|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Dec 4, 2010 17:47:10 GMT -8
Nope. The Bush tax cuts and all those wars ballooned the debt. Nope!  It is the spending stupid! It is the stupid spending! Except anytime we offer spending cuts, you don't like them, especially those having to do with the military. I was in my 20s when you retired from the Nav and started collecting a monthly check paid in part by my taxes. Why in the Hell should I consider that reasonable? =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Dec 5, 2010 8:05:40 GMT -8
The experience of tax cuts under Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush shows us that in each case tax revenues went up, not down. AzWm Funny thing tho. The disparity between income groups has grown with each tax cut. Is that the role of government -- and of the Republican Party -- to make the wealthy richer while holding down the economic gains of the middle and lower economic classes? Why not let the tax cut on the "rich" (by whatever measure) go back up to the Clinton era level (which is still near generational lows) and double or triple the tax cut for the middle and lower classes? There is plenty of money to hire -- but no reason to hire as demand is severely curtailed. So help the demand side by targeting the economic group that is paying down its debt so that it can again demand? That will create more jobs anyway. Or here's a better idea. Bring everybody's tax rate down to between (guessing) 15% and 25% -- and treat all income alike. Meaning, reduce the income tax on the wealthy -- but treat their capital gains as you treat any other income. As Buffett is fond of saying, why should his secretary pay 35% of her income in federal taxes while he only pays 16% of his income in federal income taxes? Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Dec 5, 2010 8:10:19 GMT -8
Could not say how they would pay for extending the tax cuts for those making over $250K a year. Matt Lauer asked it again: "Mr Cantor can you please answer my question." " How will you pay for these tax cuts?" He then mumbled and changed the subject and could not answer that question. Interview ended. I don't often agree with Kantor but he's a pretty sharp guy. I didn't see the interview so I can neither defend him nor join in your criticism. But if he stumbled, it's not because he has no answer for the issue, it's because he stumbled. Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Dec 5, 2010 8:13:44 GMT -8
The experience of tax cuts under Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush shows us that in each case tax revenues went up, not down. AzWm Funny thing tho. The disparity between income groups has grown with each tax cut. Is that the role of government -- and of the Republican Party -- to make the wealthy richer while holding down the economic gains of the middle and lower economic classes? Why not let the tax cut on the "rich" (by whatever measure) go back up to the Clinton era level (which is still near generational lows) and double or triple the tax cut for the middle and lower classes? There is plenty of money to hire -- but no reason to hire as demand is severely curtailed. Or here's a better idea. Bring everybody's tax rate down to between (guessing) 15% and 25% -- and treat all income alike. Meaning, reduce the income tax on the wealthy -- but treat their capital gains as you treat any other income. As Buffett is fond of saying, why should his secretary pay 35% of her income in federal taxes while he only pays 16% of his income in federal income taxes? Yoda out... If we end the Bush tax cuts (and end Bush's wars), we have done most of the work that we need to do to cut the deficit. We did not have a deficit problem (we were reducing it) until the wars and the tax cuts. Why should the most economically vulnerable in this country pay for those two stupidities? Republicans are not interested in resolving the deficit. They represent the rich and want them to get more of our wealth and they want to get rid of the national government. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Dec 5, 2010 8:36:33 GMT -8
If we end the Bush tax cuts (and end Bush's wars), we have done most of the work that we need to do to cut the deficit. We did not have a deficit problem (we were reducing it) until the wars and the tax cuts. Why should the most economically vulnerable in this country pay for those two stupidities? Republicans are not interested in resolving the deficit. They represent the rich and want them to get more of our wealth and they want to get rid of the national government. The liberals curry to their base as do the conservatives. That's what's wrong with this country -- everybody is currying to a constituency and nobody is currying to the national interest. Lest you think me liberal, the other thing that I would do is end corporate income taxes. Why are we taxing that income twice -- first as corporate income and then as dividend income? Nothing would lower the costs of doing business and make us more competitive in the world marketplace than ending our corporate income tax. Talk about a jobs creator -- increase world demand for our products and jobs growth explodes. Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Dec 5, 2010 8:46:05 GMT -8
