Romney: "Obama supporters are dependent on the government" [Archive] - Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums

tmckay2

09-18-2012, 12:31

most people are in total support of a new tax code that simplifies things and closes loopholes. loopholes are the result of ridiculous governmental regulations. but the issue at hand isn't closing the loopholes, too many people are fighting scrapping the code and starting over and thats really what needs to happen to close the loopholes. the issue at hand is simply raising the taxes on the wealthy and corporations. in the current economic times, i don't think thats a good idea. so while i hate the loopholes, and hope they disappear, i don't support raising the taxes to try to recover taxes from them.

Decent article (http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/18/secret-romney-tape-means-we-can-finally) about this.

I find it amazing that the Left either will not accept that half of us are working to support the other half, or are just fine with it. I always remember that Margaret Thatcher quote when I hear this statistic: "They [socialists] always run out of other people's money."

I find it equally amazing that the Right, while crying about how many people do not pay income tax, don't have a word to say about all the tax loopholes that allow monstrous corporations like GE and BofA not only to not pay a dime in taxes, but actually receive a tax return. Meanwhile, I have to write a huge check every April because the percentage they took out of my paychecks wasn't enough.

Aloha_Shooter

09-18-2012, 12:43

Ronin13

09-18-2012, 13:59

I just listened to Rush on 850 while driving back from lunch, and he was talking about exactly this issue of the "secret video." He harped on the point that the dems are attack Romney now because "this video got out." It didn't get out, it is not new information, 47% are not paying taxes. The fact of the matter is, the democrats want the populace to be ignorant and dependent on them forever, they want their autonomous people to beg for their help. They say they're compassionate when Obama takes away the work requirement for welfare... what? Are you kidding. But the Republicans are evil because we want everyone to better their lives and not be dependent on the government. The government won't help you, they don't give two flying leaps about you. The government's sole purpose at the creation of this once great nation was to represent the people and their interests, and to protect them from foreign invaders. That's really, when you boil it down, about all they were intended to do. Rush also said that the republicans are in fact more compassionate because we want people to make their own way, achieve their own success, and not get hand outs from some big brother type that will only bleed those who are working and doing it on their own dry. All in all, the Republicans aren't all bad, they only want people to do things themselves, not have the government pay their bills for them.

Teufelhund

09-18-2012, 14:37

I think that's a false premise. There have been a lot of people on the right decrying tax loopholes starting with Dick Armey, Jon Kasich and Paul Ryan. In fact, IIRC the GOP agreed several times to eliminate tax loopholes if O'Bummer would agree to return to Reaganesque rates but of course the Democrats refused to even consider rate reductions.

I'm sure you're right. Not any more false than saying all Dems are socialists though, and that one gets thrown around a lot. I'm glad there are prominent Republicans proposing such common sense moves, but I wish they could just do it for the good of the country, and not because they want something in return from the Dems.

dwalker460

09-18-2012, 14:59

I find it equally amazing that the Right, while crying about how many people do not pay income tax, don't have a word to say about all the tax loopholes that allow monstrous corporations like GE and BofA not only to not pay a dime in taxes, but actually receive a tax return. Meanwhile, I have to write a huge check every April because the percentage they took out of my paychecks wasn't enough.

I think you need to pull that bus over to the side of the Pretentiousness Highway. Republicans want lower taxes and to give business (also known in some circles as corporations) the ability to do business. This not only provides the goods and services we Americans enjoy, but also has a weird side effect of providing jobs. Tax breaks sometimes helps this, but should be used very sparingly. I know of many small businesses who receive tax breaks for relocation, purchase of new equipment etc. which enables them to do better business.

HOWEVER- this can be abused- GE is a perfect example, and I do NOT believe Romney or Ryan or pretty much any actual Republican agrees with any form of abuse.

Hey, BTW, want to know how to lower taxes? End all social programs. Thats what Churches and other organizations are for. End all subsidies for energy independence and other technological boondoggles. If the private sector thinks money can be made there, they will damned sure pay for the research. END as much of this dependence on the government to provide for over half of the population- which they do by taxing the crap out of the other half- and taxes will drop. Inflation might actually recede to reasonable levels.

Teufelhund

09-18-2012, 15:27

I think you need to pull that bus over to the side of the Pretentiousness Highway. Republicans want lower taxes and to give business (also known in some circles as corporations) the ability to do business. This not only provides the goods and services we Americans enjoy, but also has a weird side effect of providing jobs. Tax breaks sometimes helps this, but should be used very sparingly. I know of many small businesses who receive tax breaks for relocation, purchase of new equipment etc. which enables them to do better business.

HOWEVER- this can be abused- GE is a perfect example, and I do NOT believe Romney or Ryan or pretty much any actual Republican agrees with any form of abuse.

Hey, BTW, want to know how to lower taxes? End all social programs. Thats what Churches and other organizations are for. End all subsidies for energy independence and other technological boondoggles. If the private sector thinks money can be made there, they will damned sure pay for the research. END as much of this dependence on the government to provide for over half of the population- which they do by taxing the crap out of the other half- and taxes will drop. Inflation might actually recede to reasonable levels.

I did get a giggle out of that, but I'm not sure how I was being pretentious. I'm just a little sick of paying (at least) my fair share and watching that amount increase (along with the deficit) to make up the difference for those who are receiving entitlements, breaks, and credits.

I agree with you, ending/limiting the handouts would ease a lot of the burden. The abuse, however, is not such a rare occurrence that we should just shrug it off by saying we don't condone it and then doing nothing to change it.

We pay for those goods and services we enjoy; they aren't given to us for free just because a company is enjoying the benefit of not having to pay taxes. If the company has a good business model, is providing a worthwhile product, and isn't pricing themselves out of the market just so the CEO can get another $1.2M bonus this quarter, they will thrive regardless of having to pay taxes like the rest of us, and jobs will still be created. It should not be my responsibility to pay more in taxes to keep the country afloat all in the name of allowing some company to maintain their 400% profit margin. That's the beauty of a free market. Grow or die.

Rucker61

09-18-2012, 19:13

Decent article (http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/18/secret-romney-tape-means-we-can-finally) about this.

I find it amazing that the Left either will not accept that half of us are working to support the other half, or are just fine with it. I always remember that Margaret Thatcher quote when I hear this statistic: "They [socialists] always run out of other people's money."

What makes everyone think that the 47% who don't pay federal income tax aren't working? Plenty of them work, they just don't make enough money for income tax. They pay plenty of consumption taxes, as do the rest of us, and we all get to take advantage of those resources. All those folks picking fruit and vegetables work, hanging sheetrock, mopping floors, etc, work their asses off, but don't make enough to incur a federal tax burden. Sure, there are some lazy asses, but don't just paint with that wide of a brush. It's dishonest. That's a "liberal attribute" you don't want.

I find it equally amazing that the Right, while crying about how many people do not pay income tax, don't have a word to say about all the tax loopholes that allow monstrous corporations like GE and BofA not only to not pay a dime in taxes, but actually receive a tax return.

GE is one of the worst offenders, and the effective tax rate of the top four hundred corporations would surprise you when compared to your own tax rate.

Meanwhile, I have to write a huge check every April because the percentage they took out of my paychecks wasn't enough.

Me, too, but I'm having extra taken out. Our tax burden doesn't really change, and I like having my money instead of the government for the year, but my wife really hates that check going out.

Rucker61

09-18-2012, 19:29

I think that's a false premise. There have been a lot of people on the right decrying tax loopholes starting with Dick Armey, Jon Kasich and Paul Ryan. In fact, IIRC the GOP agreed several times to eliminate tax loopholes if O'Bummer would agree to return to Reaganesque rates but of course the Democrats refused to even consider rate reductions.

Which Reaganesque rates? The 50% maximum marginal rate with 20% capital gains tax of his first trem or the 28% maximum marginal rate with maximum of 28% capital gains tax that ended his second term? I can't see any rich people wanting to return to those rates, especially with no loopholes/exceptions.

Great-Kazoo

09-18-2012, 19:30

Teufelhund

09-18-2012, 20:11

What makes everyone think that the 47% who don't pay federal income tax aren't working? Plenty of them work, they just don't make enough money for income tax. They pay plenty of consumption taxes, as do the rest of us, and we all get to take advantage of those resources. All those folks picking fruit and vegetables work, hanging sheetrock, mopping floors, etc, work their asses off, but don't make enough to incur a federal tax burden. Sure, there are some lazy asses, but don't just paint with that wide of a brush. It's dishonest. That's a "liberal attribute" you don't want.

I worked for many years not making much, and never taking handouts from anyone. Including working on straight commission installing custom car stereo systems and several years in the military, I always got a refund check, but it has never, not once, been equal to the amount of taxes taken out of my check throughout the year. I admittedly don't know who these 47% are, but if it is true they do not pay any income tax, then they are not working at all, or they are claiming credits and breaks (e.g. "Oh I had another kid I can't feed, looks like I get another tax break.") that should be done away with. Irresponsibility and lack of initiative should not be rewarded any more than being able to afford a team of CPAs to exploit the system to get you the best return.

BTW, and I'm going to throw out another broad-stroke stereotype here just for you, a large portion of those vegetable pickers and sheetrock hangers, who do indeed work their asses off, are not paying income tax or consumption tax at all. That, however, is a different discussion.

GE is one of the worst offenders, and the effective tax rate of the top four hundred corporations would surprise you when compared to your own tax rate.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least. I know they're all guilty of taking advantage of a broken system to pay a smaller percentage (and often a smaller dollar amount) than I do, and as I stated earlier it pisses me off quite a bit.

