taxation

HungLikeJesus;757401 wrote:

I'd say an ideal ratio would be 1/3 of income goes to taxes (federal, state, local, etc.), 1/3 goes to savings/investments, and 1/3 goes to expenses.

I haven't really thought it through, but it sounds like a good balance.

Obama didn't say that secretaries pay higher taxes than millionaires, although he left that impression
Now does a secretary usually pay higher tax rates than a millionaire?
The answer to that question is definitely not.
Most secretaries don't make that much. Salary.com put the average salary for an entry-level secretary at $33,249. The top marginal rate for the secretary would be 15 percent, and then typical deductions and exemptions would reduce the tax burden even more. If the secretary had children and no other income, the likely income tax burden would be zero.

Which leads us to another fact-check of ours. We fact-checked Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who said, "Fifty-one percent -- that is, a majority of American households -- paid no income tax in 2009." We rated that True.

Here's another accurate statement: The wealthy pay most of the income taxes in the United States.

Let’s say you’re a millionaire CEO, being paid a regular salary. In that case, you're paying the top marginal rate -- currently, 35 percent -- on everything you make above $379,150. (Earnings below that level are taxed at a lower rate.)

Numbers from the nonpartisan CBO show that the wealthy pay most of the taxes in the United States. In 2007, the top 10 percent of tax payers accounted for 72.7 percent of all income taxes owed. That top 10 percent included people making adjusted income of $102,900 or higher. Keep in mind, that top 10 percent accounts for 42 percent of all income earned. They paid an average tax rate of 26.7 percent.

Still, that doesn't mean all the rich were on the hook for that much. Again, because of the lower rates paid on capital gains and dividends, some wealthy people paid much lower rates than others.
"We estimate that nearly half of the benefits from the lower rates on gains and dividends goes to the top one-tenth of 1 percent of households," he said. That top one-tenth includes people with incomes of $2.3 million dollars a year or more.

But even the most aggressive tax increases on the wealthy would raise only $700 billion to $800 billion over 10 years, when the federal government needs to be considering deficit reduction of between $1.2 trillion and $4 trillion over that time period.

To achieve real savings, lawmakers need to look at tax code in its entirety, eliminating all sorts of loopholes and special exemptions, he said. And, they need to make reductions on the spending side, particularly on entitlement programs projected to expand due to an aging population.

Does a secretary pay higher taxes than a millionaire?
Quote:
Obama didn't say that secretaries pay higher taxes than millionaires, although he left that impression
Now does a secretary usually pay higher tax rates than a millionaire?
The answer to that question is definitely not.
Most secretaries don't make that much. Salary.com put the average salary for an entry-level secretary at $33,249. The top marginal rate for the secretary would be 15 percent, and then typical deductions and exemptions would reduce the tax burden even more. If the secretary had children and no other income, the likely income tax burden would be zero.
OK, so lets put that tired incorrect argument to rest.

The 51 percent figure is an anomaly that reflects the unique circumstances of 2009, when the recession greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes and when temporary tax cuts created by the 2009 Recovery Act — including the "Making Work Pay" tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits — were in effect. Together, these developments removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired.
Center for Budget and Policy Priorities

henry quirk;757385 wrote:

What is equitable ('fair') taxation?

That is: if you had your say, how would you structure American taxation (on the local, state, and/or federal levels)?

classicman;757497 wrote:

nope, unemployment benefits are taxable as income.

Which leads us to another fact-check of ours. We fact-checked Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas,
who said, "Fifty-one percent -- that is, a majority of American households -- paid no income tax in 2009."
We rated that True.

Obama didn't say that secretaries pay higher taxes than millionaires, although he left that impression
Now does a secretary usually pay higher tax rates than a millionaire?

BigV;757529 wrote:

huh.

I'm just now reading the article at your link.

Stormieweather;757532 wrote:

That applied to ONE year, 2009, due to special circumstances, but boy oh boy, everyone just loves using that as representative of ALL years. Too bad it's so terribly distorted.

Spexxvet;757541 wrote:

Considering that you're experiencing that now, what is your opinion?

Lamplighter;757547 wrote:

From POLITIFACT - [COLOR="Red"]NOT classicman[/COLOR][/URL]

Lets say there are something less than 2 income earners per household (e.g., assume 1.5 per household (?)

Spexxvet;757549 wrote:

I believe Obama and Buffet have said that a secrcetary pays a higher effective tax rate than a millionaire.

classicman;757565 wrote:

Please tell me where the distortion is. The year 2009 was the last year data was available and thats why it was used.

Stormieweather;757595 wrote:

I did. Read my whole post, or follow the links I provided.

I mean, J. H. C. :greenface

I don't know why I bother.

The normal percentage who don't pay any taxes is 14%, and those 14% are mostly seniors with no income or job at ALL, students who file but don't work full time, and the disabled who can't work.

In a more typical year, 35 percent to 40 percent of households owe no federal income tax. In 2007, the figure was 37.9 percent. [2]

Stormieweather;757532 wrote:

Myth of 47% pay no taxes

if you're scandalized that lots of people didn't pay federal income taxes, and you should be, look to the source of the problem NOT ENOUGH INCOME.

TheMercenary;757624 wrote:

Horse shit.

It is about Federal income tax. Not all taxes. Fail.

BigV;757612 wrote:

untwist your panties then we'll talk. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Cronyn's statement is correct. It's misleading, but it's correct. It's misleading because it narrowly restricts the scope of his statement.

Obama wrote:

Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires. That’s pretty straightforward. It’s hard to argue against that. Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it. It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million. They should have to defend that unfairness -- explain why somebody who's making $50 million a year in the financial markets should be paying 15 percent on their taxes, when a teacher making $50,000 a year is paying a higher rate.

Obama didn't say that secretaries pay higher taxes than millionaires, although he left that impression

Originally Posted by Obama
Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires. That’s pretty straightforward. It’s hard to argue against that. Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it. It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million. They should have to defend that unfairness -- explain why somebody who's making $50 million a year in the financial markets should be paying 15 percent on their taxes, when a teacher making $50,000 a year is paying a higher rate.

Spexxvet;757681 wrote:

He doesn't say they pay more taxes, he says "they shouldn't" pay more taxes. It's not the same thing, but I can see how it was MISLEADING.

Can we move on?

infinite monkey;757389 wrote:

I would pay approximately...none.

The rich (I will define rich as anyone with more money than I have) will give 50%. Said 50% goes mostly to me.

I don't care about the roads or the infrastructure or services or community or animals or starving children or the space race or the cold war or the hot war or reduced lunches or shelters or bread or milk or the price of rice.

(Sorry, I was channeling another dwellar.) :blush:

Anyway, I don't really understand taxes I just know that I pay the hell out of them and I consider it to SUCK but I consider it integral to being a participant in corporate welfare and subsidizing the ultra wealthy.

henry quirk;757843 wrote:

F<snip>
Why would you tax someone with an annual income of $10K or less, 5%,
and, someone with an annual income of $500K and above, 40%?

henry quirk;757843 wrote:

*What is equitable ('fair') taxation? That is: if you had your say,
how would you structure American taxation (on the local, state, and/or federal levels)?

