|
|
Post by Yoda on Apr 19, 2011 10:29:30 GMT -8
Anyone with an ounce of sense -- left or right -- should protest the Tea Party. That is one crazy bunch of extremists. Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 19, 2011 10:51:40 GMT -8
Ron Paul offered an interesting thought on MSNBC yesterday - tax corporations that make most of their bucks off the government, such as the defense industry, pay a higher rate. =Bob That's not interesting, that's just stupid -- not surprising, given whose idea it was. Corporations don't pay taxes; they just pass them along to the consumers. So let's suppose that there is a $1 mil profit on a government contract and the federal income tax on that profit is $300,000 – netting a $700,000 after tax profit. And let’s suppose that we increase the tax to $400,000. The contractor, when bidding the contract, would just increase the cost of the bid by $100,000 so that they would have the tax money to give back to the government. It's not a question of "getting around the tax" -- it's a question of setting your bid at a level that is sufficient to cover your expenses and a reasonable profit. Taxes, be they large or small, are just an expense to be factored into the bid. Yoda out... That could be said of any business, Yoda. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Apr 19, 2011 10:55:16 GMT -8
That's not interesting, that's just stupid -- not surprising, given whose idea it was. Corporations don't pay taxes; they just pass them along to the consumers. So let's suppose that there is a $1 mil profit on a government contract and the federal income tax on that profit is $300,000 – netting a $700,000 after tax profit. And let’s suppose that we increase the tax to $400,000. The contractor, when bidding the contract, would just increase the cost of the bid by $100,000 so that they would have the tax money to give back to the government. It's not a question of "getting around the tax" -- it's a question of setting your bid at a level that is sufficient to cover your expenses and a reasonable profit. Taxes, be they large or small, are just an expense to be factored into the bid. Yoda out... That could be said of any business, Yoda. That's not what I said or meant. Let’s suppose that your $1 mil before tax profit ($700,000 after tax profit) was on a $5 mil contract. Presumably you thought you needed a $700,000 after tax profit or you would have adjusted your bid to net you whatever after tax profit you thought you needed. If you thought you could get by on only $600,000 after taxes, for example, then you would have only bid $4.9 mil in the first place. Now under the higher tax rate scenario above, you would only net $600,000 after taxes on a $5 mil bid. In order to net $700,000 after taxes, you have to bid $5.1 mil and if that is what you thought you needed to net after taxes, then that is what you would do. Now somebody might underbid you for the job – figuring that they could live on $600,000 after taxes, they might bid $5 mil. But if that is the case they would have beat you for the job under the original tax structure too – they would have bid $4.9 mil to your $5 mil. A tax increase is just a cost to get passed along to the consumer – in this case, to the taxpayer. People are the only entities that pay taxes. Sometimes they pay them directly and sometimes they pay them in the form of a price increase. I would rather that there was transparency and that all taxes were paid directly. Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 19, 2011 12:07:59 GMT -8
They got that idea from you all lefties who repeatedly referrered to W. Bush as "chimp" often by the lefty psotters here in these forums, how short our memories are... Bottom line is to be factual and not characterize the target and the point is better made anyway. There's an entirely different connotation to show an African-American as a chimp. The 2nd paragraph I completely agree with. =Bob Just what is that difference? Spell it out so folks can see just how you think. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 19, 2011 12:11:11 GMT -8
Anyone with an ounce of sense -- left or right -- should protest the Tea Party. That is one crazy bunch of extremists. Yoda out... Could be, but that is a completely different issue. It is how you protest that is at issue here. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 19, 2011 12:13:22 GMT -8
That's not interesting, that's just stupid -- not surprising, given whose idea it was. Corporations don't pay taxes; they just pass them along to the consumers. So let's suppose that there is a $1 mil profit on a government contract and the federal income tax on that profit is $300,000 – netting a $700,000 after tax profit. And let’s suppose that we increase the tax to $400,000. The contractor, when bidding the contract, would just increase the cost of the bid by $100,000 so that they would have the tax money to give back to the government. It's not a question of "getting around the tax" -- it's a question of setting your bid at a level that is sufficient to cover your expenses and a reasonable profit. Taxes, be they large or small, are just an expense to be factored into the bid. Yoda out... That could be said of any business, Yoda. That is true and just puts an exclamation point on Yoda's explanation. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 19, 2011 12:51:17 GMT -8