Me, too, but I'm having extra taken out. Our tax burden doesn't really change, and I like having my money instead of the government for the year, but my wife really hates that check going out.

That's not quite the point. I understand there are choices to be made. I could change my withholding to get a smaller paycheck and not have to write such a large check (if any) in April. None of that changes how large a percentage of my income is going to the government (who spends it however the hell they want without my input), nor how little the upper and lower classes are contributing. The middle class alone cannot support the whole damned country, as evidenced by our climbing deficit.

Hootie, I like having you here to play devil's advocate. It gets boring when everyone gathers around for a circle jerk of agreeing with each other. [Beer]

Bailey Guns

09-18-2012, 20:19

I find it equally amazing that the Right, while crying about how many people do not pay income tax, don't have a word to say about all the tax loopholes that allow monstrous corporations like GE and BofA not only to not pay a dime in taxes, but actually receive a tax return. Meanwhile, I have to write a huge check every April because the percentage they took out of my paychecks wasn't enough.

As it's been pointed out there are plenty of people on the right who want to change our idiotic tax code. So I won't even get into that.

What I will argue is your concept that it's wrong for corporations to take advantage of "loopholes" in the tax code. Basically, I feel they're using the language in the code to their advantage. Are they gaming the system? Maybe. But it's the law and what they're doing is legal.

Whining about how the evil corporations get tax breaks through loopholes is a little silly in my opinion.

It reminds me of how liberals pissed and moaned during the assault weapons ban period that manufacturers were using "loopholes" in the law to get around the ban. Of course, they weren't using "loopholes", they were complying with the law. The liberals didn't like it because they tried to write an effective law without having a clue what they were doing in terms of guns and gun features.

Teufelhund

09-18-2012, 20:59

Rucker61

09-18-2012, 21:02

I worked for many years not making much, and never taking handouts from anyone. Including working on straight commission installing custom car stereo systems and several years in the military, I always got a refund check, but it has never, not once, been equal to the amount of taxes taken out of my check throughout the year. I admittedly don't know who these 47% are, but if it is true they do not pay any income tax, then they are not working at all, or they are claiming credits and breaks (e.g. "Oh I had another kid I can't feed, looks like I get another tax break.") that should be done away with. Irresponsibility and lack of initiative should not be rewarded any more than being able to afford a team of CPAs to exploit the system to get you the best return.

Here's an idea of who those 47% are, based on a little research from as non-partisan sites as I could find:

The 47% figure is from the 2009 tax year, which was the year in which the US suffered from its worst recession ever, and the 47% is the number of Americans not represented on a taxable return, so that includes stay at home moms and children.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/19/chart-of-the-week-nearly-half-of-all-americans-dont-pay-income-taxes/

For the 2009 tax year, the government granted a $500 per worker tax credit (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) that phased downward after $75k for singles and $150k income for couples, along with improved child credit, earned income credit, increased tax credits for college students and around $8k in tax credits to first time home buyers, among other benefits. With all these tax credits, it's not a surprise that fewer people owed income tax than before.

Current US population is around 300 million, so 47% is about 140 million Americans.

Current welfare recipients (Aid for Families with Dependent Children) number about 15 million. Over half of those stay on welfare for less than two years. It's statistically likely that a substantial portion of these recipients are minors and not eligible to work.

Social Security pays out money to just over 38 million retired folks a month. Disabled recipients including the blind and wounded veterans were another 12 million, 3 million or so survivor children also receive SS benefits. EDIT: if half of your SS benefits plus your other gross income is more than $25,000 ($32,000 if married filing jointly), then you will need to file a return.

Read more: http://www.mydollarplan.com/money-file-taxes/#ixzz26sj25W5e

Current unemployment figures show that 13 million people in the workforce don't have sufficient employee. Granted this number is an estimate and could be higher, but let's use it for our calculations. It's simple math, so you can modify it for your own views.

Given that welfare recipients and Social Security recipients likely don't pay federal income tax taxes, and neither do most of the umemployed, then of the 140 million Americans that weren't represented on a taxable return, about 60 million of them didn't get welfare, didn't collect Social Security and weren't on the lists of unemployed.

Rough numbers, but well within credibility, I'd warrant. I haven't included full time students, but I'm still looking for the data.

BTW, and I'm going to throw out another broad-stroke stereotype here just for you, a large portion of those vegetable pickers and sheetrock hangers, who do indeed work their asses off, are not paying income tax or consumption tax at all. That, however, is a different discussion.

If their employers aren't collecting the proper employment taxes from their workers, then two crimes are being committed. I will put it to you that they aren't going to avoid sales taxes, though. I'll also submit that if they weren't picking the produce, no one else would.

Hootie, I like having you here to play devil's advocate. It gets boring when everyone gathers around for a circle jerk of agreeing with each other. [Beer]

I believe in a fit of pique I referenced the circle jerk phrase myself, once, and I'll be glad to drink a beer with just about anyone here.

Rucker61

09-18-2012, 21:07

As it's been pointed out there are plenty of people on the right who want to change our idiotic tax code. So I won't even get into that.

What I will argue is your concept that it's wrong for corporations to take advantage of "loopholes" in the tax code. Basically, I feel they're using the language in the code to their advantage. Are they gaming the system? Maybe. But it's the law and what they're doing is legal.

Gaming the system is fine. The first section of every chapter in my tax accounting textbook was on Tax Avoidance of the particular topic. I personally find that excessive lobbying with undue influence to modify the tax code to their benefit disturbing. You and I can't offer a job to a Congressman after their term to get them to vote for our benefit, but that limitation doesn't necessarily exist for corporations and lobbies.

Bailey Guns

09-18-2012, 21:23

So as long as it's legal, it must be OK. That makes me feel way better about the financial mess we're in.

I never proclaimed corporations as "evil." I think that's just as stupid a premise as you apparently do. I think it is BS that the loopholes exist. I don't think it is reaching too far to say those loopholes were introduced via nepotism present in our legislature. It is counter-productive, again, as evidenced by our growing deficit.

Yeah. It is OK. I may not like it, you may not like it. However, if I made enough money to be worried about such things you can bet your ass I'd be taking advantage of every "loophole" my accountant could find in order to keep a little more of my money rather than send it to the gov't. I'm betting you would, too.

And I don't think nepotism has anything to do with it. (I think you're probably looking for a different word.) I also think that corporations taking advantage of tax law loopholes has very little to do with the growth rate of our national debt.

Bailey Guns

09-18-2012, 21:27

Gaming the system is fine. The first section of every chapter in my tax accounting textbook was on Tax Avoidance of the particular topic. I personally find that excessive lobbying with undue influence to modify the tax code to their benefit disturbing. You and I can't offer a job to a Congressman after their term to get them to vote for our benefit, but that limitation doesn't necessarily exist for corporations and lobbies.

I agree with that to a certain extent and I'll agree that some in gov't have motives when they vote for, or introduce legislation, that are less than altruistic.

On the other hand, I'm not afraid to use the power of lobbyists to my advantage through membership in associations like the NRA/ILA. It's been very beneficial to my interests numerous times in the past.

Teufelhund

09-18-2012, 21:34

Here's an idea of who those 47% are, based on a little research from as non-partisan sites as I could find:

The 47% figure is from the 2009 tax year, which was the year in which the US suffered from its worst recession ever, and the 47% is the number of Americans not represented on a taxable return, so that includes stay at home moms and children.

I won't question your other statistics. You could have stopped right here. If the 47% includes people who are not eligible to work, it is a nonsense statistic when used in the pretext of the OP.

Minus all the dicking around, my point is that just like I won't give a dollar to the seemingly physically-capable bum on the corner, I don't want to pay a large percentage of my income to taxes so someone capable of working can sit on their lazy ass and not work. Nor do I want to pay more so that a billionaire can get a bigger bonus because his CPAs spent all night figuring out how his company can manage to not pay any taxes. All of these scenarios are products of bullshit legislation that hurt the country more than they help.

If their employers aren't collecting the proper employment taxes from their workers, then two crimes are being committed. I will put it to you that they aren't going to avoid sales taxes, though. I'll also submit that if they weren't picking the produce, no one else would.

Like I said, this is a different discussion. They avoid a majority of sales tax (I'll concede they'll have to pay a little just to get by) by sending the vast majority of their (under-the-table) paycheck home to a different country. I'm not sure how I feel about the "broad-stroke" in your last sentence. I have stood in line at 4am to try to land day labor to make ends meet while I was working on finding something better. I may have been one of very few white faces in that line, but I was there.

Rucker61

09-18-2012, 22:15

Like I said, this is a different discussion. They avoid a majority of sales tax (I'll concede they'll have to pay a little just to get by) by sending the vast majority of their (under-the-table) paycheck home to a different country. I'm not sure how I feel about the "broad-stroke" in your last sentence. I have stood in line at 4am to try to land day labor to make ends meet while I was working on finding something better. I may have been one of very few white faces in that line, but I was there.

Like any generality, there are inherent inaccuracies. Good for you for working hard when you had to; my dad, as an Air Force sergeant, worked Saturdays as the janitor for our church to make ends meet, and I had my own kid sized broom to mop for my 25 cents. He never took a dime in handouts either, other than the GI Bill, and he earned that. I picked fruit and vegetables as a kid, though not for money, just to help fill the jars that filled our pantry. As a whole, though, we'd be in trouble, I'd believe, if we didn't have the illegals working for the farmers. Too hard of work for too little money for most of us.

