12-24-2013 03:44 PM
183 1234 ...
tools
  1. palandri's Avatar
    I see your point. No American politician would ever run on a platform of higher taxes because that would make them appear socialist or communist. Would it be better to say the left believes in raising taxes for the wealthy?
    No!. It's all about equity. We are suppose to have a progressive tax system, the more you make, the more you pay. It starts out progressive and then becomes regressive. We learned that in the last election. Warren Buffet brought this to light. Warren Buffett and His Secretary Talk Taxes - ABC News Romney also pays a smaller % of his gross income than we do. That isn't fair, even a flat tax would be more equitable. Giving capital gain tax breaks to people making over $250,000, doesn't help people making under $250,000. Not having to pay social security tax on income above a certain amount, isn't fair... and on and on. It's all about equity.

    Also taxes don't equate to socialism or communism.
    11-11-2013 07:46 PM
  2. Aquila's Avatar
    Also taxes don't equate to socialism or communism.
    I'm inclined to agree. In socialism or communism ... you wouldn't have an income to tax because the state owns everything and is basically loaning it to you. At least in a pure form. In practice, most socialist and communist countries do have income, and taxes. China has a progressive income tax and the relative impact to citizens of different brackets (I think they have 7 brackets) is actually fairly equitable. I'm doing this from memory, so forgive it if it's inaccurate, but I think their taxes range from 2% to 40% and is paid monthly. It's basically your taxable income - a set exemption rate (everyone is the same) times the tax rate minus a value that changes relative to the bracket. For the lowest bracket it's 0% deducted and ranges up to like 15% at the highest bracket. It might sound complicated (not sure), but anyone there can calculate their monthly taxes in 10 seconds or so.
    11-11-2013 07:57 PM
  3. NoYankees44's Avatar
    No!. It's all about equity. We are suppose to have a progressive tax system, the more you make, the more you pay. It starts out progressive and then becomes regressive. We learned that in the last election. Warren Buffet brought this to light. Warren Buffett and His Secretary Talk Taxes - ABC News Romney also pays a smaller % of his gross income than we do. That isn't fair, even a flat tax would be more equitable. Giving capital gain tax breaks to people making over $250,000, doesn't help people making under $250,000. Not having to pay social security tax on income above a certain amount, isn't fair... and on and on. It's all about equity.

    Also taxes don't equate to socialism or communism.
    Did Romney ever actually release his tax info? If not then how would we ever know?
    palandri likes this.
    11-12-2013 06:39 AM
  4. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Not sure that the left wants to raise taxes or the right wants to lower taxes generically, though on some specific taxes, that's true. Both seem pretty interested in lowering it for certain groups and raising it for certain groups and the make up of those groups changes depending on if you want a progressive or regressive tax and whether it should be progressive or regressive in principle, in practice or both.

    For example, while having everyone pay the exact same tax rate (as a % of income) sounds fair, in practice it hits the poor and working classes far harder than it hits the middle and upper classes. Obviously not in total dollars, but in relative impact on quality of living. If taxes were a straight 5%, a person making $150,000 per year would owe $7,500. However, that $7,500 would come out of their savings and/or budget for things not necessary for survival, like 2nd+ homes, 2nd+cars, investments, extra vacations, etc, or out of the relative value of things they are able to purchase. A person making $15,000 per year would owe $750, but that's coming out of food, heat, rent or they're giving something up to manage that.

    All that being said, the middle class person is still paying 10x more real cash and can easily resent that and feel that anything that gives a break to the poor person or adds a tax burden to themselves is punitive because they're thinking about dollars, not relative spending power. The reality is that a tiny percentage of people receive that vast majority of income in the US and pay a directly proportionate amount of the total tax burden, while nearly half of the country does not make enough money to even end up owing a federal income tax. They still obviously pay into medicare, social security and their state taxes, where applicable, + a ton of sales taxes, gas taxes, etc so they're clearly contributing at a much higher rate as a % of income, however in total dollars it's amounting to next to nothing relative to the total revenue stream aggregate.