That could be said of any business, Yoda. That's not what I said or meant. Let’s suppose that your $1 mil before tax profit ($700,000 after tax profit) was on a $5 mil contract. Presumably you thought you needed a $700,000 after tax profit or you would have adjusted your bid to net you whatever after tax profit you thought you needed. If you thought you could get by on only $600,000 after taxes, for example, then you would have only bid $4.9 mil in the first place. Now under the higher tax rate scenario above, you would only net $600,000 after taxes on a $5 mil bid. In order to net $700,000 after taxes, you have to bid $5.1 mil and if that is what you thought you needed to net after taxes, then that is what you would do. Now somebody might underbid you for the job – figuring that they could live on $600,000 after taxes, they might bid $5 mil. But if that is the case they would have beat you for the job under the original tax structure too – they would have bid $4.9 mil to your $5 mil. A tax increase is just a cost to get passed along to the consumer – in this case, to the taxpayer. People are the only entities that pay taxes. Sometimes they pay them directly and sometimes they pay them in the form of a price increase. I would rather that there was transparency and that all taxes were paid directly. Yoda out... It may not be what you said or meant, but it is true nonetheless. If taxes are an expense to be accounted for in a corportation, the same is true for any business entity. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Apr 19, 2011 13:59:01 GMT -8
That's not interesting, that's just stupid -- not surprising, given whose idea it was. Corporations don't pay taxes; they just pass them along to the consumers. So let's suppose that there is a $1 mil profit on a government contract and the federal income tax on that profit is $300,000 – netting a $700,000 after tax profit. And let’s suppose that we increase the tax to $400,000. The contractor, when bidding the contract, would just increase the cost of the bid by $100,000 so that they would have the tax money to give back to the government. It's not a question of "getting around the tax" -- it's a question of setting your bid at a level that is sufficient to cover your expenses and a reasonable profit. Taxes, be they large or small, are just an expense to be factored into the bid. Yoda out... That could be said of any business, Yoda. I agree. I've said before that I would like to end all corporate taxes and get rid of capital gains. I just meant that in this situation, the customer that gets the tax bill is the government that increased the tax. Unlike with other examples, the connection is a direct one. Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 19, 2011 14:28:46 GMT -8
There's an entirely different connotation to show an African-American as a chimp. The 2nd paragraph I completely agree with. =Bob Just what is that difference? Spell it out so folks can see just how you think. There is a long history of racists in this country equating African-Americans to monkeys and apes, thereby arguing that they are less "human" than white people. But then, you know that and it's clear you're attempting to set up another troll. Some I go for because I find the way you think interesting, but not on this topic. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 19, 2011 14:30:39 GMT -8
Ron Paul offered an interesting thought on MSNBC yesterday - tax corporations that make most of their bucks off the government, such as the defense industry, pay a higher rate. =Bob That's not interesting, that's just stupid -- not surprising, given whose idea it was. Corporations don't pay taxes; they just pass them along to the consumers. So let's suppose that there is a $1 mil profit on a government contract and the federal income tax on that profit is $300,000 – netting a $700,000 after tax profit. And let’s suppose that we increase the tax to $400,000. The contractor, when bidding the contract, would just increase the cost of the bid by $100,000 so that they would have the tax money to give back to the government. It's not a question of "getting around the tax" -- it's a question of setting your bid at a level that is sufficient to cover your expenses and a reasonable profit. Taxes, be they large or small, are just an expense to be factored into the bid. Yoda out... I just tossed out a quick summary. You'd have to hear what he said to completely understand it because I can't adequately explain it. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 19, 2011 14:35:41 GMT -8
And we know that Breitbart would never offer an edited tape  . =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 19, 2011 15:34:47 GMT -8
That could be said of any business, Yoda. I agree. I've said before that I would like to end all corporate taxes and get rid of capital gains. I just meant that in this situation, the customer that gets the tax bill is the government that increased the tax. Unlike with other examples, the connection is a direct one. Yoda out... If corporations want to be treated as persons, have standing in court, able to make political contributions to influence government policy, should they not have to pay for those rights? I know the typical argument is that the shareholders pay taxes on the dividends. I consider that a specious argument. Many corporations with profits don't pay dividends, ever. The dividends of those that do pay them are taxed to the shareholders at less than earned income rates. The rate could be zero. I am going to cut you off at the pass if you say "dividends". Of course, corporations need to pay income tax. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Apr 19, 2011 15:50:44 GMT -8