Whistler

09-18-2012, 22:32

Like any generality, there are inherent inaccuracies. Good for you for working hard when you had to; my dad, as an Air Force sergeant, worked Saturdays as the janitor for our church to make ends meet, and I had my own kid sized broom to mop for my 25 cents. He never took a dime in handouts either, other than the GI Bill, and he earned that. I picked fruit and vegetables as a kid, though not for money, just to help fill the jars that filled our pantry. As a whole, though, we'd be in trouble, I'd believe, if we didn't have the illegals working for the farmers. Too hard of work for too little money for most of us.

Tend to stay away from the political threads but... (always a but) that's the broad stroke you were talking about earlier. Assuming the 13 million unemployed/underemployed you cited I believe you'd be surprised at how many of "us" would be tickled to have the work. I've met few folks that wouldn't rather at least feel like they were doing something, anything to improve their lot so long as it wasn't a net loss proposition.

10mm-man

09-18-2012, 22:53

Poll: Are Many Americans Too Dependent on Government?
Published: Tuesday, 18 Sep 2012 | 10:09 AM ET Text Size
By: CNBC

Twitter
201

LinkedIn
18
Share
GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a fundraising event earlier this year that “there are 47 percent who are with him (Obama), who are dependent upon the government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to take care of them.”

Do you agree with Romney's statement?
Yes
76%
No
22%
Not Sure
2%
Total Votes: 34609
Not a Scientific Survey
Results may not total 100% due to rounding
The statement, which was secretly taped and released on Monday, came under immediate attack by the Obama campaign. You can watch the video here.

So what do you think, do you agree with Romney's statement?

Vote now in our poll.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49071984/

G__Fred

09-18-2012, 22:56

Per: http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/18/13939069-the-47-percent-heres-who-pays-no-federal-income-tax?lite

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

The Tax Policy Center researchers found that about half of the group is basically exempt from federal income taxes because they are low income (http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/18/13939069-the-47-percent-heres-who-pays-no-federal-income-tax?lite##) and also may have a large family.

The TPC explained that "a couple with two children earning less than $26,400 will pay no federal income tax this year because their $11,600 standard deduction and four exemptions of $3,700 each reduce their taxable income to zero."

The other half are zeroing out their federal income tax bill with other provisions, such as itemized deductions or the child tax credit. Some are seniors who are living off Social Security.

To be clear, the people in this group are still paying taxes. They are subject to payroll (http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/18/13939069-the-47-percent-heres-who-pays-no-federal-income-tax?lite##) taxes for things like Medicare and Social Security, federal excise taxes on things like gasoline and state and local taxes including sales taxes on items they purchase.

Not everyone who pays no federal income tax is in the lower income brackets. A separate report released last spring by the Internal Revenue Service found more than 35,000 people who made more than $200,000 in 2009 also managed to zero out their tax bills (http://lifeinc.today.com/_news/2012/05/30/11958591-thousands-of-wealthy-earners-manage-to-zero-out-tax-bills?lite). That report noted that it generally takes a number of different credits and deductions for wealthy people to not pay any federal income taxes.

I am not rich, I am also making more than $26, 400 a year for my entire family, therefore, I need to (and do) pay my share.

Irving

09-18-2012, 23:12

Decent

I find it equally amazing that the Right, while crying about how many people do not pay income tax, don't have a word to say about all the tax loopholes that allow monstrous corporations like GE and BofA not only to not pay a dime in taxes, but actually receive a tax return. Meanwhile, I have to write a huge check every April because the percentage they took out of my paychecks wasn't enough.

Can you please cite some specific examples of "tax loopholes?" Are they actually tax loopholes, or is it just tax law. Just like the gunshow "loop hole."

EDIT: Read more of the thread and it looks like Bailey pretty much already went down the road I am going down here. I recently decided that I will do everything legally possible to pay as little taxes as possible. If paying more taxes than someone else makes you upset, then find out why they get to pay less and replicate it.

I can't name a single thing that would be better in MY life, if someone ELSE was paying more money to the government (<--NOT ME). People are so concerned with how much taxes other people pay to the government. Why? None of that money will ever find it's way to you anyway.

Rucker61

09-18-2012, 23:59

Tend to stay away from the political threads but... (always a but) that's the broad stroke you were talking about earlier. Assuming the 13 million unemployed/underemployed you cited I believe you'd be surprised at how many of "us" would be tickled to have the work. I've met few folks that wouldn't rather at least feel like they were doing something, anything to improve their lot so long as it wasn't a net loss proposition.

I don't know if I'd be surprised at how many, since I came from sharecroppers, but I'd be more than surprised if enough would come.

Teufelhund

09-19-2012, 00:00

Yeah. It is OK. I may not like it, you may not like it. However, if I made enough money to be worried about such things you can bet your ass I'd be taking advantage of every "loophole" my accountant could find in order to keep a little more of my money rather than send it to the gov't. I'm betting you would, too.

And I don't think nepotism has anything to do with it. (I think you're probably looking for a different word.) I also think that corporations taking advantage of tax law loopholes has very little to do with the growth rate of our national debt.

You're right, I would. I wouldn't point my finger at you for doing it either. Once again, I do not blame business for taking advantage of the system; I blame the legislators who have introduced tax code which allows an organization turning multi-billion-dollar profits to not pay a dime in taxes. I'm sorry, but I just don't know how else to explain this concept to make it come through in the clear.

I meant nepotism. I meant favoritism. I meant corruption. I meant the legislators elected to represent our best interests padding their pockets with bribes from business men in exchange for adding to the tax code breaks, deductions, and credits which allow them to reap income without paying the percentage you and I pay to keep the country running. If you think that more income should not equal less debt, then I can't help you understand.

Can you please cite some specific examples of "tax loopholes?" Are they actually tax loopholes, or is it just tax law. Just like the gunshow "loop hole."

EDIT: Read more of the thread and it looks like Bailey pretty much already went down the road I am going down here. I recently decided that I will do everything legally possible to pay as little taxes as possible. If paying more taxes than someone else makes you upset, then find out why they get to pay less and replicate it.

I can't name a single thing that would be better in MY life, if someone ELSE was paying more money to the government (<--NOT ME). People are so concerned with how much taxes other people pay to the government. Why? None of that money will ever find it's way to you anyway.

Semantics, my friend. Find a better word if you're not comfortable with the word "loophole." Clause? Gap? Circumvention? I'm just throwing out guesses here. What I'm driving at is the syntax of the tax code which would allow a business which is realizing enormous profits to not pay any taxes. If you and I have to pay tax on our incomes, why doesn't everyone? Why are you and I footing the bill for the whole country? I don't want a dime of it to come back to me. I want our country to have positive cash flow. I want a fair tax for/from everyone.

Rucker61

09-19-2012, 00:01

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a fundraising event earlier this year that “there are 47 percent who are with him (Obama), who are dependent upon the government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to take care of them.”

So what do you think, do you agree with Romney's statement?

No. See above.

Irving

09-19-2012, 00:11

Semantics, my friend. Find a better word if you're not comfortable with the word "loophole." Clause? Gap? Circumvention? I'm just throwing out guesses here. What I'm driving at is the syntax of the tax code which would allow a business which is realizing enormous profits to not pay any taxes. If you and I have to pay tax on our incomes, why doesn't everyone? Why are you and I footing the bill for the whole country? I don't want a dime of it to come back to me. I want our country to have positive cash flow. I want a fair tax for/from everyone.

Answer this question. Is the "gunshow loophole" actually a loophole?

What about the businesses that are not realizing enormous profits, but only small profits? If there is a way to make money and not pay taxes, why doesn't everyone do it?

Why should more income equal more taxes? In a country where the government allows you to exist, then more income will equal more taxes. That's not how this country works though. My existence, and my prosperity is not a function of, nor is it dependent on the government. The opposite is, and should be true. The government should exist because of my prosperity.

Sure the government lives off of taxes, but that does not mean that I, or you, or anyone, or any business, should have to give the government a share of ALL of our income. The aim of the government is that it will get a slice of EVERY financial transaction that happens in this country. Every time money changes hands, the government demands a piece of that money. Why?

FastMan

09-19-2012, 00:22

When almost half the people don't pay federal income tax, thus feel they won't benefit directly from a tax cut, but believe they will suffer from spending cuts, and are thus willing to keep building national debt to avoid those cuts, it becomes really hard to find enough people who will vote in someone who will do the hard things needed to right the ship. When it goes to over 50 percent, it becomes impossible. We'll just spend ourselves right into financial collapse. That's what's coming in an Obama second term.

Nothing else explains why with the middle east burning up, the price of gas having doubled in the last 4 years, unemployment on a record high run, personal income and wealth having fallen over the last 4 years, the middle class shrinking, the food stamp collectors rising, and deficit spending and debt growing at a rate that is quickly taking us to financial collapse, Obama is still leading in the polls.

Teufelhund

09-19-2012, 00:25

Answer this question. Is the "gunshow loophole" actually a loophole?

What about the businesses that are not realizing enormous profits, but only small profits? If there is a way to make money and not pay taxes, why doesn't everyone do it?

Why should more income equal more taxes? In a country where the government allows you to exist, then more income will equal more taxes. That's not how this country works though. My existence, and my prosperity is not a function of, nor is it dependent on the government. The opposite is, and should be true. The government should exist because of my prosperity.

Sure the government lives off of taxes, but that does not mean that I, or you, or anyone, or any business, should have to give the government a share of ALL of our income. The aim of the government is that it will get a slice of EVERY financial transaction that happens in this country. Every time money changes hands, the government demands a piece of that money. Why?