    A progressive tax theoretically aims to balance the relative spending power burden across the population, however that ends with a very complicated and ultimately still unfair distribution of burden. As a conservative I can see the value of attempting to level the actual impact felt by each citizen rather than focusing on dollars, but I think we should totally rethink the concept of government revenue and move away from a system that taxes citizens directly, whether via income or through sales.


    As it is, given that currency circulates, each dollar received by a working class person (spends the majority of their income with very little investment or savings) is being taxed so many times it's outright ridiculous. A dollar is printed, sold to the government (at interest), loaned to a bank, paid to a person or company, spent (taxed), received (taxed), and then respent by the new recipient (taxed again), received obviously (taxed taxed taxed), and so on, and so forth until that dollar has been taxed for far more than the value that it ever had to begin with... and interest is still owed (and the money for that interest was never created). Inflation is the highest tax (obvious) against the people, and these cycles are a big part of why. It is somewhat a blessing that upwards of 96% of the "currency" that exists has never been printed or existed as anything other than an electronically traded debt. There are far fewer taxes on the 96% than on the 4 that people are actually trading constantly.


    This is how a Democratic government behaves with tax revenue:


    This is how a Republican government behaves with tax revenue:


    It's just a matter of who they say they want to screw over the least (while on camera).
    A tax system that is fair:
    Completely sales tax. Every area(at least divided by state if not all the way down to city/county level) has a standard living tax deduction that they receive every year. In other words, if you only pay to live, you effectively pay no taxes. Every dollar you spend over the cost of living is taxed. That way no one is taxed to live or survive, but everyone is taxed after that point. The "poor" are unaffected by taxes, but anyone over the that line pays proportionally to how much they spend.

    Right now we tax people only on the principal of them making money. If you make alot of money, we take alot of your money. This system would not punish people for making alot of money, it would tax people based on how much they spend. The "rich" would still pay the vast majority of taxes, but it would be based on them living rich lifestyles, not based on them just being rich.
    palandri likes this.
    11-12-2013 06:50 AM
  5. A895's Avatar
    A tax system that is fair:
    Completely sales tax. Every area(at least divided by state if not all the way down to city/county level) has a standard living tax deduction that they receive every year. In other words, if you only pay to live, you effectively pay no taxes. Every dollar you spend over the cost of living is taxed. That way no one is taxed to live or survive, but everyone is taxed after that point. The "poor" are unaffected by taxes, but anyone over the that line pays proportionally to how much they spend.

    Right now we tax people only on the principal of them making money. If you make alot of money, we take alot of your money. This system would not punish people for making alot of money, it would tax people based on how much they spend. The "rich" would still pay the vast majority of taxes, but it would be based on them living rich lifestyles, not based on them just being rich.
    I never understood what's the problem with high taxes if you can afford it. If you made $150000 what's wrong with paying around $15000 in taxes? Some rich act like taxes make them so poor. You can afford it so stop whining about it. Its those who make way less that taxes hurt, regardless of what percentage. Any Monet taken out for taxes is money taken away to live when it comes to those low income. When I lived in NY working at McDonalds or a retail or fast food place was the way people managed to live and survive. Especially where I was from, some were lucky to even have a job. Luckily there's tax time so that's always a bright spot in any low income persons year.

    Posted via Android Central App
    11-12-2013 07:21 AM
  6. palandri's Avatar
    Did Romney ever actually release his tax info? If not then how would we ever know?
    He said, "I never paid less than 13%" Romney: ‘I never paid less than 13 percent’ in taxes
    11-12-2013 07:30 AM
  7. Aquila's Avatar
    A tax system that is fair:
    Completely sales tax. Every area(at least divided by state if not all the way down to city/county level) has a standard living tax deduction that they receive every year. In other words, if you only pay to live, you effectively pay no taxes. Every dollar you spend over the cost of living is taxed. That way no one is taxed to live or survive, but everyone is taxed after that point. The "poor" are unaffected by taxes, but anyone over the that line pays proportionally to how much they spend.