I agree. I've said before that I would like to end all corporate taxes and get rid of capital gains. I just meant that in this situation, the customer that gets the tax bill is the government that increased the tax. Unlike with other examples, the connection is a direct one. Yoda out... If corporations want to be treated as persons, have standing in court, able to make political contributions to influence government policy, should they not have to pay for those rights? I know the typical argument is that the shareholders pay taxes on the dividends. I consider that a specious argument. Many corporations with profits don't pay dividends, ever. The dividends of those that do pay them are taxed to the shareholders at less than earned income rates. The rate could be zero. I am going to cut you off at the pass if you say "dividends". Of course, corporations need to pay income tax. I worded that very poorly. I didn't mean get rid of capital gains, I meant get rid of favorable tax treatment for special gains. Tax them like ordinary income. So if you have earned income, interest income, dividend income or the sale of stock that generated a capital gain, it would all be taxed at the rate applicable to whatever tax bracket you were in. So if a stock didn't pay its profits out in the form of dividends, then those retained profits would presumably generate increased capital gains. Special treatment for increased capital gains is nothing more than a vehicle for transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. And I say that having had several hundred thousand dollars in capital gains the past two years (alas, funding expenses rather than lifestyle improvements). Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 19, 2011 16:32:47 GMT -8
I agree. I've said before that I would like to end all corporate taxes and get rid of capital gains. I just meant that in this situation, the customer that gets the tax bill is the government that increased the tax. Unlike with other examples, the connection is a direct one. Yoda out... If corporations want to be treated as persons, have standing in court, able to make political contributions to influence government policy, should they not have to pay for those rights? I know the typical argument is that the shareholders pay taxes on the dividends. I consider that a specious argument. Many corporations with profits don't pay dividends, ever. The dividends of those that do pay them are taxed to the shareholders at less than earned income rates. The rate could be zero. I am going to cut you off at the pass if you say "dividends". Of course, corporations need to pay income tax. The wacko right loves to complain about "judicial activism" but that ruling was the most egregious example of activism this country has seen since Dred Scott. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 19, 2011 17:25:27 GMT -8
If corporations want to be treated as persons, have standing in court, able to make political contributions to influence government policy, should they not have to pay for those rights? I know the typical argument is that the shareholders pay taxes on the dividends. I consider that a specious argument. Many corporations with profits don't pay dividends, ever. The dividends of those that do pay them are taxed to the shareholders at less than earned income rates. The rate could be zero. I am going to cut you off at the pass if you say "dividends". Of course, corporations need to pay income tax. I worded that very poorly. I didn't mean get rid of capital gains, I meant get rid of favorable tax treatment for special gains. Tax them like ordinary income. So if you have earned income, interest income, dividend income or the sale of stock that generated a capital gain, it would all be taxed at the rate applicable to whatever tax bracket you were in. So if a stock didn't pay its profits out in the form of dividends, then those retained profits would presumably generate increased capital gains. Special treatment for increased capital gains is nothing more than a vehicle for transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. And I say that having had several hundred thousand dollars in capital gains the past two years (alas, funding expenses rather than lifestyle improvements). Yoda out... I can agree that we might want to consider how to treat dividends and capital gains to the stock holder, but I will never agree that double taxation of coporate profit in any form is fair. I appreciate that at least you understand all the parts of the issue. I am not surprised that Bob does not, but for Aztec70 to be so uninformed or in favor of unfair taxation when he is in the tax business is really surprising. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Apr 20, 2011 16:17:58 GMT -8
If corporations want to be treated as persons, have standing in court, able to make political contributions to influence government policy, should they not have to pay for those rights? I know the typical argument is that the shareholders pay taxes on the dividends. I consider that a specious argument. Many corporations with profits don't pay dividends, ever. The dividends of those that do pay them are taxed to the shareholders at less than earned income rates. The rate could be zero. I am going to cut you off at the pass if you say "dividends". Of course, corporations need to pay income tax. I worded that very poorly. I didn't mean get rid of capital gains, I meant get rid of favorable tax treatment for special gains. Tax them like ordinary income. So if you have earned income, interest income, dividend income or the sale of stock that generated a capital gain, it would all be taxed at the rate applicable to whatever tax bracket you were in. So if a stock didn't pay its profits out in the form of dividends, then those retained profits would presumably generate increased capital gains. Special treatment for increased capital gains is nothing more than a vehicle for transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. And I say that having had several hundred thousand dollars in capital gains the past two years (alas, funding expenses rather than lifestyle improvements). Yoda out... The problem with what you propose is what happens in reality when capital gains rates. Capital gains rates are lower not because someone wants to give them a "break" but because those rates have to be lower to maximize income from the taxes. Business tax is the same way. It is a matter of practicality not fairness. Obama was asked about raising capital gains rates even if it meant lower income to the government and he said he would raise the rates even if it resulted in lower income to the government. A true liberal anti-capitalist. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 21, 2011 7:19:20 GMT -8
I worded that very poorly. I didn't mean get rid of capital gains, I meant get rid of favorable tax treatment for special gains. Tax them like ordinary income. So if you have earned income, interest income, dividend income or the sale of stock that generated a capital gain, it would all be taxed at the rate applicable to whatever tax bracket you were in. So if a stock didn't pay its profits out in the form of dividends, then those retained profits would presumably generate increased capital gains. Special treatment for increased capital gains is nothing more than a vehicle for transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. And I say that having had several hundred thousand dollars in capital gains the past two years (alas, funding expenses rather than lifestyle improvements). Yoda out... The problem with what you propose is what happens in reality when capital gains rates. Capital gains rates are lower not because someone wants to give them a "break" but because those rates have to be lower to maximize income from the taxes. Business tax is the same way. It is a matter of practicality not fairness. Obama was asked about raising capital gains rates even if it meant lower income to the government and he said he would raise the rates even if it resulted in lower income to the government. A true liberal anti-capitalist. Please explain why the income of capital should be taxed at a preferred rate compared to the income of land and labor? |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Apr 21, 2011 11:23:21 GMT -8
I can agree that we might want to consider how to treat dividends and capital gains to the stock holder, but I will never agree that double taxation of coporate profit in any form is fair. I appreciate that at least you understand all the parts of the issue. I am not surprised that Bob does not, but for Aztec70 to be so uninformed or in favor of unfair taxation when he is in the tax business is really surprising. I would also end corporate income tax. Let them invest it (and grow the economy -- and jobs) or pay it out as dividends (where it is taxed like any other income). I grant you a lot of it would be invested outside our borders -- but that would create worldwide wealth and build a customer base that buys from us too. So I don't have a problem with that. That's the goal of free trade. That said, I would have no problem requiring that income taxes be paid on income that was used to investment in countries that did not allow us free access to their markets and that did not support efforts to curb counterfeit products, etc. Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Apr 21, 2011 11:49:02 GMT -8
I can't find it but I think somebody asked what the minimum income should be for those over 65. And the answer is, I haven't a clue. You'd have to run numbers for quite awhile to come up with something workable.
That said, I'm thinking that those earning less than, say, $24,000 ($36,000 couple) would be brought up to those levels. Maybe phase payments out once you get to $48,000 ($72,000) and nothing over those caps? Something like that...
That said, if you ran my numbers above, the amount of unfunded liabilities might double. I'm more arguing a theoretical than really trying to set hard numbers. Mine may be too optimistic but the idea is to means test the payments, increase the incomes of those who are living at the bottom and cutting off those who don't need it thereby cutting the cost of the program by half or more.
I wish there was somebody who could run the numbers...
If I'm out in the weeds, it would be nice to know it.
Yoda out...
|
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Apr 21, 2011 11:50:45 GMT -8
Please explain why the income of capital should be taxed at a preferred rate compared to the income of land and labor? Nationally, we have a pathetic savings rate. I think the idea behind it was theoretically to spur savings and investment. I just don't think that that's a very good way to do that. Yoda out... |
|
.