As I understand it, there is no gunshow loophole in this State. I don't spend a lot of time at gunshows though, and I'm not crystal clear on what that term is all about. I think it means in some States, those who could not ordinarily purchase a gun legally, can do so at a gunshow, thereby circumventing the law.

Look, I'm with you. I think the entire system is fucked up. If I had a better answer, I'd be campaigning for office instead of debating the topic on an internet forum late at night. I'm just trying to live within the system which is in place, which leads me to start bitching about its inefficiencies. If you've got a solution, I'm all ears. If you think what we're doing now is working just fine, you aren't paying attention.

Irving

09-19-2012, 00:40

As I understand it, there is no gunshow loophole in this State. I don't spend a lot of time at gunshows though, and I'm not crystal clear on what that term is all about. I think it means in some States, those who could not ordinarily purchase a gun legally, can do so at a gunshow, thereby circumventing the law.

I'll try not to derail the thread, but the "gunshow loophole" is a reference to just the regular law. In this state, you do not have to go through a background check to purchase a firearm from an individual, non-ffl. Many vendors at gunshows are just guys that show up to sell something and don't have an FFL. So, anti-gun people found out that you could go to a gunshow and purchase a firearm without having to complete a background check. They ignored the fact that you have NEVER had to complete a background check to purchase a firearm from an individual, and you still don't. Yet, they attributed this simple part of the law as some kind of work around where criminals could buy guns without a background check just because it occurred at a gunshow. They called it a loophole, but it is really just the law.

Corporations don't have to pay taxes on any money except what is left over at the end of the year. It is not a loop hole, it is the way that the law describes how corporations operate. As a result, corporations spend as much money as they can through investments, to lower the profits as much as possible before the taxes are due. If there are still a lot of profits left, then corporations move to alternative means of getting rid of profits by donating to charities, creating scholarships, etc. It's not a loophole, it's the law.

I also agree that you and I are on the same page, however, I feel that the government debt issues are the result of spending more than is available, and not that corporations are paying too little taxes. Think of it this way, when corporations try to ditch profits by making purchases through investments, donating to charities, and setting up scholarships, they are placing that money DIRECTLY into the economy, and sometimes DIRECTLY into the hands of the people. Why would we want to filter that money through the government first, where it will just get siphoned off into endless regulation, redtape, redundant policies and personnel, etc, etc?

Look, I'm with you. I think the entire system is fucked up. If I had a better answer, I'd be campaigning for office instead of debating the topic on an internet forum late at night. I'm just trying to live within the system which is in place, which leads me to start bitching about its inefficiencies. If you've got a solution, I'm all ears. If you think what we're doing now is working just fine, you aren't paying attention.

Again, I think that for the most part, most of us are all on the same page here. I'd be okay with having just one tax. If it is income tax, then no other taxes. No property tax, no sales tax, no gas tax, no death tax.

Rucker61

09-19-2012, 06:50

Corporations don't have to pay taxes on any money except what is left over at the end of the year. It is not a loop hole, it is the way that the law describes how corporations operate. As a result, corporations spend as much money as they can through investments, to lower the profits as much as possible before the taxes are due. If there are still a lot of profits left, then corporations move to alternative means of getting rid of profits by donating to charities, creating scholarships, etc. It's not a loophole, it's the law.

Additionally, and what concerns people, isn't the activity for tax reduction that you point out, but rather avoiding taxes by schemes like creating overseas entities and shelters to retain the profits elsewhere instead of paying taxes. No benefit to society or to the US is gained in those circumstances, some of which are legal, some not and some are in a grey area that keeps lawyers fully employed.

I also agree that you and I are on the same page, however, I feel that the government debt issues are the result of spending more than is available, and not that corporations are paying too little taxes. Think of it this way, when corporations try to ditch profits by making purchases through investments, donating to charities, and setting up scholarships, they are placing that money DIRECTLY into the economy, and sometimes DIRECTLY into the hands of the people. Why would we want to filter that money through the government first, where it will just get siphoned off into endless regulation, redtape, redundant policies and personnel, etc, etc?

In your scenarios, that's optimal. In the ones I described above, at least the US gets to benefit in some diluted manner. It's been some time since I've seen a major US corporation attempt to reduce its tax liability in the manner you describe, especially in comparison to efforts to just keep their profits elsewhere. That's why tax havens exist.

Again, I think that for the most part, most of us are all on the same page here. I'd be okay with having just one tax. If it is income tax, then no other taxes. No property tax, no sales tax, no gas tax, no death tax.

The problem here is that the current tax structures support federal, state, county, city and other local budgets. How would you suppose to provide funding to each of those governments, presuming you feel that each has a need to provide services to its citizens?

Aloha_Shooter

09-19-2012, 07:23

Which Reaganesque rates? The 50% maximum marginal rate with 20% capital gains tax of his first trem or the 28% maximum marginal rate with maximum of 28% capital gains tax that ended his second term? I can't see any rich people wanting to return to those rates, especially with no loopholes/exceptions.

Then you need to open your eyes and ears. Of course, people talk about "Bush tax cuts" these days but the so-called Bush tax cuts were a return to the Reagan tax rates by eliminating the Clinton tax rate hikes. Lots of commentators in the WSJ, Fox Business News, even CNBC who think the country would be better off by returning to lower marginal rates because they spur productivity and the federal government actually collects higher revenues with the lower marginal rates.

Rates != revenues and what matters to the budget deficit are revenues but what matters to Marxists and the politics of envy are rates. God forbid anyone bring up the fact that Ted Kennedy paid about $1000 in income tax annually because he "donated" all his income to the "non-profit" Kennedy foundation. Punitive tax RATES are an article of faith for the Left regardless of how counterproductive they are.

Motley

09-19-2012, 08:19

Dealing with corporate tax rates, loopholes and things like that is hard to boil down to a single sentence or two. My personal opinion is that the lobbying power of these corporations is too influential, their lobbyists influence the legislators who add the loopholes that they use to reduce their tax rates.

Personally I would prefer all income to be taxed the same, with no deductions, and a flat tax that increases with income (>50k everyone pays 5%, 50-100k rate is 8%, etc...).

The one ironic thing with all this is that Romney's is trying to sell a 20% decrease in federal income tax which would mean that we would have more people not paying any federal income tax.

As for his comments itself, this article (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/19/us/politics/who-doesnt-pay-federal-taxes.html)pretty much shows that the majority of the 47% live in states that are going to vote for Mitt Romney.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/m0tley/SKS/USmap_zpsacd63f2c.png
[IMG]http://www.ar-15.co/forums/http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/m0tley/SKS/USmap_zpsacd63f2c.png

Irving

09-19-2012, 09:49

Why should people who make more, pay a higher percentage rate? Aren't they already paying more at the same percentage, just by making more money? What's with the double whammy?

Can anyone name a specific "loophole," and explain why it is a loophole, and not simply tax law?

dwalker460

09-19-2012, 09:56

As I understand it, there is no gunshow loophole in this State. I don't spend a lot of time at gunshows though, and I'm not crystal clear on what that term is all about. I think it means in some States, those who could not ordinarily purchase a gun legally, can do so at a gunshow, thereby circumventing the law.

Look, I'm with you. I think the entire system is fucked up. If I had a better answer, I'd be campaigning for office instead of debating the topic on an internet forum late at night. I'm just trying to live within the system which is in place, which leads me to start bitching about its inefficiencies. If you've got a solution, I'm all ears. If you think what we're doing now is working just fine, you aren't paying attention.

I dont think you understand much about taxes or the laws involved.

A Corporation, such as my small business, only pays taxes on whats left over at the end of the year. If it chooses to invest that money back into the business, it does not pay taxes on that money. This is not a loophole, its just common sense, one of the very few things in the tax code that is. So yes, I could MAKE a lot of money in a year, lets say an annual revenue of 1.2m, but only pay INCOME taxes on say, 50K. But HOW is that possible you say? Well, because I spend X amount on tooling (which I pay sales tax on, and then sales and use tax to the county, and then environmental tax to the city...) and X amount in payroll, contractors, vendors, and other service providers, (which ALL pay taxes on the money I pay them) and X amount on utilities, insurance, licenses, advertising, and other expenses... I could go on but yeah, at the end of the year I could SHOW an annual revenue of 1.2m and the business have very little fund or even a deficit on the balance sheet. If I business is being run properly, the Corporation should pay very little to anything in taxes.

But ALL you seem to understand is revenue, which is NOT the actual story. When CNN reports that Citibank had profits of 100M first quarter thats only half the story- because those are not Citibanks profits, they are the shareholders profits and the payouts to those shareholders is TAXED. By law you cannot tax the money twice- you cannot tax Citibank for the "profits" and then turn around and tax the shareholders for the profits- if you did all business would cease in this country and we would be poorer than Haiti. No loophole, just strategic reporting.

Now a large corporation, they may receive tax abatements, tax deferments, etc. to motivate them to hire new employees, buy new equipment, bid on specific contracts, etc. and these are NOT loopholes. Its doing business. No different than me going to one of my vendors and saying hey, I will buy 100 widgets if you give them to me for 20% off my normal cost.

Now are there abusers of this? Yeah. GE and Excel energy come to mind.
Do some corporations (Goldman Sachs??) leverage their economic and political assets to get breaks others dont? Yeah. And it should be stopped. But thats only half the story. They should not receive grants from the government for "environmental" reasons, nor should they receive HUGE grants and loans to research solar or any other alternative energy. THESE are the things you should be upset about, and these are the things Romney/Ryan are talking about ending (I am being somewhat non-specific, simply conveying the core idea) because it is not the governments place to prop up companies research or programs designed to entice people into buying pieces of crap like the Chevy Volt or the Prius.

