Bush Tax breaks for the "rich"

[Royd 0]

Quote

Replacing one tax with another while still taking the same amount out of the economy is not removing a "punishment", nor will it affect anything. It's a transparent move to make the rich even richer, while hoodwinking unthinking people into thinking they will be better off. Seems to be working, too.

Let me ask you something, sir. Do you reward the students who apply themselves, or those who have a GAF attitude toward what you are trying to teach?

The fact is, the economy would sort itself out. Nowadays, through tax breaks, companies are encouraged to stimulate the economy by purchasing new vehicles, equipment, etc.

Under a new tax structure, they would probably hire a mechanic, and purchase parts to make a good piece of equipment last for its actual life time.

I have a '91 Dodge diesel that runs just fine. Sure, it requires maintainance, but I am punished under today's tax structure for being frugal. The govt. would prefer that I go out and dump $50,000 on a new truck.

I would prefer to pay a 23% tax on parts, than having the govt. have their nose in every corner of my business.
Let's be honest. The income tax system gives the govt. far too much power in the lives of individual citizens.

[Royd 0]

You demand to take 50% of my money to buy votes with, then give it to your poor, 'Less Fortunate' constituients. They turn around and buy MD20/20, some crack and some fast food. Maybe, if they can convince you that they are poor enough, they might be able to get some spinners to finish pimping out their ride

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



WOW just WOW...

Quote

Thank you for validating my posts for the last 5 years.. and that statement proves Southern republican thinking at its best.

You're quite welcome. I'm sure, up there in La-La Land, it's all different.

Isn't that the land where you can't even pump your own gas because, after all, someone needs a job, and, you're really not qualified to do that. Or is that just your neighbors to the south?

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Replacing one tax with another while still taking the same amount out of the economy is not removing a "punishment", nor will it affect anything. It's a transparent move to make the rich even richer, while hoodwinking unthinking people into thinking they will be better off. Seems to be working, too.

Let me ask you something, sir. Do you reward the students who apply themselves, or those who have a GAF attitude toward what you are trying to teach?

The fact is, the economy would sort itself out. Nowadays, through tax breaks, companies are encouraged to stimulate the economy by purchasing new vehicles, equipment, etc.

Under a new tax structure, they would probably hire a mechanic, and purchase parts to make a good piece of equipment last for its actual life time.

I have a '91 Dodge diesel that runs just fine. Sure, it requires maintainance, but I am punished under today's tax structure for being frugal. The govt. would prefer that I go out and dump $50,000 on a new truck.

I would prefer to pay a 23% tax on parts, than having the govt. have their nose in every corner of my business.
Let's be honest. The income tax system gives the govt. far too much power in the lives of individual citizens.

Your grasp of the most basic economic facts seems tenuous.

Just running the military ALONE takes, on average, some $2,000 from each man, woman and child in the USA. Changing the tax structure will not change that FACT one little bit. If you want a huge military, it has to be paid for.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Royd 0]

Sort of like our requests for any data past the bald number for your "300k /year stolen guns" claim. As I said before, I've seen with my own eyes people that REFUSE to go work - after all, why should they, when Uncle Sugar keeps handing over that free money

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

were they urban blacks???
I just dont picture a good ole Texas boy hangin out in da hood

Who's bringing race into this arguement?

[Royd 0]

Quote

Your grasp of the most basic economic facts seems tenuous.

Just running the military ALONE takes, on average, some $2,000 from each man, woman and child in the USA. Changing the tax structure will not change that FACT one little bit. If you want a huge military, it has to be paid for.

It will put an honest burden on each and every person across the board. What is your problem with that?

BTW, do you reward the slugs in your classes?

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Your grasp of the most basic economic facts seems tenuous.

Just running the military ALONE takes, on average, some $2,000 from each man, woman and child in the USA. Changing the tax structure will not change that FACT one little bit. If you want a huge military, it has to be paid for.

It will put an honest burden on each and every person across the board. What is your problem with that?

BTW, do you reward the slugs in your classes?

That's as silly as my asking why should I pay for a huge military that you want and I don't?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Royd 0]

Quote

And as for reducing bureacracy, anyone believing that should take a look at the VAT bureacracy in Europe before trumpeting that as an advantage

Gee, I thought all of you liberals were salivating to be just like Europe.

[joedirt 0]

Why do keep defending the federal government robbing us of our money when you clearly believe they are irresponsible at spending it?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

were they urban blacks???
I just dont picture a good ole Texas boy hangin out in da hood

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who's bringing race into this arguement?

Quote

They turn around and buy MD20/20, some crack and some fast food. Maybe, if they can convince you that they are poor enough, they might be able to get some spinners to finish pimping out their ride

Seems you did.. and it does not surprise me at all.

And Mikes reference to those who refuse to work... more code for the same thing..

See it IS alive and well in the members of your party....sadly

[Royd 0]

were they urban blacks???
I just dont picture a good ole Texas boy hangin out in da hood

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who's bringing race into this arguement?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


They turn around and buy MD20/20, some crack and some fast food. Maybe, if they can convince you that they are poor enough, they might be able to get some spinners to finish pimping out their ride


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

Seems you did.. and it does not surprise me at all.

And Mikes reference to those who refuse to work... more code for the same thing..

See it IS alive and well in the members of your party....sadly

Apparently, that is your view of blacks. I never mentioned any specific race.

I could have been talking about any particular flavor of Latino, for that matter.

[likearock 1]

Quote

Quote

If you go from an tax based on income to a tax based on consumption, who do you think would benefit? Wouldn't it be those whose income-to-consumption ratio is highest? Wouldn't that tend to be the richer people? CEOs making 8 figures are probably going to spend a much smaller fraction of their income than someone making 50K. And none of the elaborate rebate/prebate nonsense is going to make a big difference in that basic pattern. The richer you are, the proportionally less you'll have to pay in a consumption-based tax.

You may want to discount the guy making 50k as a dumb ass but there are a lot of them out there, many with families. The "fair" tax gives them the shaft.

I don't have a problem with someone who was busted their ass for a good portion of their lives to get a grip on life, getting an advantage.

I've got to hand it to you, you have the courage of your convictions. You will be willing to pay more taxes (because that's what will happen to those with a smaller income-consumption ratio) in order that the country has better incentives for people to become rich.

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

Taxes are not a penalty nor a punishment. You have some very strange ideas.

Let's illustrate this. Lets say I'm a business owner with 100k to put back into my business for a new product line and I think I can get about 20k in extra revenue per year. I might have to hire two or three people to do so, so that's good for a few locals. Not a bad investment. But when I try to take the 20k out as income, it gets taxed at say, 35% by the Feds, and here in Alabama 5% by the state, so now I'm down to 12k for my effort and my money. I have to work very hard to make that line take off, and I have to risk my capital.

That's not punishment? It may not be intentional, but it's certainly the relult. And it doesn't just punish me, those two or three people are still out hunting a job.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Why do keep defending the federal government robbing us of our money when you clearly believe they are irresponsible at spending it?

Taxes are not robbery- have you READ the US Constitution?

Do you like having public services available to you, like highways, border patrol, the navy, national parks, air traffic control...

If so, why expect someone ELSE to pay for them (which is what your "robbery" attitude implies).

Maybe you'd prefer to build your own private roads and police the border yourself at your own expense.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Taxes are not a penalty nor a punishment. You have some very strange ideas.

Let's illustrate this. Lets say I'm a business owner with 100k to put back into my business for a new product line and I think I can get about 20k in extra revenue per year. I might have to hire two or three people to do so, so that's good for a few locals. Not a bad investment. But when I try to take the 20k out as income, it gets taxed at say, 35% by the Feds, and here in Alabama 5% by the state, so now I'm down to 12k for my effort and my money. I have to work very hard to make that line take off, and I have to risk my capital.

That's not punishment? It may not be intentional, but it's certainly the relult. And it doesn't just punish me, those two or three people are still out hunting a job.

So you think someone ELSE should pay for the public services that YOU use.

With an entitlement attitude like yours it's easy to see why the self employed and small business owners are the biggest tax cheats.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lindsey 0]

Well, it does stink when the money's just not there, but similarly, I have house maintenance costs...things I don't really get to see and enjoy, but that are necessary. The bug man comes, sometimes ya' have to paint, or fill in the mortar between bricks. The air conditioner is leaking again. Gotta fix the fence. Need a new pump for the pool. A guest broke the glass door on the guest bath tub. The heating and a/c bill is more than ya' hoped. Gotta clean the carpets....and on and on and on. I'd LIKE to spend my money in other ways, but so much of it gets eaten up just maintaining my home.

Of course taxes don't go to your house, but it DOES cost money to keep our society working. How efficient it is is questionable. No individual is gonna be 100% happy with where all of that money goes. And it has to come from somebody's pocket! Few people are happy when its theirs. So if you're that business owner and have to pay more for maintaining things than you wanted....why should it be the NEXT guy instead of you? The guy who has much less than 100K to put back....should HE be the one who bears the responsibility of maintaining things? And I still don't buy the trickle-down theory....

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[kallend 1,623]

Here are some interesting data on where federal tax money goes. The richest households are actually taking more than the middle classes.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Here are some interesting data on where federal tax money goes. The richest households are actually taking more than the middle classes.

that doesn't particularly surprise me. It does bother me that such a chunk is spent on the folks who aren't contributing...but, like I said, I recognize that we're not all gonna agree on how that money should be spent...

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[KJM 0]

I usually just lurk here but I couldnt resist chiming in. Your hypothetical doesnt make sense. Why would you declare that 20000 as income? That money would be an investment in your business and would be %100 tax deductable, the people you paid that money to would be responsible for the tax. You would just be required to send in a form 1099 on them at the end of the year

[KelliJ 0]

Quote

Here are some interesting data on where federal tax money goes. The richest households are actually taking more than the middle classes.

I'm going to volunteer some help, Professor. (Yeah, I know...who woulda thunk)
The chart you posted is compelling, but would be even more so if, instead of just showing where the dollars went, it also showed where those dollars came from, i.e. Joe Smith paid $10,000 in taxes and got back $12,000 in services.

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

So you think someone ELSE should pay for the public services that YOU use.

With an entitlement attitude like yours it's easy to see why the self employed and small business owners are the biggest tax cheats.

So....I was making the point that a highly progressive income tax is punitive and not conducive to growing the economy and you countered by making the point that I have an entitlement attitude and that I'm probalbly a tax cheat?

Methinks you weren't the captain of your high school debate team.

Tell you what, why don't I do it this way. Under the current tax code, (which, if I haven't made it clear should be replaced by the FairTax) what I'll do is go ahead and hire those folks, but roll the money back into my business rather than take it out as income. In a several years, if I work hard enough to cultivate my little seedling it could easily be generating an revenue stream of 50k per year. I can sell that piece of my business for 250k, pay capital gains of only 15% on the 150k. I've beaten the Marxist tax code, I haven't cheated, and you're still paying for most of my "entitlement" programs.

By the way in an earlier post you mentioned the US Constitution. If you actually read it, it prohibits a direct tax on the citizens. It took the 16th amendment to force the income tax on us.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

I usually just lurk here but I couldnt resist chiming in. Your hypothetical doesnt make sense. Why would you declare that 20000 as income? That money would be an investment in your business and would be %100 tax deductable, the people you paid that money to would be responsible for the tax. You would just be required to send in a form 1099 on them at the end of the year

You're right, to a degree. THe point is, I shouldn't have to make decisions on how I invest based on the tax code.

It is an over simplified example, but if a business generates 20k in income and it isn't paid out as salary (to the working owner) then its taxed at the corporate rate. (If I'm paying the entire 20k to employees then it's not a revenue stream, it is an expense, and I'm not making any money - not making a profit) Assuming it is a revenue stream, I can roll it back in as an investment after I pay corporate tax. They're gonna get you one way or the other.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

So you think someone ELSE should pay for the public services that YOU use.

With an entitlement attitude like yours it's easy to see why the self employed and small business owners are the biggest tax cheats.

So....I was making the point that a highly progressive income tax is punitive and not conducive to growing the economy and you countered by making the point that I have an entitlement attitude and that I'm probalbly a tax cheat?

Methinks you weren't the captain of your high school debate team.

.

Methinks you didn't excel at reading.

You DO have an entitlement attitude. That is EXACTLY what your posts suggest - that you should somehow get special treatment that regular worker bees don't get.

Small business owners already get tax breaks that the rest can't take, and you want more.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Here are some interesting data on where federal tax money goes. The richest households are actually taking more than the middle classes.

I'm going to volunteer some help, Professor. (Yeah, I know...who woulda thunk)
The chart you posted is compelling, but would be even more so if, instead of just showing where the dollars went, it also showed where those dollars came from, i.e. Joe Smith paid $10,000 in taxes and got back $12,000 in services.

You are at liberty to post it.

However, it shows very clearly that the "generic taxpayer" isn't just supporting the poor, she's also supporting the wealthy.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

I usually just lurk here but I couldnt resist chiming in. Your hypothetical doesnt make sense. Why would you declare that 20000 as income? That money would be an investment in your business and would be %100 tax deductable, the people you paid that money to would be responsible for the tax. You would just be required to send in a form 1099 on them at the end of the year

You're right, to a degree. THe point is, I shouldn't have to make decisions on how I invest based on the tax code.

It is an over simplified example, but if a business generates 20k in income and it isn't paid out as salary (to the working owner) then its taxed at the corporate rate. (If I'm paying the entire 20k to employees then it's not a revenue stream, it is an expense, and I'm not making any money - not making a profit) Assuming it is a revenue stream, I can roll it back in as an investment after I pay corporate tax. They're gonna get you one way or the other.

How do you feel about multi-millionaire investment fund managers paying tax at a far lower rate than you do?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Small business owners already get tax breaks that the rest can't take, and you want more.

The US has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world.

No effective business absorbs that overhead. It gets passed on to all of us. That is the way it will always be, and it spans every sector of industry.

Everyone bitches about how much some medications cost, they don't think that a company invests tens/hundreds of millions of dollars to create, test, approve said medication.

Everyone bitches about the cost of a plane ticket, the pilots, crews and airport hubs are not free...never mind fuel costs (which get passed in full to the consumer taxes and all).

A fair tax would actually lower the cost of goods before a tax rate is applied and is based on consumption.

I would love to see that applied across the country, but only until the Constitution gets rewritten, striking the 16th Amendment off the table - completely.

To those that don't think it would work, look at states like Tennessee and Florida.

Barring that, a flat tax is the next best solution.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!