Romney: "Obama supporters are dependent on the government"

[Irving]

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]

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]

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]

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 pretty much shows that the majority of the 47% live in states that are going to vote for Mitt Romney.

[Irving]

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]

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]

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/federalbudge...t-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'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]

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]

Also, corporate tax is not as much of a revenue generator as personal income tax.

[FastMan]

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]

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 ("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.