To be accurate, I'm more in the "It's Corporatism" camp but no matter. Always lost in these discussions is for one of the greedy leftards that populate this forum to answer the question "HOW MUCH?" What level of taxation would satisfy the craven vultures of the left? How much do you worthless scum sucking thieves want? Taken together; federal, state, sales, energy etc, the government confiscates in excess of 50 cents of every dollar I earn. In that light I think it's only fair that if you advocate even more confiscatory action by the government that you yourself should be willing to part with at least 75% of your income just to set an example for all us greedy capitalists. Of course at you income level 75% would supply a poor family with a couple of days of government cheese, but it's the thought that counts. I've offered things I think should be cut - you just don't like them. Cut ag subsidies for every ag-corporation. Ain't no way some huge corporation should be getting subsidies, but true family farmers, such as the dairy farmers I grew up around should be able to get them. And as I advocated above, don't start paying military retirement to anyone other than disabled vets - and I'd include PTSD in that definition - until they reach at least 50. That would put them in line with cops and firemen. When someone retires at age 38, that's the prime of their earning years and they shouldn't need to collect a check every month from the taxpayers. =Bob The delayed retired pay is not a bad idea in reality. I would think that it would make recruiting a little tougher. It would have to be phased in over a long period of time. It would be very hard to accomplish with the strong lobby that the retired folks have. The farm subsidy idea would make food prices go up to show the real cost, but not a bad idea. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Dec 5, 2010 8:49:11 GMT -8
Nope! It is the spending stupid! It is the stupid spending! Except anytime we offer spending cuts, you don't like them, especially those having to do with the military. I was in my 20s when you retired from the Nav and started collecting a monthly check paid in part by my taxes. Why in the Hell should I consider that reasonable? =Bob Why don't you organize a protest march? Publicize the protest march route and I will bring lawn chairs and a cooler of beer bought with your tax money. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Dec 5, 2010 11:15:07 GMT -8
If we end the Bush tax cuts (and end Bush's wars), we have done most of the work that we need to do to cut the deficit. We did not have a deficit problem (we were reducing it) until the wars and the tax cuts. Why should the most economically vulnerable in this country pay for those two stupidities? Republicans are not interested in resolving the deficit. They represent the rich and want them to get more of our wealth and they want to get rid of the national government. The liberals curry to their base as do the conservatives. That's what's wrong with this country -- everybody is currying to a constituency and nobody is currying to the national interest. Lest you think me liberal, the other thing that I would do is end corporate income taxes. Why are we taxing that income twice -- first as corporate income and then as dividend income? Nothing would lower the costs of doing business and make us more competitive in the world marketplace than ending our corporate income tax. Talk about a jobs creator -- increase world demand for our products and jobs growth explodes. Yoda out... We tax corporations because legally they are persons. Just check the Citizens United case. Dividend income is taxed at a lower rate than earned income. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Dec 5, 2010 14:33:44 GMT -8
If we end the Bush tax cuts (and end Bush's wars), we have done most of the work that we need to do to cut the deficit. We did not have a deficit problem (we were reducing it) until the wars and the tax cuts. Why should the most economically vulnerable in this country pay for those two stupidities? Republicans are not interested in resolving the deficit. They represent the rich and want them to get more of our wealth and they want to get rid of the national government. The liberals curry to their base as do the conservatives. That's what's wrong with this country -- everybody is currying to a constituency and nobody is currying to the national interest. Lest you think me liberal, the other thing that I would do is end corporate income taxes. Why are we taxing that income twice -- first as corporate income and then as dividend income? Nothing would lower the costs of doing business and make us more competitive in the world marketplace than ending our corporate income tax. Talk about a jobs creator -- increase world demand for our products and jobs growth explodes. Yoda out... You would have the largest beneficiaries of our economic system avoid paying into the common good? You would exclude from taxation the firms who benefit from the exclusion of economic externalities (such as the effect of their products and processes on the health of people and the environment) in their computation of cost? You want them not to pay to support this nation? I disagree. Where could you have possibly gotten the idea that I thought you were a liberal? |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Dec 5, 2010 14:35:16 GMT -8
