Romney: "Obama supporters are dependent on the government"

[HoneyBadger]

So what you're actually saying is...


It's my turn to be the troll! hahaha

[Rucker61]

So what you're actually saying is...


It's my turn to be the troll! hahaha

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]

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]

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 the charge for the goods they produce. Say their nations corporate tax rate is 20 percent. That's a 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.

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


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?

[Motley]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.