    Right now we tax people only on the principal of them making money. If you make alot of money, we take alot of your money. This system would not punish people for making alot of money, it would tax people based on how much they spend. The "rich" would still pay the vast majority of taxes, but it would be based on them living rich lifestyles, not based on them just being rich.
    Makes sense to a point, until you consider the imbalance in % of income outgoing. It still results in a situation where the more you make, the less of your income is taxed.

    That's the exact case of regressive, even if it exempts the poor and working class, the result is very little changed from today's effective rates except for much less revenue or more weight on the middle class.

    What I'd be in favor of is something that completely rethinks the issue, rather than trying to decide who to punish and why. A progressive income tax may not be right, but a regressive tax is definitely wrong. If the wealthiest cannot afford more taxes, then the rest of the citizens definitely cannot by a much larger factor.

    XT1060. Through spacetime.
    11-12-2013 07:31 AM
  8. palandri's Avatar
    A tax system that is fair:
    Completely sales tax. Every area(at least divided by state if not all the way down to city/county level) has a standard living tax deduction that they receive every year. In other words, if you only pay to live, you effectively pay no taxes. Every dollar you spend over the cost of living is taxed. That way no one is taxed to live or survive, but everyone is taxed after that point. The "poor" are unaffected by taxes, but anyone over the that line pays proportionally to how much they spend.

    Right now we tax people only on the principal of them making money. If you make alot of money, we take alot of your money. This system would not punish people for making alot of money, it would tax people based on how much they spend. The "rich" would still pay the vast majority of taxes, but it would be based on them living rich lifestyles, not based on them just being rich.
    There you go again with common sense and equity.

    It certainly sounds more equitable than what we have now. Would people start purchasing overseas? Would there be any exemption made, like, if you make over $50K in purchases?
    11-12-2013 07:44 AM
  9. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Makes sense to a point, until you consider the imbalance in % of income outgoing. It still results in a situation where the more you make, the less of your income is taxed.

    That's the exact case of regressive, even if it exempts the poor and working class, the result is very little changed from today's effective rates except for much less revenue or more weight on the middle class.

    What I'd be in favor of is something that completely rethinks the issue, rather than trying to decide who to punish and why. A progressive income tax may not be right, but a regressive tax is definitely wrong. If the wealthiest cannot afford more taxes, then the rest of the citizens definitely cannot by a much larger factor.

    XT1060. Through spacetime.
    The system i described takes income out of the equation. Why must income be considered at all? If someone wants to make 10 million a year and not spend any more that it takes for them to live, then they can and not pay any taxes. Where if someone chooses to live to the peak of their means, then they choose to pay a high percentage of taxes.

    Under the current system we say: "Well you are successful so screw you. You are obligated to pay for everyone else."
    11-12-2013 07:51 AM
  10. NoYankees44's Avatar
    There you go again with common sense and equity.

    It certainly sounds more equitable than what we have now. Would people start purchasing overseas? Would there be any exemption made, like, if you make over $50K in purchases?
    I am not sure why we would need exemptions, but if the economy started slowing, it would be a great way to stimulate it.

    And common sense is a very underrated quality
    11-12-2013 07:56 AM
  11. NoYankees44's Avatar
    I never understood what's the problem with high taxes if you can afford it. If you made $150000 what's wrong with paying around $15000 in taxes? Some rich act like taxes make them so poor. You can afford it so stop whining about it. Its those who make way less that taxes hurt, regardless of what percentage. Any Monet taken out for taxes is money taken away to live when it comes to those low income. When I lived in NY working at McDonalds or a retail or fast food place was the way people managed to live and survive. Especially where I was from, some were lucky to even have a job. Luckily there's tax time so that's always a bright spot in any low income persons year.

    Posted via Android Central App
    Well fundamentally that logic is flawed because it does not dictate or imply any sort of limit. By that logic, there should be a ceiling a person is not allowed to make over. Any more would go straight to taxes.

    But beyond that, it has to do with invested interest. The cliff notes of this being: If someone does not have any wealth invested in a system but still benefit from the system, then they have no reason to care for the well being of the system or want to actually invest into it. Like living in someone else's house without paying rent, but still having a say in the finances of the house.