I am digressing a bit much, but before you continuously spout off about Republicans got us here etc., really understand try what you are talking about beyond what you read on a political website. I do not get the third party movement AT ALL, but I am not here to criticize your political choices as long as you take the time to get your info right.

Rucker61

09-19-2012, 10:07

Then you need to open your eyes and ears. Of course, people talk about "Bush tax cuts" these days but the so-called Bush tax cuts were a return to the Reagan tax rates by eliminating the Clinton tax rate hikes. Lots of commentators in the WSJ, Fox Business News, even CNBC who think the country would be better off by returning to lower marginal rates because they spur productivity and the federal government actually collects higher revenues with the lower marginal rates.

Not sure what you're saying here. You said in a previous posts "return to Reaganesque rates". I asked which of the rate schemes you were referencing, and pointed out the rates that were in existence at the time. If you meant "tax revenues" instead of rates, I do understand the difference. I can't, however, read your mind.

Tax receipts as a percentage of GDP have typically been around an average of 18%, regardless of tax rates. We're low now, but with the recovery of the economy expected to be back at 18% by 2020.

http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/current-tax-receipts

Rates != revenues and what matters to the budget deficit are revenues but what matters to Marxists and the politics of envy are rates. God forbid anyone bring up the fact that Ted Kennedy paid about $1000 in income tax annually because he "donated" all his income to the "non-profit" Kennedy foundation. Punitive tax RATES are an article of faith for the Left regardless of how counterproductive they are.

This is a clouded issue, with many knowledge studies showing different anticipated results, primarily (in my opinion) because you can't isolate historical economic forces to see how action A created result B. Economics is about an accurate of a field as weather forecasting.

Some interesting phenomena and studies to look at include the Laffer Curve, the CBO's 2005 paper "Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates", Hauser's Law, the think tank American Enterprise Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute)'s study that showed that a corporate tax rate of 26% is the revenue maximizing rate, the Adam Smith Institute's 2010 report on the reduction of capital gains tax by 50% in Ireland and the follow-up report by Teather and Young of that organization that showed that the optimal capital gains tax, at least in Ireland during the period of the study, was 20%.

Ronin13

09-19-2012, 10:14

the 47% is the number of Americans not represented on a taxable return, so that includes stay at home moms and children.

Incorrect- of the public that doesn't account for children and retired people, 47% is accurate. As of 2010, the census data shows age and employment status comparatively to income tax. Something to the effect of $24,000/year and lower pay 0% income tax, and to be in the top 50% of income earners in the US you need only make roughly $33,000/yr. The top 10% make about $114,000/yr. And do you know where the top 1% actually is? $380,000/yr. That's probably a lot lower than you thought.[1 (http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/)]

Also, corporate tax is not as much of a revenue generator as personal income tax.
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/images/2008/05/31/corporate_personal_taxes2.gif

FastMan

09-19-2012, 10:24

Consumption tax (national sales tax) is the answer, to replace federal income tax. It would provide a big advantage to our corporations in competing in the world market, which would bring jobs back home. It would also get us all invested and concerned with government spending, because we'd all be contributing to the amount being spent. Especially if we tied it together with a balanced budget amendment, and the rate of the consumption tax fluctuated in accordance to what we were spending such that the budget remained balanced. Imagine then, the cries for spending cuts coming from the masses when people saw the rate rise one day when they were buying their goodies.

Rucker61

09-19-2012, 10:24

I dont think you understand much about taxes or the laws involved.

But ALL you seem to understand is revenue, which is NOT the actual story. When CNN reports that Citibank had profits of 100M first quarter thats only half the story- because those are not Citibanks profits, they are the shareholders profits and the payouts to those shareholders is TAXED. By law you cannot tax the money twice- you cannot tax Citibank for the "profits" and then turn around and tax the shareholders for the profits- if you did all business would cease in this country and we would be poorer than Haiti. No loophole, just strategic reporting.

Actually, double taxation on corporate dividends is perfectly legal, and qualified dividends are taxed at the long term capital gains rate. For taxpayers in the 10% and 15% income tax brackets, the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Increase_Prevention_and_Reconciliation_Act_of_ 2005) ("TIPRA"), signed by both Bush and Obama, the tax rate on dividends was reduced to 0%.

I certainly report my dividend income on my annual tax returns and they count as taxable income.

HoneyBadger

09-19-2012, 10:35

So what you're actually saying is...
(http://www.zazzle.com/roflmao_vote_romney_or_obama_bumper_stickers-128481524194475895)

It's my turn to be the troll! hahaha

[Coffee]

Rucker61

09-19-2012, 10:43

So what you're actually saying is...
(http://www.zazzle.com/roflmao_vote_romney_or_obama_bumper_stickers-128481524194475895)

It's my turn to be the troll! hahaha

[Coffee]

Actually, I've got two great bumper stickers tucked away that I should bring out:

Wallace for President
George Clinton for President. Free your mind, and your ass will follow.

FastMan

09-19-2012, 10:57

Consumption tax (national sales tax) is the answer, to replace federal income tax. It would provide a big advantage to our corporations in competing in the world market, which would bring jobs back home.

Really, FastMan? How would that work?

Well, FastMan, with a consumption tax the price the consumer would have to pay for domestically produced goods would change very little. The producer would be able to drop the price of his goods because he/she would not have to charge for the cost of taxation he/she was burdened with before. They could drop the price of the product and still end up with the same amount of bottom line profit. For the consumer, the consumption tax added on at the store would bring the end price of the product being bought back to about the same level it was in the old system.

But FastMan, how does that help the domestic producer compete with oversees producers?

Think about it, FastMan. The oversees producer is still burdened with the corporate tax imposed by their country, which he/she has to account for in the price they charge for the goods they produce. Say their nations corporate tax rate is 20 percent. That's an extra 20 percent fixed cost they have to tack on the price of their product that the American producer does not have to do. Advantage our guys!

Cool, I get it. Thanks FastMan!

No problem.

Rucker61

09-19-2012, 11:02

Motley

09-19-2012, 11:03

Why should people who make more, pay a higher percentage rate? Aren't they already paying more at the same percentage, just by making more money? What's with the double whammy?

Like most countries, the US has a progressive tax system so that while the rich have a higher rate the 'tax burden' remains the same. It would impossible for the US to generate enough revenue using a flat tax system with no deductions/exemptions given our spending.

[Can anyone name a specific "loophole," and explain why it is a loophole, and not simply tax law?[/quote]

I am sure most here use 'loopholes' when they do their taxes... mortgage deduction, charity deductions, child credit, etc... I am merely saying that they are using money to influence politicians to enact tax laws (loopholes) that help the corporations reduce their tax burden. It isn't illegal, but it does expose flaws in our system.

Consumption tax (national sales tax) is the answer, to replace federal income tax. It would provide a big advantage to our corporations in competing in the world market, which would bring jobs back home. It would also get us all invested and concerned with government spending, because we'd all be contributing to the amount being spent. Especially if we tied it together with a balanced budget amendment, and the rate of the consumption tax fluctuated in accordance to what we were spending such that the budget remained balanced. Imagine then, the cries for spending cuts coming from the masses when people saw the rate rise one day when they were buying their goodies.

I wonder what the consumption tax (or VAT) would need to be set at in order to remove the federal income tax and still keep things deficit neutral? Personally I see nothing wrong with taxes per se (though I am against property taxes), and don't think anyone should be exempt from them... corporations or individuals.

dwalker460

09-19-2012, 11:05

Actually, double taxation on corporate dividends is perfectly legal, and qualified dividends are taxed at the long term capital gains rate. For taxpayers in the 10% and 15% income tax brackets, the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Increase_Prevention_and_Reconciliation_Act_of_ 2005) ("TIPRA"), signed by both Bush and Obama, the tax rate on dividends was reduced to 0%.

I certainly report my dividend income on my annual tax returns and they count as taxable income.

Your dividends are taxed when you claim them (as you should) as income. The company does not pay taxes on the money they send to you, only the monies they show as profit on their balance sheet at the end of the year, so I am not sure where you are getting double taxation from.

FastMan

09-19-2012, 11:13

Does the US business that sells consumer goods pay any sales tax for goods purchased overseas?

Do you mean on the materials they are using to produce their products? And do you mean in the system I'm proposing? If so, I would think not, regardless of the source of those materials. Consumption tax only gets applied at the end user point. And the domestic advantage would still exist.

Does the US produced goods produced with sales taxes on all of the goods and PPE used to create the products and using American labor costs compete on a price basis with goods produced overseas with cheap labor and no sales tax on goods?

I see what you're thinking, Rucker, but read my answer above. It should address your question/concern. The advantage the consumption tax system provides to the American producer when selling their products domestically would be very helpful to them in competing with producers who have the advantage of lower labor costs.

dwalker460

09-19-2012, 11:16

Really, FastMan? How would that work?

Well, FastMan, with a consumption tax the price the consumer would have to pay for domestically produced goods would change very little. The producer would be able to drop the price of his goods because he/she would not have to charge for the cost of taxation he/she was burdened with before. They could drop the price of the product and still end up with the same amount of bottom line profit. For the consumer, the consumption tax added on at the store would bring the end price of the product being bought back to about the same level it was in the old system.

But FastMan, how does that help the domestic producer compete with oversees producers?

Think about it, FastMan. The oversees producer is still burdened with the corporate tax imposed by their country, which he/she has to account for in the price they charge for the goods they produce. Say their nations corporate tax rate is 20 percent. That's an extra 20 percent fixed cost they have to tack on the price of their product that the American producer does not have to do. Advantage our guys!