Lamplighter;757853 wrote:

Anything less than a progressive tax gives disproportional advantage
to some (the wealthy) over others (the not-wealthy).

Taxes and/or fees are not just to pay for governmental services,
but can be used to achieve social goals as well.

Businesses now specify the qualifications they want/expect in prospective employees,
such as read/write English, high school, Bachelor's, Master's, Ph.D., M.D.,
licensed electrician, plumber, certified insulation installer,
or X years experience as a xxxxx, etc.

But the cost educating and training a child up to these various levels
is borne by the family, property taxes, and other resources
that have no connection to each particular business.

That is, I can set up a business that hires only licensed physicians and nurses,
and my business would only pay their salary and a (very limited) amount of payroll taxes.
My business income taxes are based on profits and loss, not on how much it cost to educate my employees.

So, my plan is an annual fee based upon the cost of educating or qualifying
each of the employees that work in the business.
Such fees could be something like the gasoline or cigarette taxes,
and their use by governments could be restricted to support of the education system.
A secondary advantage might be that employers would set more realistic qualifications for their employees.

=henry quirk
Why would you tax someone with an annual income of $10K or less, 5%, and, someone with an annual income of $500K and above, 40%?

That is: what does the number of dollars one has have to do with how much of any one dollar should go to taxes?

-**What is the purpose of taxation?

-What’s the purpose of governance?

-Especially in the American system: do we have 'governance', 'proxy-hood', or something else entirely?

*What is equitable ('fair') taxation? That is: if you had your say, how would you structure American taxation (on the local, state, and/or federal levels)?

BigV;757654 wrote:

the balance of where our national revenues come from has shifted DRAMATICALLY. Corporations pay less now than they have for decades. their profits are at historic highs. they benefit from the structure of our government but they dont pay in proportion. that is wrong.

America suffers from virtually the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, nearly 40% on average counting state corporate income taxes. Even China has a 25% corporate rate. The average rate in the European Union, which is reputedly mostly socialist, is even less than that. In formerly socialist Canada, the corporate tax rate is 16.5%, slated under current law to fall to 15% next year. Compared to America, Canada has been booming since Obama was elected.

what are we doing now for our children? Education? Environment? Opportunity? What are we building for the generations that follow ours?

What does the dollar value of similar sacrifice look like? Why arent we trying to create a fairer society?

Now we see President Barack Obama engaged in this same game regarding federal tax policy and financing for a so-called jobs plan based on the same Keynesian theory that he just proved fallacious yet again, as has been proved over and over since the 1930s. Campaigning for reelection on Monday, Obama said:

Middle-class families shouldn&#8217;t pay higher tax rates than millionaires and billionaires. That&#8217;s pretty straightforward. It&#8217;s hard to argue against that. Warren Buffet&#8217;s secretary shouldn&#8217;t pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it. It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million. Anybody who says we can&#8217;t change the tax code to correct that&#8230;.They should have to defend that unfairness&#8212;explain why somebody who&#8217;s making $50 million a year in the financial markets should be paying 15 percent on their taxes, when a teacher making $50,000 a year is paying more than that&#8212;paying a higher rate. They ought to have to answer for it.

Let me explain it to you, Mr. President. The truth is that the unfairness you discuss is a fantasy. The facts are just the opposite.

The Obama/Buffett ruse arises just like any other magician&#8217;s trick. It focuses attention on just one tax rate paid on income arising from capital investment &#8211; the capital gains tax rate of 15%. The florid abusive rhetoric distracts from the multiple taxation of capital investment income, which is actually taxed at least four separate times under our tax code. Capital investment income is taxed first by the above mentioned, abusive, internationally uncompetitive corporate income tax. If any is paid out as dividends, then it is taxed again by the individual income tax. If the value of the capital interest, say a share of stock, manages to increase in the Obama depression, then it is taxed again by the capital gains tax. If anything is left at death, then it is subject to taxation again by the death tax.

That is how the top 1% of income earners ends up paying more than the bottom 95% combined. And it is why the average tax rate paid by millionaires is three times the average rate paid by the middle class.

On the basis of his abusively misleading rhetoric, Obama in his campaign speech on Monday called for $1.5 trillion in increased taxes. That would be on top of all the tax increases for which Obama has already won enactment under current law for 2013. In that year, the tax increases of Obamacare become effective, and the Bush tax cuts expire, which Obama has refused to renew for the nation&#8217;s small businesses, job creators, and investors.

As a result, the top two income tax rates will go up by nearly 20%. The capital gains tax would soar by nearly 60%. The tax on dividends would nearly triple. The Medicare payroll tax would rocket up by 62% for these disfavored taxpayers. That is all on top of virtually the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world, and before the new tax increases President Obama called for on Monday.

President Obama said in his campaign speech on Monday that Congress should pass his jobs plan &#8220;knowing that every proposal is fully paid for,&#8221; supposedly by that $1.5 trillion tax increase. But the President&#8217;s proposed tax increases don&#8217;t have a prayer of raising nearly that much.

Obama and Buffett are blowing so much smoke over the 15% rate on capital gains and on dividends adopted in the Bush years. But over the last 40 years, every time the capital gains tax rate has been cut, revenue has gone up. And every time the capital gains tax rate has been raised, revenue has gone down.

The reason for this is that when the capital gains rate was cut, more taxpayers sold their capital and realized their gains, and a rising stock market produced more gains. When the rate was increased, more taxpayers held on to their capital and a declining stock market cut off the gains.

All of those tax increases are to finance a so-called jobs plan which is really just a federal bailout of spendthrift states. About half of the $450 billion in increased federal spending under the plan goes to states to keep full employment of &#8220;teachers, policemen, and firefighters,&#8221; and for &#8220;infrastructure that states have already decided they don&#8217;t need or have deemed a low priority,&#8221; as AEI Executive Committee member Henry Golub rightly explained it in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. This after half the infrastructure spending in the first, 2009 stimulus bill has not been spent yet.

Yesterday's AP "factcheck" (9/20/11) of Barack Obama's speech about raising taxes on the super-wealthy cleverly debunked an argument that Obama didn't make. No one is saying that all millionaires pay a lower rate than their secretaries--Warren Buffett drew attention because he said he did, and there are undoubtedly other multi-millionaires in the same boat. As Dean Baker observed at Beat the Press today (9/21/11):

President Obama made a simple and true statement in his speech on the budget Monday. He said that there were millionaires and billionaires who pay tax at a lower rate than middle income families.

Many news outlets went to town to point out that on average millionaires and billionaires pay tax at a higher rate than middle income families. Of course this is not what Obama said. He was pointing out that some of the richest people in the country (Warren Buffet was his model) get most or all of their income as capital gains and therefore only pay taxes at the 15 percent capital gains rate.