    Even further than that, that logic promotes envy in a very destructive way. You say "suck it up pay more" to someone that makes more than you, but what is to stop someone that makes less than you to say the same thing to you? The bottom controls the top until there is no top. There is only bottom. The top were either taxed to the bottom or took their wealth(and probably jobs they control) to countries that allow them to be successful.
    11-12-2013 08:16 AM
  12. palandri's Avatar
    ..... or took their wealth(and probably jobs they control) to countries that allow them to be successful.
    That's why I question the patriotism of people that do that. Their main priority is wealth. rather than the welfare of the country. That has, "ME" and "SELFISHNESS" written all over it rather than, "WE"

    ...and when they do that, we should make sure the door hits them on the way out and cut them off from the U.S. marketplace. I am tired of whiners!

    Addendum: Let me also add it also happens at local level.ie, If I don't get $500 million in tax dollars for a new football stadium, I am moving the team to a city where I can be successful. That comes so close to extortion, like I said, I am tired of whiners!
    11-12-2013 08:34 AM
  13. NoYankees44's Avatar
    That's why I question the patriotism of people that do that. Their main priority is wealth. rather than the welfare of the country. That has, "ME" and "SELFISHNESS" written all over it rather than, "WE"

    ...and when they do that, we should make sure the door hits them on the way out and cut them off from the U.S. marketplace. I am tired of whiners!

    Addendum: Let me also add it also happens at local level.ie, If I don't get $500 million in tax dollars for a new football stadium, I am moving the team to a city where I can be successful. That comes so close to extortion, like I said, I am tired of whiners!
    No they want to control their money however they choose. Does that mean selfish desires sometimes. Sure. Does that also mean helping others in ways that they personally deem worthy instead of however the government bureaucracy deems worthy? YES! And that is where the argument breaks down.

    You see it is their money. They can do whatever they want with it. YOU have no right to tell them what to do with it. If they want to under pay employees, that is their right and it is none of our business. You as a consumer can choose to not give them business or not work there, but that is as far as your control goes. Enviously attempting to force them to do what you think is "right" through the government only punishes those caught in the crossfire(consumers, employees, economy, ect.)

    If a city does not want to meet a sports team owner's demands, the sports team can go somewhere else. I don't see a problem here. If a city wants a team, they can choose to meet demands or buy their own team(Green Bay Packers) or decide that they cant afford a team at all.



    You use the "We" analogy alot. Let me make an observation here: Your "We" only encompasses those you deem need to be in the "We", and you imply that people that have views similar to myself only think about "Me." It is actually the opposite. I only think about "We", but my we encompasses the entire society. Those at the top and the bottom and everyone in between, and in particular, those that want to go from the bottom to the top. I know that if i first think about me, and you first think about you, and everyone else first thinks about themselves, that when we need to come together as a society we can all work together as strong individuals instead of divided into classes against each other. I recolonize that we are all linked and that punishing the top also punishes the bottom. You cannot pull up the bottom by forcing down the top. You can however pull everyone up as a group.
    11-12-2013 10:00 AM
  14. palandri's Avatar
    @NoYankees44

    All your life experiences mold you into who you are today. All my life experiences mold me into who I am today. We see things quite differently.

    Let me make a patriotic statement, "America love it, or leave it". If someone wants to take, (your quote) "...their wealth(and probably jobs they control) to countries that allow them to be successful", that's fine with me, and your right, (your quote) " ...YOU have no right to tell them what to do with it...". Here's where I take it a step further, I am going to make sure the door hits them on the way out and cut them off from the American marketplace. If they want to leave, fine leave, but they aren't going to come back and get the sugar.
    11-12-2013 11:03 AM
  15. A895's Avatar
    @NoYankees44

    All your life experiences mold you into who you are today. All my life experiences mold me into who I am today. We see things quite differently.