Cool, I get it. Thanks FastMan!

No problem.

That will never happen. They COULD drop prices, but historically that doesnt happen. They WILL charge what the market will bear. Period, end of list. WHY does a car cost $20K AVERAGE now? Because people will pay it. Plain and simple.

Foreign companies are not our issue. We are still the largest manufacturing nation on the planet and the largest issue to corporate success in this country is that the general public hates to see corporate success. EVEN WHEN THEY WORK FOR THE COMPANY, many citizens hate the fact thier company succeeds because they believe they "deserve" a larger "peice of the pie" and that the company is getting rich on their backs. Um yeah, thats right. Someone had an idea, then worked hard to come up with a plan, line up resources, took some risk and despite the odds managed to succeed. The people who backed them by investing money see a profit, sometimes very large profits. Does that mean that they should then share the wealth with all members of the company? Maybe, maybe not. But it is seriously screwed up to hate a company that pays a wage for being "an evil corporation". THEY PROVIDE THE JOBS. Seriously, if you dont like what you are paid, quit and go somewhere else and see how green the grass is. Whats that? The going wage for your particular job is X and you were making more than the average and now your screwed because you didnt realize how good you had it? Tough. Starve. Whats that? Your job doesnt pay for you to roll around in a new 60K diesel truck and have a new LED TV in every room of your McMansion that you paid 1.5times to much for and now your credit sucks and you cant take a vacation to the Fiji Islands??? Tough, starve and learn to live within your means.

Seriously the problem with this country is not white collar, its blue collar and I say that as a blue collar who hires and fires wastes of humanity on a regular basis.

FastMan

09-19-2012, 11:21

Your dividends are taxed when you claim them (as you should) as income. The company does not pay taxes on the money they send to you, only the monies they show as profit on their balance sheet at the end of the year, so I am not sure where you are getting double taxation from.

Actually, dwalker, that's not correct. Dividends are actually paid out of after tax profits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend

From Wiki:
Dividends are payments made by a corporation to its shareholder members. It is the portion of corporate profits paid out to stockholders.[1] When a corporation earns a profit or surplus, that money can be put to two uses: it can either be re-invested in the business (called retained earnings), or it can be distributed to shareholders.

For the joint stock company, paying dividends is not an expense; rather, it is the division of after tax profits among shareholders.

So yes, the stockholder has seen his profits taxed twice. Once at the corporate level, then again at his level on the dollars left over after tax that were distributed to him/her.

tmckay2

09-19-2012, 11:21

Rucker61

09-19-2012, 11:23

Your dividends are taxed when you claim them (as you should) as income. The company does not pay taxes on the money they send to you, only the monies they show as profit on their balance sheet at the end of the year, so I am not sure where you are getting double taxation from.

Corporations pay taxes on the profits they show at the end of the year. Those profits can either be retained by the company or distributed to stockholders, or a mix thereof. The dividends distributed to shareholders are then taxed on the individual as short or long term capital gains.

Example:

Acme Corporation has revenues of $10M at the end of the year (that's a lot of anvils). After all the accounting is done, they show $500k in profit. They pay taxes on that profit, say 30%, leaving them net earnings after taxes of $350k.

They decide to pay a dividend of $1 per share, with 100k shares outstanding. They send out $100,000 in cash to the shareholders. The sole long term stockholder, R. Runner, will then pay capital gains tax of 15% on that $100k income.

That's where the double taxation comes from. What am I missing? Dividends do not count as expenses and cannot be use as a deduction to income to reduce taxable income. That's why most profit is held as retained earnings rather than dispursed to the shareholders, as a tax avoidance.

FastMan

09-19-2012, 11:27

That will never happen. They COULD drop prices, but historically that doesnt happen.

Not true. If a company over charges for their product it leaves room for a competitor to come in and undercut them. It's the beauty of a capitalism. Consumers get the best prices, while businesses still can make a fair profit.

Rucker61

09-19-2012, 11:27

Do you mean on the materials they are using to produce their products? And do you mean in the system I'm proposing? If so, I would think not, regardless of the source of those materials. Consumption tax only gets applied at the end user point. And the domestic advantage would still exist.

No, I was referring to companies that would import cheap consumer goods from abroad rather than produce them here.

I see what you're thinking, Rucker, but read my answer above. It should address your question/concern. The advantage the consumption tax system provides to the American producer when selling their products domestically would be very helpful to them in competing with producers who have the advantage of lower labor costs.

That depends sales tax rates vs cost of foreign goods. Without numbers we're just guessing which is better. A larger flaw is that higher consumption tax rates will drive consumption revenues down, through fewer purchases or through purchasing cheaper goods with a lower total cost.

FastMan

09-19-2012, 11:32

it baffles me that people think increasing taxes on anyone is the answer. why would you give more money to a child that has shown for year they cannot spend it wisely? spending has to get under control and kept accountable before you can raise taxes and provide any benefit. otherwise its just more money to over spend.

Bingo!

Make the kid contribute to raising the money they're spending. Suddenly they become more careful with it. Works the same way on the national level. Currently we're just giving money to kids (citizens) many of which aren't really concerned where it's coming from, because they're not contributing to the raising of it.

dwalker460

09-19-2012, 11:38

Not true. If a company over charges for their product it leaves room for a competitor to come in and undercut them. It's the beauty of a capitalism. Consumers get the best prices, while businesses still can make a fair profit.

Again, doesnt happen. A seller sells for what the market will bear. That is capitalism. Yeah, there might be a price war or two, but lets look at an example-

three years-ish ago a stripped lower reciever was $60-80 bucks, with premium ones in the $115-ish range. Currently prices are in the $115 range for a standard, and in the 200-300 range for a "premium" receiver. Hiuh, well there are more manufacturers now, and lots of competition. Labor costs are minorly down due to a large pool of trained workers out there. Material costs are up slightly as metal prices are at an all time high, but again, thats minor in the grand scheme. Hmmmm.....

Wait- I know.... the market will bear the cost increase because the demand is there. I will pay the increased (almost double) cost because I want a lower receiver. Now, using your logic, SAA or PSA or similar COULD sell thier stripped lowers at $65 apeaice and corner the market, BUT they do not, because they can sell for $115 and sell every single one they make, and thats what they are going to do.

Example 2-
Troy rails are $180-200 or more, YHM are $150-180, sometimes less. Daniel Defense are a lot more. They all do the same job and are IMHO about the same "quality", however the DD ones will always bring more because of the percieved value. Could all these companies charge less? Possibly, but why would they? They are in business to make a profit, and they do, so unless something changes they will not alter thier pricing structure.

Thats capitalism my boy, pure and simple. Your competiton model only works in theory, never in practice.

dwalker460

09-19-2012, 11:39

Corporations pay taxes on the profits they show at the end of the year. Those profits can either be retained by the company or distributed to stockholders, or a mix thereof. The dividends distributed to shareholders are then taxed on the individual as short or long term capital gains.

Example:

Acme Corporation has revenues of $10M at the end of the year (that's a lot of anvils). After all the accounting is done, they show $500k in profit. They pay taxes on that profit, say 30%, leaving them net earnings after taxes of $350k.

They decide to pay a dividend of $1 per share, with 100k shares outstanding. They send out $100,000 in cash to the shareholders. The sole long term stockholder, R. Runner, will then pay capital gains tax of 15% on that $100k income.

That's where the double taxation comes from. What am I missing? Dividends do not count as expenses and cannot be use as a deduction to income to reduce taxable income. That's why most profit is held as retained earnings rather than dispursed to the shareholders, as a tax avoidance.

Dividends are disbursed as pre-taxable income, unless the corporation has some specific reason for doing so (a more favorable tax advantage) NEVER as post tax income. Thats what your missing.

Actually I am wrong, dividends are taxed as Corporate profits the disbursed. I will have to suck it up and go ask my wife how the shareholders are paid pre-tax, as I have screwed up my understanding somewhere.

Teufelhund

09-19-2012, 11:44

EVEN WHEN THEY WORK FOR THE COMPANY, many citizens hate the fact thier company succeeds because they believe they "deserve" a larger "peice of the pie" and that the company is getting rich on their backs.

This statement above is simply not true of anyone smart enough to think beyond themselves. I think you may be just a tad too emotional about this subject and it is causing you to not be able to see the forest for the trees.

I admittedly do not have the knowledge of tax code to be able to debate you on the level you're attempting; if I did, I would not have to pay a CPA to do my taxes every year. I should add that I really have no desire to learn the tax code to that level.

I'll stop using the word "loophole" since everyone seems to be getting their panties in a twist over it; it really is unimportant to the argument. What you folks who are throwing out all these percentages and acronyms seem to be failing to see is the net result of our current system: I (middle class) pay a higher percentage in taxes than the rich, the business entities, and the poor. I don't care how you spin it or try to defend it, the breaks, incentives, credits, etc. are causing the middle class to be burdened with financially supporting the entire country, and it isn't working.

FastMan

09-19-2012, 11:45

No, I was referring to companies that would import cheap consumer goods from abroad rather than produce them here.

The same advantage would exist. Say I'm making lawnmowers. I need to buy the parts to do it: wheels, engines, etc. The guys making those parts here in the US do not have to pay taxes on their profits, so they can now drop their price in competing with the parts makers overseas who are still getting taxed at home.

That depends sales tax rates vs cost of foreign goods. Without numbers we're just guessing which is better.

Corporate tax rates do indeed vary around the world, but 0 will always represent an advantage to anything greater.