We tax corporations because legally they are persons. Just check the Citizens United case. Dividend income is taxed at a lower rate than earned income. I understand why we tax them that way. I'm just saying that it makes our goods and services cost a lot more, both domestically and overseas, so I think it is bad tax policy. It curtails demand which reduces job growth. How are dividends taxed? I thought that, except for the absence of FICA, they were taxed the same as earned income. Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Dec 5, 2010 14:47:40 GMT -8
The liberals curry to their base as do the conservatives. That's what's wrong with this country -- everybody is currying to a constituency and nobody is currying to the national interest. Lest you think me liberal, the other thing that I would do is end corporate income taxes. Why are we taxing that income twice -- first as corporate income and then as dividend income? Nothing would lower the costs of doing business and make us more competitive in the world marketplace than ending our corporate income tax. Talk about a jobs creator -- increase world demand for our products and jobs growth explodes. Yoda out... We tax corporations because legally they are persons. Just check the Citizens United case. Dividend income is taxed at a lower rate than earned income. A corporation is an entity, not a person. If a corporation were a person, we would be able to give them jail time rather than go after their officers. In either case, the income is taxed at least twice. We should either tax the entity that earns the money for its owners or the owners. Doing it the way we do is patently unfair any way you look at it. I would guess that taxing it at the corporation level would be the best way since shareholders tax situation varies greatly. One case might be a Roth IRA that once formed is not subject to tax. The other extreme might be a person in the very highest tax bracket and they would be taxed at the highest rate in effect. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Dec 5, 2010 14:49:39 GMT -8
You would have the largest beneficiaries of our economic system avoid paying into the common good? You would exclude from taxation the firms who benefit from the exclusion of economic externalities (such as the effect of their products and processes on the health of people and the environment) in their computation of cost? You want them not to pay to support this nation? I disagree. Where could you have possibly gotten the idea that I thought you were a liberal? LOL... Well I take on the right wingers more than I take on the left. Rule #1: Corporations already don't pay taxes -- what they do pay, they pass on to the consumer just like any other cost of doing business. A corporate income tax then is nothing more than a hidden additional income tax on real people. And for that matter, it is a very regressive hidden tax. Rule #2: Corporations don't benefit. Shareholders benefit. People benefit. But corporations do not. To the extent that the economy thrives, everybody benefits. To the extent that it doesn't, everybody suffers. Make our goods and services more competitive overseas, and less expensive at home, and everybody benefits. Sales and profits increase for shareholders. Added sales creates massive job growth. If corporations don't have to pass on their income tax, then prices fall and that benefits everybody. Ending taxation of corporate profits, while increasing the capital gains tax and cutting the overall tax rates for all is actually the most radically liberal idea on this board right now. And I think in a way, it is also the most conservative. Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Dec 5, 2010 15:10:04 GMT -8
Anyone who thinks that this or any government can increase sending (and by that I mean in real terms and as a percentage of GDP) year after year and decade after decade and not ultimately force the country into bankruptcy has not been paying attention to the news from Greece, France, Ireland, Iceland, Spain, etc.
And anyone who thinks that offering more and more entitlements to citizens (largely the less productive ones) is not going to create a giant class of people unwilling to listen to reason when reality finally hits is simply not serious. Just take a look at the news videos from Greece and France.
The government can give, but it becomes increasingly difficult for the government to take back. And when the govt. tries to do that. . . well, again, take a look at the news videos from Greece and France. You don't think that's going to happen here someday? Please!