    Let me make a patriotic statement, "America love it, or leave it". If someone wants to take, (your quote) "...their wealth(and probably jobs they control) to countries that allow them to be successful", that's fine with me, and your right, (your quote) " ...YOU have no right to tell them what to do with it...". Here's where I take it a step further, I am going to make sure the door hits them on the way out and cut them off from the American marketplace. If they want to leave, fine leave, but they aren't going to come back and get the sugar.
    I like the way you think. If they don't want to support their own country's economy then they can't be a part of it at all. To many companies out source work and their own money out side of the country yet they want to sell their products here, that does not help us at all.

    Posted via Android Central App
    palandri likes this.
    11-12-2013 11:12 AM
  16. NoYankees44's Avatar
    @NoYankees44

    All your life experiences mold you into who you are today. All my life experiences mold me into who I am today. We see things quite differently.

    Let me make a patriotic statement, "America love it, or leave it". If someone wants to take, (your quote) "...their wealth(and probably jobs they control) to countries that allow them to be successful", that's fine with me, and your right, (your quote) " ...YOU have no right to tell them what to do with it...". Here's where I take it a step further, I am going to make sure the door hits them on the way out and cut them off from the American marketplace. If they want to leave, fine leave, but they aren't going to come back and get the sugar.
    You are right. They have every right to leave and we as a society can make it a painful process. OR we could make this country the most business friendly country on earth and have companies coming here instead of leaving.

    My experiences in life have told me not to bite the hand that feeds you. Yours seem to have told you to not only bite it when you are dissatisfied, but curse it on the way out the door.
    11-12-2013 02:37 PM
  17. A895's Avatar
    You are right. They have every right to leave and we as a society can make it a painful process. OR we could make this country the most business friendly country on earth and have companies coming here instead of leaving.

    My experiences in life have told me not to bite the hand that feeds you. Yours seem to have told you to not only bite it when you are dissatisfied, but curse it on the way out the door.
    So suck up to companies, you say?

    Posted via Android Central App
    11-12-2013 02:54 PM
  18. NoYankees44's Avatar
    So suck up to companies, you say?

    Posted via Android Central App
    Understand that there cannot be a successful economy without successful companies I say.
    11-12-2013 03:10 PM
  19. palandri's Avatar
    You are right. They have every right to leave and we as a society can make it a painful process. OR we could make this country the most business friendly country on earth and have companies coming here instead of leaving.
    A common thought process on making our country more business friendly is to lower taxes, well that doesn't fly when common folk see this, "26 Major Corporations Paid No Corporate Income Tax For The Last Four Years, Despite Making Billions In Profits" 26 Major Corporations Paid No Taxes For The Last Four Years Then when you look at small business, most are "S" corporations and the only tax paid is income tax on a payroll check, so that doesn't fly with common folk.

    Another common thought process on making our country more business friendly are eliminating regulations. Things like eliminating OSHA, eliminate regulations that protect workers from harm. Eliminating strict pollution regulation, so we can all breath in smog everyday like they do in China. Eliminate the FTC and make the game of Monopoly come to real life... and so on..

    So what's left? Let's stick it to labor. I remember Bush pushing for the elimination of overtime, that's not going to fly with common folk. Michele Bachmann & I believe it was Ron Paul brought up the possibility of lowering the minimum wage to bring jobs back to the U.S. Michele Bachmann Would Consider Lowering Minimum Wage To Match The Cost Of Labor Overseas -

    My experiences in life have told me not to bite the hand that feeds you. Yours seem to have told you to not only bite it when you are dissatisfied, but curse it on the way out the door.
    I am only looking for equity and fairness.
    11-12-2013 03:54 PM
  20. NoYankees44's Avatar
    A common thought process on making our country more business friendly is to lower taxes, well that doesn't fly when common folk see this, "26 Major Corporations Paid No Corporate Income Tax For The Last Four Years, Despite Making Billions In Profits" 26 Major Corporations Paid No Taxes For The Last Four Years Then when you look at small business, most are "S" corporations and the only tax paid is income tax on a payroll check, so that doesn't fly with common folk.

    Another common thought process on making our country more business friendly are eliminating regulations. Things like eliminating OSHA, eliminate regulations that protect workers from harm. Eliminating strict pollution regulation, so we can all breath in smog everyday like they do in China. Eliminate the FTC and made the game of Monopoly come to real life... and so on..