Baker recommends a piece in today's New York Times (9/21/11) that was more factual than AP's factcheck:
In 2009, 238,000 households filed returns with adjusted gross incomes of at least $1 million. One-quarter of them paid an effective federal income tax rate of less than 15 percent, the data shows, and 1,470 paid no federal income tax at all....

Though the group is small, the dollars are large. For the top 400 taxpayers, the effective federal income tax rate has dropped from 29 percent in 1993 to 18 percent in 2008. The average adjusted gross income of those 400 households was $271 million. By comparison, households with $50,000 to $75,000 in income paid an effective rate of 15 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

But the AP piece has legs--a Slate article noted: "But as a general point, Buffett is wrong: In aggregate, richer earners do pay higher rates." The link goes to the AP factcheck. Again--Buffett was talking about himself and others like him. It would not seem to be a hard concept to grasp, but for whatever reason there are reporters who seem interested in protected the super-wealthy.

henry quirk;757843 wrote:

annual income $10K or less: taxed at 5%
$10K to $20K: 10%
$20K to $50K: 20%
$50K to $100K: 25%
$100K to $500K: 30%
$500K and above: 40%

Why would you tax someone with an annual income of $10K or less, 5%, and, someone with an annual income of $500K and above, 40%?

henry quirk;757843 wrote:

annual income $10K or less: taxed at 5%
$10K to $20K: 10%
$20K to $50K: 20%
$50K to $100K: 25%
$100K to $500K: 30%
$500K and above: 40%

Why would you tax someone with an annual income of $10K or less, 5%, and, someone with an annual income of $500K and above, 40%?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

BigV;758030 wrote:

you and your constitution....

HungLikeJesus;758277 wrote:

I<snip> It would be kind of like rent. It might discourage people from having babies, and from keeping the old folks alive.

henry quirk;757385 wrote:

What is equitable ('fair') taxation?

That is: if you had your say, how would you structure American taxation (on the local, state, and/or federal levels)?

henry quirk;758528 wrote:

Implement national and state point of purchase taxes...that is: at every purchase of a product or service there is a tax (say, **15%).

Everyone loses and wins.

henry quirk;758584 wrote:

"...plan would hurt you the poorer you are, and benefit you the richer you are."

"A recipe for aristocracy."


And this would be different than things are NOW in what way?

Undertoad;758661 wrote:

I still say we can work it out. Exempt food, clothing, rent [strike] and mortgage interest [/strike]. Require a super majority to add exemptions.

Tax consumption, which is bad, rather than income, savings, or investments, which are good. If you create more than you consume, you "win" but more importantly, you automatically build more wealth for the rest of the pool.

henry quirk;758584 wrote:

I get the whole 'regressive' thing of my proposal, but, consider...

Leave the income tax exactly as it (on all levels) with one crucial difference: anyone making $20,000 or below pays nothing; anyone making $1 million or above pays 90% (state and federal combined) (those folks in-between you can gradate as you like).

DanaC wrote:

Isnt that how the tax system currently works?

Clodfobble;758778 wrote:

Not the American one, at least. In the American system, the end-count of your income determines which percentage bracket you're in, and that percentage applies to all of the dollars. So in a pure count with no other factors, a person making $99,900 a year would indeed take home more than the person making $100,000.

But of course there are tons and tons of deductions, which lower the end-count of what counts as your "income," and there are credits, where the government just gives you a certain amount back regardless of what percentage you are at, or whether you even owe that much in taxes in the first place, and there are deferred taxes, and certain types of money taxed at special rates, etc., etc....

infinite monkey;758893 wrote:

I've seen thousands of tax forms. A whole hell of a lot of people make a profit.

Clodfobble;758845 wrote:

ITEM ONE: just this morning, I insisted to Mr. Clodfobble that I would have to make a separate trip to Home Depot, because no way did Target carry toilet seats as he thought they might. But in fact, they do, and I got one.
...

infinite monkey;758893 wrote:

...
Yeah, yeah, it costs money to raise kids. But I didn't get anybody pregnant.

OK, but the tax reforms you are seeing are all submitted to you by people who think they are poor enough to get financial aid for college, right? So it's not a representative sample of the public at large, or even of that age group.

HungLikeJesus;758908 wrote:

You almost got me pregnant.

That one time.

classicman;758890 wrote:

I wish it were that simple. In some cases it is... in many it is not.

What happens when the standard deductions and child credits and EIC and a host of other deductions are added, especially to that person at the bottom? They actually get money back. In some/many/most (???) it is more than they put in. I know this from personal experience. Effective tax rate??? Its a negative - They actually make money.

Happy Monkey;758927 wrote:

That's a separate issue from how tax brackets work. And even the "Fair Tax" folks support continuing that; they propose giving everyone a check every month as a sales tax "prebate", which is similar to the tax credits that can result in a negative income tax rate for the poor.

HungLikeJesus;758907 wrote:

But is it wise to get a toilet seat with a target on it?

classicman;758898 wrote:

oh and that "taxable income" BigV ... that's AFTER a bunch of reductions and adjustments as well.

I think the proposal was "income" period. If you made it, we tax it - no matter how it was generated.

Pico and ME;758941 wrote:

At what income does it stop being a profit?

HungLikeJesus;758948 wrote:

I imagine that people that have worked for their money, and that have invested, and that are now retired, are living off of the income from those investments, which would be taxed as capital gains, wouldn't it?

Dividends are distributions of property (which can include money, stock of another corporation or other property) a corporation pays you because you own stock in that corporation. You also may receive dividends through a partnership, an estate, a trust, a subchapter S corporation or from an association that is taxable as a corporation. Most dividends are paid in cash. A shareholder of a corporation may be deemed to receive a dividend if the corporation pays the debt of its shareholder, the shareholder receives services from the corporation, or the shareholder is allowed the use of the corporation's property. A shareholder may also receive distributions such as additional stock or stock rights in the distributing corporation; such distributions may or may not qualify as dividends.

BigV;758950 wrote:

....


This is a confusing question, ME.

BigV;758950 wrote:

....
maybe:
People make a profit from our tax system when they get money back from the government.

classicman;758977 wrote:

Hmmm. This is where the Capital gains get a little fuzzy also. I earn money from my job, I get a paycheck. I pay taxes on it. Then I invest it and get taxed again. Isn't that a little odd?
I'll go back to my tax all income at the same rate regardless.

BigV;758984 wrote:

finish your thoughts here.
<snip>
If you make your living buying and selling, the profit you make from those sales is your income. that income is taxed. Where the money came from to make the purchase is irrelevant.

If you make your living buying and selling, the profit you make from those sales is your income. that income is taxed. Where the money came from to make the purchase is irrelevant.

It makes it possible to make imprecise statements that appear to contradict each other and still be literally true.

classicman;758996 wrote:

Now, when you sell it, if you make a profit, that profit & principle is taxed.
How about the estate tax.


...and should be taxed at the income rate, not the capital gains rate?