Yes, cutting back on any govt. spending is going to be difficult and unpopular. But it has to be done someday. One cannot expect that the govt. will be able to raise taxes again and again, into eternity.
(Oh, yes. Speaking of Clinton, it's unthinkable that he would have had balanced budgets if the Dems. had controlled Congress during his last six years in office.)
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Dec 5, 2010 15:54:40 GMT -8
You would have the largest beneficiaries of our economic system avoid paying into the common good? You would exclude from taxation the firms who benefit from the exclusion of economic externalities (such as the effect of their products and processes on the health of people and the environment) in their computation of cost? You want them not to pay to support this nation? I disagree. Where could you have possibly gotten the idea that I thought you were a liberal? LOL... Well I take on the right wingers more than I take on the left. Rule #1: Corporations already don't pay taxes -- what they do pay, they pass on to the consumer just like any other cost of doing business. A corporate income tax then is nothing more than a hidden additional income tax on real people. And for that matter, it is a very regressive hidden tax. Rule #2: Corporations don't benefit. Shareholders benefit. People benefit. But corporations do not. To the extent that the economy thrives, everybody benefits. To the extent that it doesn't, everybody suffers. Make our goods and services more competitive overseas, and less expensive at home, and everybody benefits. Sales and profits increase for shareholders. Added sales creates massive job growth. If corporations don't have to pass on their income tax, then prices fall and that benefits everybody. Ending taxation of corporate profits, while increasing the capital gains tax and cutting the overall tax rates for all is actually the most radically liberal idea on this board right now. And I think in a way, it is also the most conservative. Yoda out... Hey, all I know is that you went to Fresno State. Those who benefit must pay. Its really very simple. Everything gets passed on when it comes to corporations, particularly executive pay. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Dec 5, 2010 18:19:32 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Dec 5, 2010 18:22:15 GMT -8
Question regarding double taxation of dividends. If a corporation does not pay tax in a tax year, but pays dividends, are those dividends double taxed when recognized on the shareholders tax return? I say not.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Dec 5, 2010 18:27:07 GMT -8
We tax corporations because legally they are persons. Just check the Citizens United case. Dividend income is taxed at a lower rate than earned income. ... How are dividends taxed? I thought that, except for the absence of FICA, they were taxed the same as earned income. Yoda out... Not so under current tax law. |
|
|
|
Post by Montezuma on Dec 5, 2010 19:01:46 GMT -8
Iraq War, Afganistan War, War On Terror, introducing huge Department of Homeland Security (TSA patdowns) while cutting taxes is what got us into this mess. Not to mention a financial meltdown under Bush's watch. Bush inherited a budget in the black and turned over a country in crisis to Obama. Congress holds the checkbook and writes all spending bills, Princess Pelosi took over two years into The Bush years and the country went into the tank. It is so easy for people with Bush derangement syndrome to forget how the govenment works. If it looks like a socialist, walks like a sociaist and want to redistribute the wealth it is a socialist wear the title with pride comrade Obama. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Dec 5, 2010 19:53:29 GMT -8
... How are dividends taxed? I thought that, except for the absence of FICA, they were taxed the same as earned income. Yoda out... Not so under current tax law. I'm not arguing with you. I'm asking for specifics. How are they taxed? Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Dec 5, 2010 21:16:14 GMT -8
Iraq War, Afganistan War, War On Terror, introducing huge Department of Homeland Security (TSA patdowns) while cutting taxes is what got us into this mess. Not to mention a financial meltdown under Bush's watch. Bush inherited a budget in the black and turned over a country in crisis to Obama. Congress holds the checkbook and writes all spending bills, Princess Pelosi took over two years into The Bush years and the country went into the tank. It is so easy for people with Bush derangement syndrome to forget how the govenment works. If it looks like a socialist, walks like a sociaist and want to redistribute the wealth it is a socialist wear the title with pride comrade Obama. It is easy for people with Pelosi derangement syndrome to forget how the government works. |
|