    So what's left? Let's stick it to labor. I remember Bush pushing for the elimination of overtime, that's not going to fly with common folk. Michele Bachmann & I believe it was Ron Paul brought up the possibility of lowering the minimum wage to bring jobs back to the U.S. Michele Bachmann Would Consider Lowering Minimum Wage To Match The Cost Of Labor Overseas -



    I am only looking for equity and fairness.
    I don't support corporate tax in general, so that does no bother me. A business is not a person. Don't treat it like one.

    You and I both know that there are thousands of regulations in this country only meant to fund and sustain the government instead of safety or well being. Most of this can be cut out. I actually deal with OSHA regulations every single day at work. Sure most of the regulations are in in the right place, but many just have me scratching my head. Expecially when I have to buy something that is based on one of their standards. I can usually find something else cheaper and safer but have to use the OSHA one.

    Lowering minimum wage, while I am not sure it is the best course of action, would not bother me much either. If there are jobs worth less than minimum wage to be had, then minimum wage is too high.



    Fairness and equality? Everyone can apply for jobs. No one is forced to work anywhere. No one is forced to take a wage they are not satisfied with. Everyone is free to work where they want, buy from who they want, and pay what they want. Sounds like a pretty fair system to me.

    Fair does not mean "my boss makes more than me and is evil". Nor does it mean "there are people that don't have a lot, so we must take from those that have more". Fair means equal opportunity for success. Not guaranteed success.
    11-12-2013 04:12 PM
  21. A895's Avatar
    I don't support corporate tax in general, so that does no bother me. A business is not a person. Don't treat it like one.

    You and I both know that there are thousands of regulations in this country only meant to fund and sustain the government instead of safety or well being. Most of this can be cut out. I actually deal with OSHA regulations every single day at work. Sure most of the regulations are in in the right place, but many just have me scratching my head. Expecially when I have to buy something that is based on one of their standards. I can usually find something else cheaper and safer but have to use the OSHA one.

    Lowering minimum wage, while I am not sure it is the best course of action, would not bother me much either. If there are jobs worth less than minimum wage to be had, then minimum wage is too high.



    Fairness and equality? Everyone can apply for jobs. No one is forced to work anywhere. No one is forced to take a wage they are not satisfied with. Everyone is free to work where they want, buy from who they want, and pay what they want. Sounds like a pretty fair system to me.

    Fair does not mean "my boss makes more than me and is evil". Nor does it mean "there are people that don't have a lot, so we must take from those that have more". Fair means equal opportunity for success. Not guaranteed success.
    Why can't we tax corporations? They have all the $$$$. Wouldn't be much of a corporation if they didn't.

    Posted via Android Central App
    11-12-2013 05:12 PM
  22. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Why can't we tax corporations? They have all the $$$$. Wouldn't be much of a corporation if they didn't.

    Posted via Android Central App
    You dont tax something simply because it generates money. You avoid taxing things that the economy and jobs and prices of goods depend on. Corporations provide jobs and can grow or shrink depending on profits. Taxing them automatically decreases profits and thus decreasing their potential to growth and the possibility of more jobs and contribution to the economy.
    11-12-2013 05:20 PM
  23. Aquila's Avatar
    You dont tax something simply because it generates money. You avoid taxing things that the economy and jobs and prices of goods depend on. Corporations provide jobs and can grow or shrink depending on profits. Taxing them automatically decreases profits and thus decreasing their potential to growth and the possibility of more jobs and contribution to the economy.
    At the same time, not taxing them causes them to offshore the cash and not spend it on anything, thus it helps no one at all. It's somewhat understandable that companies don't want to reinvest right now because the economy is directionally uncertain, however it's in no small way on shaky ground because the old concept that you're describing of businesses reinvesting in the communities and the economy is simply not true anymore, at least not to the extend that it used to be and that relationship would have had to have strengthened rather than been abandoned, in order for parity to exist today.
    11-12-2013 05:30 PM
  24. NoYankees44's Avatar
    At the same time, not taxing them causes them to offshore the cash and not spend it on anything, thus it helps no one at all. It's somewhat understandable that companies don't want to reinvest right now because the economy is directionally uncertain, however it's in no small way on shaky ground because the old concept that you're describing of businesses reinvesting in the communities and the economy is simply not true anymore, at least not to the extend that it used to be and that relationship would have had to have strengthened rather than been abandoned, in order for parity to exist today.
    I could maybe see the argument for off shore accounts, but in what way would taxes ever effect spending the money? Having less to spend probably effects it.