...and should be taxed at the income rate, not the capital gains rate?

classicman;758996 wrote:

Now, when you sell it, if you make a profit, that profit & principle is taxed.
How about the estate tax.


...and should be taxed at the income rate, not the capital gains rate?

Stormieweather;759095 wrote:

Um, there is no "revenue" to be found in the military budget. There are costs to cut, to be sure, but that is not the same thing as "revenue".

HungLikeJesus;759099 wrote:

You mean that we have this huge military and we can't make any money off of it?

BigV wrote:

A related thought is to eliminate all deductions. Simple? Check. A good idea? Unknown. Sure is simple though.

Spexxvet;759322 wrote:

Maybe if tax rates were higher on wealthier Americans, we could balance the budget. And maybe even pay off some of the national debt, to boot.

Stormieweather;759124 wrote:

Maybe we could charge countries like Libya for helping liberate them? Ie: A war surcharge or something. Fit right in with the corporate atmosphere of profits, profits, profits... /nod.

glatt;759324 wrote:

When you start to cut funding from programs I use, like mortgage deductions, that's going to get my attention. I'm ok with my programs being cut, but they damn well better be cutting everyone else's too, especially the breaks the wealthy get. I'm fairly certain most people feel the same way. Most people are willing to do their part, but not if everyone else is getting off scot-free.

classicman;759358 wrote:

I really don't think that's feasible.
You do realize that there are only 124,647 filers with incomes over $500,000.
If you add in those over $200,000 it totals 1,223,244 filers as compared to 68,400,596 of those under $200,000.
(figures from 2008)
Adjusting the rates on just over a million filers... I don't see where there are enough of them.

classicman;759614 wrote:

Thats what I was saying... Because they "headquarters" are in another country the revenue doesn't get taxed here.

TheMercenary wrote:

Oh I agree, so why is it that nearly 50% of the income earners don't pay Federal income tax again?

classicman;759610 wrote:

Corp tax rates are a global issue now, unlike citizens. If we raise the corp tax too high then they put their "headquarters" overseas.

Perhaps a different form of taxation on corps is in order. Tax them on whatever they produce/sell here. Dunno just thinkin out loud.

BigV;759613 wrote:

I"m just thinkin out loud too. so. truce.

If the whole of the situation was better "over there" whereever "over there" is.. they'd fucking go today. But they're not going. What they are doing, a lot of them, not all of them, but there is a LOT of offshore income being just held offshore. HQ in The Caymans or Bermuda. But the production facilities, all the officers live here... that kind of transparent shit.

If the profits are not repatriated, they're not taxed. Hey, I am not a corporate tax crusader. Not yet. There's a lot of learning ahead of me. But I know that their raison d'etere is to maximize profit. and that is fucking fine.

But not at the expense of others, shifting the costs for the things they enjoy to others, and I don't mean their customers.

classicman;759614 wrote:

Thats what I was saying... Because they "headquarters" are in another country the revenue doesn't get taxed here.

BigV;759625 wrote:

Yes, that's a problem, but there are plenty of other situations where companies HQ in other countries that pay taxes here. Toyota. Volkswagen. They're not US companies.

TheMercenary;759635 wrote:

And they are moving in droves because the US is among those with the highest tax on the corps. So we drive them away and now how much are we taking in by taxing them? And taxing them more?

Drucker says the company saved more than $3 billion from 2007-2009 through a winding system of offshore subsidiaries. Google's not the only company that does this, he says; many other tech giants like Microsoft and Apple have similar structures. But [SIZE="3"]Google's offshore tax rate — 2.4 percent by Drucker's count —[/SIZE] bests its peers in the technology sector in ways that a retail giant like Wal-Mart could never hope to.

In 2003, Drucker says, Google transferred all of its non-U.S. intellectual property rights to a subsidiary in Ireland.

"From that point forward," he says, "any profits coming from sales overseas would be contributed not to the U.S. parent — where they would be taxed at a rate of 35 percent — but to the Irish subsidiary."

The corporate tax rate in Ireland? 12.5 percent.

But Google didn't stop there, Drucker says. The company used a financial tool known in the corporate tax world as the "double Irish."

"The Irish subsidiary pays royalties to a second Irish subsidiary," Drucker says, this one that declares its tax residency in Bermuda, where there's no corporate income tax.

Google faced another problem it had to work around. The company would have to pay taxes to move money directly from Ireland to Bermuda, Drucker says, so it used another tool known as the "Dutch sandwich."

"So the payments go from the Irish sub to the Dutch sub to the Bermuda-resident Irish sub," Drucker says.

"The combination of these strategies has helped Google cut its effective tax rate overseas to the low-single-digit rate," he says.

Bermuda Or Bust

Google, like most corporations, will be the first to tell you that this is all completely legal under U.S. tax law.

"We have an obligation to our shareholders to set up a tax-efficient structure, and our present structure is compliant with the tax rules in all the countries where we operate," a spokesperson told NPR.

To some politicians and economists, that sounds like a good reason to lower the U.S. corporate tax rate and draw Google's profits back home.

But draw them from where?

"We know that the corporate income tax rate in a number of countries overseas — even in our competitors, in the G-7 countries — is in the mid- to high-20 percent range," Drucker says.

"U.S. companies are not shifting income into those countries. They are not shifting income into the U.K., France and Italy. They are shifting income into Bermuda and the Cayman Islands," he says, "jurisdictions where there is no corporate income tax at all."

"If that's the case, it seems to me that it raises questions about whether cutting the U.S. corporate income tax rate would do anything to change any of this behavior," Drucker says.

classicman;759358 wrote:

I really don't think that's feasible.
You do realize that there are only 124,647 filers with incomes over $500,000.
If you add in those over $200,000 it totals 1,223,244 filers as compared to 68,400,596 of those under $200,000.
(figures from 2008)
Adjusting the rates on just over a million filers... I don't see where there are enough of them.

Undertoad;759708 wrote:

Bermuda and the Cayman Islands are British territories. You have now declared war on the EU. Wouldn't it be easier to adjust US business tax and business law so that it *attracts* business from all around the world? Here is a case where lower rates earn greater revenue, and simpler business law earns more jobs.

You can see this at work in the states. New Hampshire has gained population at three times the rate of next-door Taxachusetts for the last three decades, and current NH unemployment is 5.2% compared to Taxachusetts' 7.6%.

This isn't exactly apples to apples

Spexxvet;758880 wrote:

If someone who endorses policies that are in direct conflict with my well-being, they are evil.

The businesses are already here. They LOVE it here, and I'm happy to have them. Yay business!!

America's wealthiest still dominate the global ranks, but the U.S. is losing its grip. One in three billionaires is an American, down from nearly one out of two a decade ago. It has 10 more than last year but 56 fewer than its 2008 peak. The U.S. is adding new billionaires at a much slower pace; just 6% of its 413 billionaires are new this year compared with 47% of China's and 30% of Russia's.

Undertoad;759736 wrote:

IIRC you like taxing the rich. Me too. But to do that, you have to generate them.

--snip--

If the US experienced that sort of growth in the next twenty years, there would be a massive surplus. Health care would be an afterthought in the budget. So this is what needs to happen. The best way IMO is to create an atmosphere heavily in favor of the marketplace (not just *business* per se).

Three-fourths of Asia's 105 newcomers get the bulk of their fortunes from stakes in publicly traded companies, 25 of which have been public only since the start of 2010.

Undertoad;759744 wrote:

Indeed. They are called immigrants, and we have plenty of room for them.

Clodfobble;760068 wrote:

To imply that there is a "line" for willing immigrants is the opposite of the statement that "we have plenty of room for them." Either there is room, or they need to wait in line.

BigV;759753 wrote:

And especially corporate money is ... if you'll pardon the mangled analogy... genetically void of any moral obligation to pay "their fair share". The share they're paying now is far less than what I consider fair.

Washington, DC, September 13, 2011 -- A new analysis of research on corporate taxes finds that U.S. firms consistently have among the highest effective tax rate in the world. Taking the most recent thirteen academic studies that compared effective corporate tax rates across nations, the Tax Foundation's most recent report documents the U.S. effective corporate rate as significantly higher than the average of all other nations.

"Taken as a whole, these studies indicate that the average effective tax rate for U.S. corporations - like the statutory rate - is one of the highest in the world. By every avail*able measure, the U.S. imposes a very high tax burden on its corporate sector, in com*parison to other nations, even after credits and deductions are considered," said Tax Foundation Adjunct Scholar Philip Dittmer.

mercy wrote:

Given the US has among the highest rates of taxation and corps are moving their headquarters out of the US, what do you determine to be "their fair share"?

Representative Kevin Brady, a Texas Republican who serves on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, in May introduced legislation that would call for an immediate tax holiday allowing companies to repatriate overseas profits at a 5.25 percent rate.

BigV;760727 wrote:

That's a good question mercy. I've talked about this in a couple posts to this point, and I'll recap those thoughts here.

I don't have a strict numeric value in mind for what constitutes their fair share. Focusing on a number like this is misleading. In fact, anyone who views the information in the two links you provided will find wildly different numbers for US corporation tax rates. Cato says 40% and Tax Foundation says 27%. The story I recently cited talked about Google paying 2.4% So, "what's fair?", see how that isn't a useful question if the answer needs to be a percentage?

Our laws are written to permit corporations to avoid/shield/evade/shelter whatever lots of these profits. I'm not the one saying so, just look at their own words!

From here:

How much money are we (and by we I mean the US Chamber of Commerce, by far the most pro-business organization in the country) talking about? As much as one-thousand two-hundred BILLIONS. That's 1.2 Trillion Dollars. That is how much money is estimated to be "parked" offshore by corporations, US corporations that do their business here in the United States. And that's accumulated since 2004, the date of the last tax repatriation holiday. Look, what's happening here is NOT that businesses are being driven out of the country because of our tax laws. What's happening here is that our laws permit the profits from those businesses (most especially very large businesses) to leak, not be driven, out of the country. This is legal. This is how we've built our system. This is what I am saying is UNFAIR.

That we have a system that enables corporations who, in every other way, participate fully in all other aspects of our society, except the part where they pay their fair share for all the things they enjoy, is evidenced by the very existence of overseas profits. Why is the whole idea of a tax repatriation holiday even possible if there were no EXPATRIATED profits? You can't REpatriate what hasn't been EXpatriated in the first place. Why do we *let* profits be expatriated?

As I said before, the system we have, the laws we have are configured to make the costs of running our country to fall unfairly on those who have less money. Is this explanation clear to you?

TheMercenary;760740 wrote:

<snip>
I agree, the tax holiday with bring those dollars back into the country.

<snip>
More clear. The costs of running our country are not borne by those who make less,
they are paid for by people who have more money, if you look at the tax system alone.
Excluding sales taxes that everyone pays a minority of people pay the majority of the taxes.

Lamplighter;760759 wrote:

Also, what is your justification for excluding sales taxes from the equation ?

TheMercenary;760740 wrote:

Which I why I posted two links, there is a huge disparity between what they pay and what people think they pay.

I agree, the tax holiday with bring those dollars back into the country.

I understand parking the profits. The bigger issue is that very large corps are moving their HQ out of the US because of the tax policy in this country. Your points are valid as well.

More good points.

More clear. The costs of running our country are not borne by those who make less, they are paid for by people who have more money, if you look at the tax system alone. Excluding sales taxes that everyone pays a minority of people pay the majority of the taxes.

a minority of people pay the majority of the taxes.

BigV;760812 wrote:

What about payroll taxes mercy? Those are federal taxes too, and given that the unemployment rate is what, roughly 10%, that means that 90% of people are paying federal taxes. Not a minority. Come on.

DanaC;760808 wrote:

Well duh. Wouldn't back up his argument if he didn't.

Lamplighter;760759 wrote:

How does a "tax holiday" benefit the country ...
other than giving the corporations that "avoided" US taxes yet one more freebie ?

TheMercenary;761041 wrote:

How is it a "freebie" when we charge among the highest of tax rates for corps?

By giving them a tax holiday they are encouraged to bring their offshore dollars back into the country, at a low rate, to reinvest in their own countries which create jobs. Understand?

TheMercenary;761037 wrote:

I would support a 9% sales tax on everything like in your tax heavy country similar to a VAT. So tell us how that has worked out for your country and it's current situation? Has it fixed your problems?

TheMercenary;761041 wrote:

How is it a "freebie" when we charge among the highest of tax rates for corps?

By giving them a tax holiday they are encouraged to bring their offshore dollars back into the country, at a low rate, to reinvest in their own countries which create jobs. Understand?

TheMercenary;761041 wrote:

How is it a "freebie" when we charge among the highest of tax rates for corps?

By giving them a tax holiday they are encouraged to bring their offshore dollars back into the country, at a low rate, to reinvest in their own countries which create jobs. Understand?

BigV;761188 wrote:

Here's how it's a freebie.

I (not a corporation) have a pool of money that has NOT been taxed by the government, it's called my 401k account. Shielding that money from taxes was done legally. I can't access that money to do things like pay my mortgage, or create jobs, or buy food or whatever. I want that money now though, and if I access it, I will have to pay taxes on it as regular income (at more than 5.25%).

A corporation (not me) has a pool of money that has NOT been taxed by the government, it's called their offshore profits. Shielding that money from taxes was done legally. It can't access that money to do things like buy outstanding shares of stock, or create jobs, or pay executive bonuses or whatever. It wants that money now though, and to access it, it will have to pay taxes on it as regular profit (at more than 5.25%).

A tax holiday is just a giveaway of revenue that was due to the government (yes, due) at the time it was moved. The move did two things, avoid taxes and lock up the money. Locked up money is not very useful, not useLESS, just of limited use. For example, it can't be spent. And that's the main function of money, to be spent. Now, to spend this money, it has to "re-enter" our system. We already have rules for that, why do we, "the people", need a new rule? I can see why we, "the corporation", or we, "the 401k holder", would want a new rule, because we don't like the "cost" of the current rule. But those "costs" (penalties, taxes due, etc) were already known by the corporations and people that moved the money "out" of the system in the first place. Now we need a ... a... do-over? Cause, waaah, I changed my mind, I don't like the deal I accepted in the first place. *Sigh*.

We have a system for establishing and changing our rules, our laws. That system is in play now with lobbying efforts like the letter from the US Chamber of Commerce to the Congress. I just don't agree with their point that they need relief. I've looked at "the numbers" and I don't see how they're suffering, despite the enormous tide of propaganda to the contrary.

I don't think a tax holiday is needed for the corporations to continue to prosper. If they want that money, let them repatriate it through the already functioning system we already have in place.

SamIam;761190 wrote:

Tell that to Wal Mart. All a tax holiday will do is put more money in the pockets of CEO's. Corps will continue to out source jobs to countries where they can get away with paying workers .50/hr.

BigV;761065 wrote:

Hey mercy--I know words can have multiple meanings, I'm sure that's where we are failing to connect on this point. "most" (most of what?) "more" (more than what?) "taxes" (federal, income, payroll, excise, etc, etc).

Here are three simple pictures I hope will illustrate my point.

As you can see,

In illustration #1, 46.4% of Households Will Pay No Federal Income Tax for 2011

But as you can see in Illustration #2, Nearly Two-Thirds of Households That Will Pay No Income Tax Will Pay Payroll Taxes

Illustration #3 shows (here's the money shot, if you'll pardon the pun) Who Will Pay Neither Income Nor Payroll Taxes?

Here's my math on this.

53.6% pay fed income tax
28.3% pay fed payroll tax
-------------------------
81.9% pay federal tax

[SIZE="3"]81.9% of households pay federal tax.[/SIZE] "Most" of "those" paying "most" of the "taxes" are paying most of the taxes. Or, you know, whatever. When we sit down for pie and coffee, I'll let you cut the pie, but I'm gonna pick my piece first.

GE HEAD CALLS FOR LOWER CORP TAXES; BUT GE PAID ZERO!
Fri Oct 07 2011 14:17:58 ET

The corporate titan President Obama picked to help create millions of new jobs thinks lowering corporate taxes and eliminating all tax loopholes for U.S. companies will put more Americans to work. General Electric Chairman Jeff Immelt sits down with Lesley Stahl to discuss the creation of jobs, the U.S. business climate and his own company, General Electric, in a 60 MINUTES segment to be broadcast Sunday, Oct. 9 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.

General Electric makes 60 percent of its profit overseas, where the corporate taxes are lower than in the U.S. Immelt thinks the U.S. needs to follow suit. &#8220;I think we should have basically the same tax policy that Germany, Japan, the UK &#8211; everybody else has, which is a tax rate in the mid-20s and no loopholes. Zero,&#8221; he tells Stahl. &#8220;The U.S. has the most antiquated tax system. And that means some people are going to pay more taxes, and some people are going to pay less,&#8221; Immelt says.

But GE paid NO TAXES on $5 billion in profits last year!

Pressed by Stahl about whether this move would actually translate to American Jobs, Immelt admits the strategy is up for debate, but, &#8220;Personally, I think [lowering taxes] will create jobs.&#8221; Reminded that American corporations are sitting on piles of cash and that giving them more may be questionable, Immelt says, &#8220;Companies should invest in the United States. It&#8217;s still the world&#8217;s biggest economy. And if companies just are going to sit on cash, they&#8217;re going to lose,&#8221; he tells Stahl. &#8220;Because only the people that are going to invest their way through this crisis are going to win.&#8221;

It is also particularly important that the government focus all it efforts on creating jobs, says Immelt, because it&#8217;s not doing so now. &#8220;I think, Lesley, there needs to be a sense of national urgency around jobs&#8230;If you just looked at how many hours a day do Republicans spend on job creation, do Democrats spend on job creation, and does the White House. It&#8217;s no where close to 100 percent,&#8221; he says. &#8220;We&#8217;re not spending enough time on jobs.&#8221;

The point remains the majority of people do not pay Federal Income tax

a tax rate in the mid-20s and no loopholes. Zero,” he tells Stahl. “The U.S. has the most antiquated tax system.

TheMercenary;761463 wrote:

You fail to recognize that our tax on the corps is among the highest in the world and there is no incentive for them to stay here. Many have left, many are leaving. Ireland has become the new corp tax haven. If they leave they leave with what little we get. The money parked offshore was done through legal means. I understand all that. You think we should make them bring it back and they should give our broken system of government more money to waste, I am not so sure about that. I think it has less to do with suffering of the corps and more to do with the normal process of generating money, which is what all businesses do, it is why they exist. Governments want to tax corps, corps try to figure out ways to shelter it. Until our tax system is completely overhauled and the laws changed, that money is not coming back.

Economy - overview:
Ireland is a small, modern, trade-dependent economy. Ireland was among the initial group of 12 EU nations that began circulating the euro on 1 January 2002. GDP growth averaged 6% in 1995-2007, but economic activity has dropped sharply since the onset of the world financial crisis, with GDP falling by over 3% in 2008, nearly 8% in 2009, and 1% in 2010. Ireland entered into a recession in 2008 for the first time in more than a decade, with the subsequent collapse of its domestic property and construction markets. Property prices rose more rapidly in Ireland in the decade up to 2007 than in any other developed economy. Since their 2007 peak, average house prices have fallen 50%.

In the wake of the collapse of the construction sector and the downturn in consumer spending and business investment, the export sector, dominated by foreign multinationals, has become a key component of Ireland's economy. Agriculture, once the most important sector, is now dwarfed by industry and services.

In 2008 the COWEN government moved to guarantee all bank deposits, recapitalize the banking system, and establish partly-public venture capital funds in response to the country's economic downturn. In 2009, in continued efforts to stabilize the banking sector, the Irish Government established the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA) to acquire problem commercial property and development loans from Irish banks.

Faced with sharply reduced revenues and a burgeoning budget deficit, the Irish Government introduced the first in a series of draconian budgets in 2009. In addition to across-the-board cuts in spending, the 2009 budget included wage reductions for all public servants. These measures were not sufficient.

In 2010, the budget deficit reached 32.4% of GDP - the world's largest deficit, as a percentage of GDP - because of additional government support for the banking sector. In late 2010, the COWEN Government agreed to a $112 billion loan package from the EU and IMF to help Dublin further increase the capitalization of its banking sector and avoid defaulting on its sovereign debt. The government also initiated a four-year austerity plan to cut an additional $20 billion from its budget. A return to modest growth is expected in 2011.

"The president has made clear that he believes we need to reform our corporate tax system," White House spokesman Jay Carney said on Thursday. "He believes that we can lower our corporate tax rate without diminishing revenues if we go after a lot of loopholes that exist, a lot of the complexity."

TheMercenary;761470 wrote:

Remember now this is Obama's guy. His personal pic. The guy who is actively sending and creating jobs overseas, not here in the US. The king of outsourcing and dodging taxes...

Immelt said a small tax bill for 2010 was due to more than $30 billion in losses related to GE's financial services business during the financial crisis. In 2009, GE Capital's losses were so large that it company overall lost money on its U.S. operations.

classicman;761510 wrote:

And here is why.


[SIZE="3"]Now the issue which remains is how much have they historically been paying over, say the last ten years?[/SIZE]

wrote:

But by taking advantage of myriad breaks and loopholes that other countries generally do not offer, United States corporations pay only slightly more on average than their counterparts in other industrial countries. And some American corporations use aggressive strategies to pay less &#8212; often far less &#8212; than their competitors abroad and at home. A Government Accountability Office study released in 2008 found that 55 percent of United States companies paid no federal income taxes during at least one year in a seven-year period it studied.

SamIam;761530 wrote:

55 PERCENT PAID NONE

BigV;761520 wrote:

That is a good fucking question. An *excellent* question. Good luck finding fats like that for public companies. Because among all the reporting requirements for publicly held companies, listing "amount of federal income tax paid" is not one of them. It could be, the standards setting decision makers (I don't know who that is, sorry) could make that a requirement like all the other metrics that are required reporting. Certainly such a figure exists, but it is not reported.

Good luck finding that value.

ZenGum;761551 wrote:

global corporations have more power than national governments.

classicman;761553 wrote:

Not if the countries work together, I think that is part of the issue. Those in power seem to trying to solve these issues independently, when global solutions are needed.

classicman;761533 wrote:

Well ... hmm ... then how do we know they didn't pay any this time?

TheMercenary;761548 wrote:

This pretty much sums it up... Not safe for those with easily brused egos and sensitive ears.... Obama and Congress needs to play this on a wide screen.

[YOUTUBE]-2bZnqlNyJ0[/YOUTUBE]

14.6 trillion dollars--my credit cards would be cut off.

All I'm asking is to balance the budget (to the government, the United States government), balance the checkbook like every American. 14.6 trillion before you realized you were overdrawn?

Not Republican, not Democrat, just BALANCE THE FUCKING BUDGET

How is it we owe China? How can I tell my daughter that capitalism is better than communism?

Look, you got a federal loan? Don't pay it. You don't pay, I don't pay.

The government's credit score right now has to be 350, your whole life is a 350.

"President Obama, personal to you. All the black people was proud. We got a black President. You actin like one right now, B. Pay your fuckin bills on time."

BigV;761508 wrote:

Ireland, huh?

So, all these companies that fled to Ireland, how'd that work out for Ireland?

classicman;761553 wrote:

Not if the countries work together, I think that is part of the issue. Those in power seem to trying to solve these issues independently, when global solutions are needed.

TheMercenary;761562 wrote:

A country like Ireland has no incentive to work with rich countries when they are in the shit and everyone else is pretty much doing better than them. Global Kumabya isn't going to happen. One of the many truths of this world is you do what is right for your country First.

BigV;761594 wrote:

The man has a ton of charisma.
He has a ton of passion. He's *clearly* involved and that is awesome,
and necessary to make the changes happen that he wants to happen.

But he's misinformed. He has a poor grasp of the facts.
I wish he knew more of the truth, he could really make a difference, a positive difference.

BigV;761603 wrote:

what the fucking difference does UNDERSTANDING matter if what I understand is wrong?

BigV;761592 wrote:

FUCK. YOU. Simple motherfucker.

henry quirk;763166 wrote:

snip--
This is why I favor some kind of simple, direct, no exemptions/no loopholes, point of purchase tax (to replace ALL others)...tax the transactions (ALL of them, for EVERYONE), not the method of making money, or the amount made, or way it's spent.

I know damn well that'll never happen (supposedly regressive on the 'poor'; the 'rich' pay like everyone else*; those in government don't get nearly the revenue they want).

--snip

classicman;763167 wrote:

Wait a sec... Please elaborate, V.

henry quirk;763166 wrote:

Hell if I know.

How one gets his or her money seems irrelevant to me,
just as how one spends his or her money seems irrelevant to me.

This is why I favor some kind of simple, direct, no exemptions/no loopholes,
point of purchase tax (to replace ALL others)...tax the transactions (ALL of them, for EVERYONE),
not the method of making money, or the amount made, or way it's spent.

I know damn well that'll never happen
(supposedly regressive on the 'poor'; the 'rich' pay like everyone else*;
those in government don't get nearly the revenue they want).

*And the appetites of the 'rich' are, well, just plain more 'expensive' than those of the 'poor'..
they'll pay more and they won't like it.

classicman;763180 wrote:

OMFG. Thats what I thought you meant. I have been saying for MONTHS if not longer to raise the cap gains rate.
I even said so recently, here , here and here in this thread and over here as well.

It also clearly shows that the number of "these people" is not large enough to have a significant effect without reducing the gov't outlays. The big three MUST be back on the table. Starting with the military. There is no other way around it.

BigV;763571 wrote:

Right.
o you idiot ~snip~ O you liar.

BigV;763571 wrote:

My current biggest facepalming o you idiot comes from those that say, correctly, and as you say, correctly, that taking 50% of of the income of these richest people would reduce the debt by .5%, trivial, insignificant, not worthwhile (so leave us/them alone). O you liar.

Even though that's true...

, no one's saying to steal their moneys and all will be well. We are not trying to balance the budget and retire the debt (PLEASE NOTE THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT BUT RELATED, NOT THE SAME ISSUES) with one check. Or in one year. Come on people.

The entire US economy isn't enough to retire the debt in one year. This will take time people.

classicman;763557 wrote:

This chart from the OWS thread clearly shows that the only issue is the 1%.

Again, Raising the income tax rate on them will be far less effective than raising the capital gains rate on them.

It also clearly shows that the number of "these people" is not large enough to have a significant effect without reducing the gov't outlays. The big three MUST be back on the table. Starting with the military. There is no other way around it.

henry quirk;763370 wrote:

"OK, I'll bite and give you first rope..."

HA! I'm already swinging by my neck... ;)

#

"Is it just the simplicity of the idea?"

Well, it 'is' simple, isn't it?

A point of purchase tax (replacing ALL other taxes) on EVERY transaction, for EVERYONE, with NO exceptions, exemptions, loopholes.

Certainly: way more simple than what we have now, on any level.

#

"Is it because it is regressive?"

The regressiveness is irrelevant to me. Consider: you have a fifty in your wallet and I have a twenty in mine...right there we -- you and me -- are not equal. As you like, from the start, you can purchase more than me, do more with your cash.

Should I cry and say, 'hey, we exist in inequity: gimme some of that cash, Lamp!'

If I've performed no service for you, offered no product, and if you're not the charitable sort, then my laying claim to part of your fifty is not a cry for equity, but simple extortion (*theft).

Life (living) is regressive...*shrug*

#

"Do you think all types of transactions should be taxed at the same rate?"

I suppose there's some room for wibbling around on the point of purchase tax rates...I'm not married to any particular number. Mostly, though, farting around with varying rates for 'differing' points of purchase is just a transparent attempt to tax certain folks more because those folks 'have more'.

Concretely: if the point of purchase tax rate is, say, 10% for a loaf of bread, then the point of purchase tax rate should be 10% for a private jet or a yacht.

Again: to me, where the money comes from is irrelevant, how it's spent is irrelevant, only the spending (the transaction) itself should matter**.

#

"Do you see any situations where some taxation should be progressive?"

No really, no.

#

"Oh yes, be prepared to defend your answers."

HA! I tried, failed, and await execution... ;)






*Which is fine...I got no problem with theft...just be upfront about it...don't dress it up in ethics or morality...if stealing is what's to happen, then just fucking 'do it'.

Apocalypse NOW!

BigV;763571 wrote:

Right.

My current biggest facepalming o you idiot comes from those that say, correctly, and as you say, correctly, that taking 50% of of the income of these richest people would reduce the debt by .5%, trivial, insignificant, not worthwhile (so leave us/them alone). O you liar.

Even though that's true, no one's saying to steal their moneys and all will be well. We are not trying to balance the budget and retire the debt (PLEASE NOTE THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT BUT RELATED, NOT THE SAME ISSUES) with one check. Or in one year. Come on people.

The entire US economy isn't enough to retire the debt in one year. This will take time people. Arrrgh.

TheMercenary;763639 wrote:

No contradiction there....:rolleyes:

No one said anything about one year. If you take 50% of their money every year you will not fix the problems in this country.

TheMercenary;763641 wrote:

I believe that you will get a lot more money, but the president has already spent that in his fake "jobs" bill. So really if the revenue stream is neutral we are still broke dick....
--snip

DanaC;763751 wrote:

Jon Stewart was brilliant about this during the debt ceiling discussions. On the one hand the additional taxation of the top 1 % is counted as so negligible as to not be worth the collecting, yet cuts to services and benefits that come to a fraction of that are heralded as a good start and the saviour of the economy.

BigV;763700 wrote:

I'll go slow, try to keep up.

TheMercenary;763899 wrote:

And that right there is Wealth Envy...

DanaC;763904 wrote:

How is that wealth envy?

TheMercenary;763907 wrote:

Because you are more focused on the fact that these people make a lot more money than you or I and taking all or even 50% of their money would have no impact on the issues at hand. It is all about what they make and what the rest of the 99% don't make.

Cuts to services = Y

Tax rise on the rich = X

Y is less than X.

X is too small to matter.

Somehow, Y is not too small to matter.

DanaC;763751 wrote:

Jon Stewart was brilliant about this during the debt ceiling discussions. On the one hand the additional taxation of the top 1 % is counted as so negligible as to not be worth the collecting, yet cuts to services and benefits that come to a fraction of that are heralded as a good start and the saviour of the economy.

classicman;763974 wrote:

Loopholes ...

classicman;763974 wrote:

Again, lets start with the military. Oops, O just sent troops into Africa, never mind.

DanaC;764033 wrote:

that was the one!

" There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs - John Rogers/Andrew Sullivan"

TheMercenary;764107 wrote:

Only about 100, a piss in the wind compared to the larger picture.

Henry Quirk's POS Taxation Law is "transaction-based",
and replaces all other forms of taxation and revenue,
with no exemptions or loopholes

Taxation must be simple, all inclusive,
at equal rates on all types of transactions,
and not progressive:

No income tax
No capital gains tax
No payroll tax
No special taxes

Each transaction tax is based on the full value of the item being sold
New and used items, food, rent, utilities are taxed on the full value of the item
All business-to-business transactions are taxed on the full value of the item
All services are taxed on the full value of the object of the service
Each subunit of a compound transaction is taxed on the full value of the item

Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan would raise taxes on 84 percent of U.S. households,
according to an independent analysis released Tuesday, contradicting claims
by the Republican presidential candidate that most Americans would see a tax cut.

The Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank, says low- and middle-income families
would be hit hardest, with households making between $10,000 and $20,000
seeing their taxes increase by nearly 950 percent.

"You're talking a $2,700 tax increase for people with incomes between $10,000 and $20,000,"
said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. "That's huge."

Households with the highest incomes, however, would get big tax cuts.
Those making more than $1 million a year would see their taxes cut
nearly in half, on average, according to the analysis.
Among those in the middle, households making between $40,000 and $50,000
would see their taxes increase by an average of $4,400, the report said.
Those making between $50,000 and $75,000 would see their annual tax bill go up by an average of $4,326.

"It's very, very regressive compared to the current system,
and that's largely because we're exempting capital gains,
and we're taxing your spending with the sales tax," Williams said.
"People at the top end don't spend all their money and they get a lot of capital
<snip>

..."Eventually, he [Cain] wants to swap out all three of those taxes
in favor of a single consumption tax, or "fair tax,"
but given how difficult it is to revamp the tax code even once,
the 9-9-9 structure would probably be in place for a long time --
and the rates wouldn't necessarily stay at 9 percent.

That, Norquist says, is the fatal flaw in the 9-9-9 plan:
Instead of having one tax that could increase, we would have three.
"It gives you three taxes, all of which could grow," he told CNN.
"You will have put three needles in your arm to draw blood instead of one."
<snip>
"To put tapeworms in your tummy to try and maintain your weight --
they may have their own idea about their growth patterns and
what they want to do," he said. "Creating new taxes is a very dangerous project."

The nation had few taxes in its early history. From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation's first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government.

In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an “inheritance” tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation's 90-year history—more than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911.

The Act of 1862 established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner was given the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, and the right to enforce the tax laws through seizure of property and income and through prosecution. The powers and authority remain very much the same today.

In 1868, Congress again focused its taxation efforts on tobacco and distilled spirits and eliminated the income tax in 1872. It had a short-lived revival in 1894 and 1895. In the latter year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution.

Lamplighter;764961 wrote:

Having said that, can someone explain why Fox News is carrying
such a critical article on Herman Cain's 999 plan
Is Fox supporting Romney or some other Republican"

In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law.

wrote:

Q: But $30,000's not a big income — is most of that growth among nonpayers coming near the bottom of that scale?

A: Much of it is — the number of nontaxable returns for filers with incomes of $30,000-$40,000 went from about 85,000 — about a third of 1% of the total — to 4.8 million, or 8% of the total, by 2009. That's an increase of more than 5,000%. (By way of comparison, the overall number of tax returns went up by about 17%, and the total number of nontaxable returns doubled in that time.)

But the percentage increase was even bigger for higher wage earners. Nontaxable returns from people with income between $75,000 and $100,000 went from 4,025 in 1996 to 476,624 in 2009 — an increase of almost 12,000%. More than 1,400 millionaires didn't pay income taxes in 2009, either.

SamIam;767005 wrote:

Inquiring minds want to know.