A larger flaw is that higher consumption tax rates will drive consumption revenues down, through fewer purchases or through purchasing cheaper goods with a lower total cost.

That is a popular concern with the idea of a consumption tax. It would be true if the price of goods went up by the amount of the tax. But as I explained, that would not necessarily happen, because the producer would be able to drop the price of their product, and market place competition would force him/her to do so.

HoneyBadger

09-19-2012, 11:48

Thats capitalism my boy, pure and simple.

You forgot the part where there are numerous other companies that produce quality products that meet the needs of consumers. That, my boy, is capitalism.

Also, for your lower receiver example, you failed to account for inflation, rising manufacturing costs, rising raw material costs, etc. You acknowledged that metal prices are at an all time high, but failed to account for it.

Same story for gasoline. The cost of gas has been actually rising LESS than the estimated actual inflation, which means that whether it agrees with the point you're trying to make or not, gas has gotten cheaper over the past decade.

FastMan

09-19-2012, 12:00

Thats capitalism my boy, pure and simple. Your competiton model only works in theory, never in practice.

The competition model doesn't work, aye? I [Bang]

It's the reason China and others have been kicking our ass in manufacturing. They can sell the same products for cheaper prices. Our domestic producers have been struggling to compete, and jobs have been disappearing because of it. It's about time we gave them a hand, instead of attacking and punishing them, like Obama revels in doing. Everyone would benefit.

dwalker460

09-19-2012, 12:02

You forgot the part where there are numerous other companies that produce quality products that meet the needs of consumers. That, my boy, is capitalism.

Also, for your lower receiver example, you failed to account for inflation, rising manufacturing costs, rising raw material costs, etc. You acknowledged that metal prices are at an all time high, but failed to account for it.

Same story for gasoline. The cost of gas has been actually rising LESS than the estimated actual inflation, which means that whether it agrees with the point you're trying to make or not, gas has gotten cheaper over the past decade.

No, I addressed that there are more manufacturers out there now, as well as labor costs, which is a large chunk of manufacturing costs. But I did not account for higher taxes, workers benefit costs, etc., and I did mention that the higher cost of metal had a minor impact on cost. I maintain that IF there was a reason for them to that many sellers of lowers and other parts could drop prices substantially, but they dont because the market will bear what they are charging.

Anyway, we have drifted pretty far off topic, but good discussion!

Irving

09-19-2012, 12:07

Dwalker nailed the flaws with Fastman's consumption tax theory.

Teufelhund, you pay more taxes because of how you pay taxes, more than how much money you make. A very rich doctor still pays taxes the same way you do, and gets boned even more, even though he is "rich."

It sounds like you are saying that there should be a greater balance in incentives for people who are not business owners, because not everyone can be a business owner. I would agree with that, but don't have many suggestions on what to do. That is why I decided to pursue investments so I could pay as high a percentage of my income as Capital Gains as possible. Basically, I know I can't change the government, or how it taxes me, so my only option is to find a better way to pay taxes. It's not easy, but easier than trying to change government.

Irving

09-19-2012, 12:14

Honeybadger, let's say you have a rental property that you just paid off. Without the debt service, your cost is significantly reduced. Would you lower your rent?

Fastman, China directly controls the value of its currency, keeping it purposely low so the price of their goods are lower than the free market would usually allow. If we try to manufacture here, China can just readjust the value of their currency so their products will be the cheapest in the markets again. Now we will have factories that have over produced goods that we can't sell. Free market competition is ideal, but dealing with China isn't a free market when they control the value of their currency.

Zundfolge

09-19-2012, 12:22

HOW the taxes are collected is pretty much immaterial.

HOW MUCH is SPENT is the problem.

The fact that it's even remotely legal for the government to spend a dime more than they collect is the biggest problem.

Force them to balance the budget at gunpoint and then we can discuss what is the fairest and most effective method of collecting the taxes.

Eliminate 90%+ of the functions of the federal government for a good start.

dwalker460

09-19-2012, 12:29

Irving is right, but actually let me take it further-

China actually has less and less incentive to sell things here, and many products that were "Made in China" are no longer being shipped to the US. Why? Because with thier population they really dont need to export anything.
Last time I was in China there was a business show on examining why Chinese top name brands- shoes, bikes, electronics- are not being exported to the US or other countries. The answer from each company representative was there was no incentive to do so. They do not have to pay shipping, import taxes, etc. on their goods by selling in country and they have far less hassle with advertising and branding.
What happens if all the cheap crap- my wife and I joke that anything under $100 is Made in China- stops coming here? What happens when we have to pay the price increase in everyday goods because they are no longer being made in factories for cheap and are instead being produced by Union labor in factories taxed and licensed to the hilt by the US government making your 99c washcloth now cost $4.00? What happens to our economy when reality hits?
Do not labor under the asumption that the world economy NEEDS the US or US products- they dont and unless our general public gets its head out of its ass and stops listenign to all the BS and starts examining the reality then we are doomed to watching our currency devalue and our goods taxed more and more on foreign shores that have no incentive to give us a single break.

Irving

09-19-2012, 12:31

Agreed. It is all about spending. People bitch about what other people pay in taxes because they think that if the rich pay more, then the government will be able to afford more programs. Well, the government is cranking out wellfare that they can't afford anyway, so the rich paying more hardly matters.

HoneyBadger

09-19-2012, 12:33

Honeybadger, let's say you have a rental property that you just paid off. Without the debt service, your cost is significantly reduced. Would you lower your rent?

If I was having a hard time "selling my product" (finding renters) then yes... That's what everyone does. Some income is better than no income.

Rucker61

09-19-2012, 12:36

Dividends are disbursed as pre-taxable income, unless the corporation has some specific reason for doing so (a more favorable tax advantage) NEVER as post tax income. Thats what your missing.

Actually I am wrong, dividends are taxed as Corporate profits the disbursed. I will have to suck it up and go ask my wife how the shareholders are paid pre-tax, as I have screwed up my understanding somewhere.

Make sure you aren't in Dutch with the IRS. Remember, we aren't your tax accountants, and you should be thankful for that.

Rucker61

09-19-2012, 12:44

Irving is right, but actually let me take it further-

China actually has less and less incentive to sell things here, and many products that were "Made in China" are no longer being shipped to the US. Why? Because with thier population they really dont need to export anything.
Last time I was in China there was a business show on examining why Chinese top name brands- shoes, bikes, electronics- are not being exported to the US or other countries. The answer from each company representative was there was no incentive to do so. They do not have to pay shipping, import taxes, etc. on their goods by selling in country and they have far less hassle with advertising and branding.

Chinese top brands aren't sold here because the manufacturers can simply make our brands for us. We still import tons of Chinese goods under American brands. I know, I buy them every day. Also, pretty much every second tier electronics company is a Chinese brand. I'd say the market for export goods is pretty much saturated, given the number of empy factories that have closed in the last few years. The growing China middle class gives them a new market. However, shut down the export business and the middle class goes away.

Lastly, I wouldn't trust the quality of a Chinese brand that didn't go through a Western company's QC before the customer got to it. I've seen too much crap to trust a Chinese manufacturer.

Rucker61

09-19-2012, 12:46

If I was having a hard time "selling my product" (finding renters) then yes... That's what everyone does. Some income is better than no income.

Yes, but wouldn't you lower the rent regardless of debt status in order to get that income? The best pricing isn't done based on cost of the product or service, but rather on what the market will bear.

FastMan

09-19-2012, 13:02

Fastman, China directly controls the value of its currency, keeping it purposely low so the price of their goods are lower than the free market would usually allow. If we try to manufacture here, China can just readjust the value of their currency so their products will be the cheapest in the markets again. Now we will have factories that have over produced goods that we can't sell. Free market competition is ideal, but dealing with China isn't a free market when they control the value of their currency.

On top of that, they subsidize some of the product they export. All the more reason to give our guys a hand via the consumption tax I explained. It won't fix the problem completely, but it will help, with China, and every other low wage paying country. The rest we can make up for with tariffs and such. Look for Romney to perhaps do some of that. He's been talking about it.

The competitive help to American businesses is not the only benefit of the consumption tax. Don't forget the benefit I explained about getting all Americans invested in and concerned about Federal fiscal responsibility. Many will balk at the idea, because they're currently not contributing little to the benefits they receive from federal spending and don't want to wreck a good thing, but if we don't change that we're doomed.

HoneyBadger

09-19-2012, 13:34

Yes, but wouldn't you lower the rent regardless of debt status in order to get that income?

Yes. Debt status has nothing to do with it.

Aloha_Shooter

09-19-2012, 13:41

Not sure what you're saying here. You said in a previous posts "return to Reaganesque rates". I asked which of the rate schemes you were referencing, and pointed out the rates that were in existence at the time. If you meant "tax revenues" instead of rates, I do understand the difference. I can't, however, read your mind.

Most commentators I've read or heard in the past 10-15 years have referred to the rates at the end of Reagan's second term, i.e., 28%. I'm not sure why you think "Reaganesque revenues" would have clarified a difference in your mind or why you think of 50% as a Reaganesque rate.

Tax receipts as a percentage of GDP have typically been around an average of 18%, regardless of tax rates. We're low now, but with the recovery of the economy expected to be back at 18% by 2020.

http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/current-tax-receipts

When you say this, it comes across like there's some magic that hold tax receipts at 18% of GDP. In fact, the chart you link to shows quite the opposite with a high degree of variability ranging from 14.4% to 20.6% of GDP. In other words, actual receipts vary around the presumed long term average of 18.1% of GDP by roughly 14%.