    Businesses reinvest in themselves as long as they believe there is more money to be made. When the government is hostile towards businesses, they are much less likely to believe that investment is worth the risk.

    We one of the highest if not the highest(we are competing with Japan I believe) corporate tax rates in the world. I don't know how anyone can be Ok with that.

    Taxing someone or something out of prosperity does nothing to help those in poverty.
    11-12-2013 06:04 PM
  25. Aquila's Avatar
    I could maybe see the argument for off shore accounts, but in what way would taxes ever effect spending the money? Having less to spend probably effects it.

    Businesses reinvest in themselves as long as they believe there is more money to be made. When the government is hostile towards businesses, they are much less likely to believe that investment is worth the risk.
    I'm saying the assumption of reinvestment etc is incorrect now. It's a two fold problem. The economy sucks so businesses are being careful and businesses being too careful is making the economy suck more than it otherwise would. Self perpetuating cycle. The only way that I can see out of that cycle is to provide an incentive for reinvestment.

    We one of the highest if not the highest(we are competing with Japan I believe) corporate tax rates in the world. I don't know how anyone can be Ok with that.
    We have one of the highest marginal rates (I think it is the highest now), but one of the lowest effective rates. The difference being what is theoretically due on paper vs what is actually paid after adjustments, offsets, etc. Addressing the marginal rate was something both 2012 candidates said they were going to do. One was going to lower it by around 28% to 28% and the other was going to lower it by 36% to 25%. What happened to either of those plans?

    Big companies are not the ones hurt by the marginal tax rate. They pay next to nothing, if not literally nothing. It's the tiny corporations without billions to shake around creatively that get hit by tax rates that are actually in the 25-35% (marginal rate is 39%) and some companies, due to previous loss offsets actually can pay MORE than the marginal rate. Honestly, the giant corporations CAN afford it and would barely notice it in their expenses, given compounding deductions. The small companies are the ones actually bearing the weight and they're the ones that can take it the least. They also reinvest the most, because that's an easy way to avoid taxes. You pay money on profits, so reinvesting those profits converts it to an expense, lowering your pre-tax margin and thus lowing your total tax bill.

    Taxing someone or something out of prosperity does nothing to help those in poverty.
    Right, taxes should not be punitive. What I'd like to see is something that has parity in the amount of relative damage it does to each person's (average) profit and loss sheets. The current system of tiered brackets is too complicated for most people to intuitively grasp, but it (personal taxes) comes very close to attempting to create a balance, even if it's done in an imperfect way. There are several easy opportunities to improve it without drastically impacting anyone. Minor adjustments with big aggregate impact. The Corporate structure needs to be rethought entirely, and while I'd strongly oppose doing away with it, I could easily accept a plan that lowers the total for companies that are doing the things we as a society would like them to do. Incentives are great; trying to punish people or companies is dumb.
    11-12-2013 06:22 PM
183 1234 ...

Similar Threads

  1. On the umi x2 how do you determine what bloatware to remove
    By hoben02 in forum Misc. Android Phones
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-26-2014, 05:09 PM
  2. Anyone choosing the G2 over the Note 3?
    By SCD23x in forum Sprint LG G2
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-31-2013, 11:15 PM
  3. HTC One - Question about the TV app (Cable Box brand)
    By Grant Rosen in forum HTC One M7
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-30-2013, 02:15 PM
  4. Finally Made the Move
    By TomK1965 in forum LG G2
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-30-2013, 09:37 AM
  5. When will the Note 10.1 2014 edition be in Canada
    By n3xtgen in forum General News & Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-30-2013, 05:55 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD