christian, really...shouldn't the 1st reaction be: the guy that works his butt off should get MORE to have a BETTER life than the welfare dude....you act as if the welfare guys are having a great life, newsflash: they don't...they're at the bottom of society...STOP KICKING them...they ARE NOT the problem, just a GROWING SYMPTOM of what's wrong
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Ron Paul & The Top Tier (Daily
Show clip)
|
|