Tax receipts decreasing with rate increases have been well documented for a long time. This relationship was thrown off in the mid 90s because the economic stimulus of the dot-com boom was largely (and somewhat uniquely) independent of tax rate increases under Bush I and Clinton. You can see from that graph that tax receipts increased from roughly 16% to over 18% of GDP after removal of the Clinton tax rate increases, tax receipts dropped after Johnson's Great Society tax rate increases, etc.

Economics is about an accurate of a field as weather forecasting.

On this point we agree. To quote Pournelle, we may as well have a Chief Astrologer at the White House as a Chief Economist (and yes, he said that before the kerfuffle about Nancy Reagan's astrologer).

Irving

09-19-2012, 13:50

Yes. Debt status has nothing to do with it.

But you said that a consumption tax would lower overhead costs for companies, so they would automatically lower the price of their products.

Rucker61

09-19-2012, 14:03

Most commentators I've read or heard in the past 10-15 years have referred to the rates at the end of Reagan's second term, i.e., 28%. I'm not sure why you think "Reaganesque revenues" would have clarified a difference in your mind or why you think of 50% as a Reaganesque rate.

I didn't have any idea of the tax rates under Reagan, so I went to look them up. Reagan held office from 1981 to 1989. From 1981 to Tax Act 1986, the highest tax rate was 50% - longer than the entire first term. They were lowered over the remainder of his second term each year to hit 28%. Until the Tax Act, capital gains were taxed at 20%; afterwards, at the nominal income tax rate. All of those could be considered "Reaganesque". If you want the lower rates of the second term to be considered, then you should include the 28% capital gains rate, too.

When you say this, it comes across like there's some magic that hold tax receipts at 18% of GDP. In fact, the chart you link to shows quite the opposite with a high degree of variability ranging from 14.4% to 20.6% of GDP. In other words, actual receipts vary around the presumed long term average of 18.1% of GDP by roughly 14%.

No magic, just interesting. Have you compared the spikes and troughs to changes in tax rates, normalized for outside economic events? Me neither.

Tax receipts decreasing with rate increases have been well documented for a long time. This relationship was thrown off in the mid 90s because the economic stimulus of the dot-com boom was largely (and somewhat uniquely) independent of tax rate increases under Bush I and Clinton. You can see from that graph that tax receipts increased from roughly 16% to over 18% of GDP after removal of the Clinton tax rate increases, tax receipts dropped after Johnson's Great Society tax rate increases, etc.

The Laffer Curve also shows that too low of a tax rate also negatively affects tax revenues. The trick is finding the optimal rate. Given that it's Economics, it's a moving target, in the dark, and that's only if it's isolated from political forces. Since it isn't, it's worse.

On this point we agree. To quote Pournelle, we may as well have a Chief Astrologer at the White House as a Chief Economist (and yes, he said that before the kerfuffle about Nancy Reagan's astrologer).

He or she would likely have a better looking hat.

HoneyBadger

09-19-2012, 14:29

But you said that a consumption tax would lower overhead costs for companies, so they would automatically lower the price of their products.

Did I say that? I think you're confusing me with someone else.

I only pointed out the flaws in dwalker's two examples.

FastMan

09-19-2012, 15:25

But you said that a consumption tax would lower overhead costs for companies, so they would automatically lower the price of their products.

HoneyBadger was right, he didn't say that, I did. Though not in those exact words.

Aloha_Shooter

09-19-2012, 16:57

I didn't have any idea of the tax rates under Reagan, so I went to look them up. Reagan held office from 1981 to 1989. From 1981 to Tax Act 1986, the highest tax rate was 50% - longer than the entire first term. They were lowered over the remainder of his second term each year to hit 28%. Until the Tax Act, capital gains were taxed at 20%; afterwards, at the nominal income tax rate. All of those could be considered "Reaganesque". If you want the lower rates of the second term to be considered, then you should include the 28% capital gains rate, too.

I sometimes forget some of you either weren't alive or weren't paying attention during the Reagan administration. The reduction to 50% was all he could get through Tip O'Neill's Congress until the new Congress was elected. The cap gains rate was a Congressional compromise (again). Reagan accepted it to get the rate reductions he considered to be more important to spur economic progress. It was reduced in an attempt to increase business investment as another economic spur but even a return to 28% cap gains would be an improvement over where Obama/Pelosi/Reid wanted to push it (since only "evil greedy businessmen" make any capital gains in their worldview).

FastMan

09-19-2012, 17:11

I sometimes forget some of you either weren't alive or weren't paying attention during the Reagan administration. The reduction to 50% was all he could get through Tip O'Neill's Congress until the new Congress was elected. The cap gains rate was a Congressional compromise (again). Reagan accepted it to get the rate reductions he considered to be more important to spur economic progress. It was reduced in an attempt to increase business investment as another economic spur but even a return to 28% cap gains would be an improvement over where Obama/Pelosi/Reid wanted to push it (since only "evil greedy businessmen" make any capital gains in their worldview).

Nice post. Spot on. Reagan was pragmatic.

Rucker61

09-19-2012, 18:20

I sometimes forget some of you either weren't alive or weren't paying attention during the Reagan administration. The reduction to 50% was all he could get through Tip O'Neill's Congress until the new Congress was elected.

Yet those are the rates for "Reaganesque". If you want "intentions" rather than "data", it might make it easier for those of us who weren't alive or paying attention to understand you better.

The cap gains rate was a Congressional compromise (again). Reagan accepted it to get the rate reductions he considered to be more important to spur economic progress. It was reduced in an attempt to increase business investment as another economic spur but even a return to 28% cap gains would be an improvement over where Obama/Pelosi/Reid wanted to push it (since only "evil greedy businessmen" make any capital gains in their worldview).

According to my research, long term capital gains tax will increase to 20% (10% for the 15% tax bracket) with 5 year long term capital gains at 18%. Positively Reaganesque. Of course, short term capital gains gets hit pretty hard, but that should encourage investment rather than speculation. Do you think anyone in the 36% and 39.6% tax brackets will stop trying to make as much money as they can?

Irving

09-19-2012, 21:23

Did I say that? I think you're confusing me with someone else.

I only pointed out the flaws in dwalker's two examples.

I know, I just took your post to mean that you agreed that consumption task would cause companies to lower prices; which I disagree with.

HoneyBadger was right, he didn't say that, I did. Though not in those exact words.

I was definitely paraphrasing what you were saying there.

Side note about the title of this thread: I think Romney is retarded to directly relate the people who don't pay federal income tax to Obama supporters. I think that 47% of people don't pay Federal income taxes, and probably 40+% of people that blindly support Obama, but they are certainly NOT the same people.

xring

09-19-2012, 23:06

On top of that, they subsidize some of the product they export. All the more reason to give our guys a hand via the consumption tax I explained. It won't fix the problem completely, but it will help, with China, and every other low wage paying country. The rest we can make up for with tariffs and such. Look for Romney to perhaps do some of that. He's been talking about it.

The competitive help to American businesses is not the only benefit of the consumption tax. Don't forget the benefit I explained about getting all Americans invested in and concerned about Federal fiscal responsibility. Many will balk at the idea, because they're currently not contributing little to the benefits they receive from federal spending and don't want to wreck a good thing, but if we don't change that we're doomed.

A tax or tarrifs can not restore a free market. A market is eithor free and regulates efficently or it is not. If there is a distortion a second distortion does not enable it to regulate efficently. Debasing our currency to match Chinas currency manipulation would be a example. If there is a abomination present, do you correct it or create a second abomination? Free markets are what be must be restored or we are doomed. The budget must be balanced or we are doomed. Would you consider a corporation with 20 USA employees and 200 chinese employees to be an "American business" that needs a tax break? Would you consider a corporation on USA soil that had contract employees from another country working at its USA facility an "American business" that needs a tax break? This is the new normal this is how it works;

USAcorp contracts with mumbaicorp to provide services xyand z. USAcorp arranges for visas for the employees of mumbaicorp. These mumbaicorp employees come to the USA work at the USA facility but pay no income tax. Mumbaicorp employees are not citizens and only employed by mumbaicorp in another country. Mumbaicorp employees only relationship to USAcorp is that of a representitive of a foreign corporation fufilling a contract. All of mumbaicorp employees expenses while in the USA are paid by mumbaicorp. Mumbaicorp employees are paid by mumbaicorp in the banking system and currency of the country mumbaicorp is from.

If you dont consider the two examples above to be "american business" that need a tax break how would you apply the tax break to one corporation but not the other? This is why free markets regulate efficently but multiple distortions within a non free market do not.

Rucker61

09-21-2012, 22:40

Incorrect- of the public that doesn't account for children and retired people, 47% is accurate.

That turns our not to be the case. Here's the link from the conservative Heritage Foundation, you know, the ones on the conservative side:

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/19/...-income-taxes/

"percentage of Americans not represented on a taxable return. That includes spouses and dependents. Where are you getting your data?

As of 2010, the census data shows age and employment status comparatively to income tax. Something to the effect of $24,000/year and lower pay 0% income tax, and to be in the top 50% of income earners in the US you need only make roughly $33,000/yr. The top 10% make about $114,000/yr. And do you know where the top 1% actually is? $380,000/yr. That's probably a lot lower than you thought.[1 (http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/)]

Again, that turns out not to be the case. I know where me and mine stand, in that top ten percent.

Also, corporate tax is not as much of a revenue generator as personal income tax.
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/images/2008/05/31/corporate_personal_taxes2.gif

Yet again, not news. I don't think I've said anything about what the tax rates should be, only pointing out that the denigration heaped upon the 47% is largely undeserved.