GOP support a raise in taxes

[auditor0007]

a person making $50k per year (as a single person) actually already pays an effective tax rate of over 20% (after taking deduction) its actually closer to 28%

a flat tax at 20% would actually lower his tax burdon.

The actual rate is 12.5% on $50,000. It is closer to 28% if you include the both the employer and employee share of FICA. However, for a family of four, with two children, the rate is about 4% or $2000, and for most it is actually zero. This does not include FICA however.

i hate the family deduction the most. (im not saying people with families should have it taken away tho)

i am punished by the government for not choosing to get married and have kids. yup, thats equal treatment.

There actually is a good reason behind the family deduction. It costs a lot to raise kids, and we need kids to grow to adults so that we can maintain a steady tax base. If you look at Japan, with their diminishing population, they are facing a terrible long term outlook. It has become so bad that the government will now pay couples $10,000 to $15,000 for every child they have, just so they will have kids.

 

[CountofTuscany]

Two top Republican lawmakers said Wednesday they don't support extending a payroll tax cut as a way to stimulate the economy -an idea the White House is weighing– because they don't believe it helped create jobs and that money is needed to shore up Social Security and Medicare.

- Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas

GOP lawmakers say no to a payroll tax cut extension – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

uh oh! you mean tax cuts dont stimulate the economy?

Well there goes another one of your stereotypical BS bitches about republicans out the window.

 

[Jarhead]

can you clarify how anything rdean said is not true?

its is a fact that taxes are at a 60 year low.

i dont know about the top 12 companies exactly not paying an taxes, but these 16 extremely profitable companies paid almost no taxes.

the lowest rate was 0.53%

The 16 Profitable Companies That Pay Almost Nothing In Taxes

What is not in the formula are the billions of dollars in tax credits offered those coporations so they invest in lower developed communities....and/or underttake intiatives that are for the better of the community.

The old "they pay no taxes" is true....but what the left never mentions is WHY they pay no taxes....the money goes straight to things that need it.

Dont fall for the rhetoric.

ok mr genius... explain why they pay no taxes....

I did.

DO you not understand what tax credits are?
Do you knwo what LIHTC are? Section 42?

Read up on it.

Got a lunch meeting....cya

 

[Skynet]

What is not in the formula are the billions of dollars in tax credits offered those coporations so they invest in lower developed communities....and/or underttake intiatives that are for the better of the community.

The old "they pay no taxes" is true....but what the left never mentions is WHY they pay no taxes....the money goes straight to things that need it.

Dont fall for the rhetoric.

ok mr genius... explain why they pay no taxes....

I did.

DO you not understand what tax credits are?
Do you knwo what LIHTC are? Section 42?

Read up on it.

Got a lunch meeting....cya

i dont think you understand the difference between personal taxes and business taxes...

 

[auditor0007]

No... We are set up on the premise of equal treatment by government.. no matter how our power hungry government has tried to corrupt the system in the false guise of "we the people"

You can call it unfair on an 'equal' sliding scale.... it is what it is, and you know it.... just makes your unequal treatment easy to justify to those who don't mind having the wool pulled over their eyes

I think there should be no threshold for income.. dollar 1 of person X is no different from dollar 10000000 from person Y.... because your little false basement is yet another way for a differing % or amount paid per dollar overall

So no deal... I will not be fooled with parlor tricks

So you do support the poor paying the highest percentage in taxes and the wealthy paying the least. Glad to know where you stand.

Can you explain what's wrong with that?

Not a thing if you want to turn this country into Mexico with a small wealthy class, a small middle class, and 75% of the country living in poverty.

 

[Skynet]

The actual rate is 12.5% on $50,000. It is closer to 28% if you include the both the employer and employee share of FICA. However, for a family of four, with two children, the rate is about 4% or $2000, and for most it is actually zero. This does not include FICA however.

i hate the family deduction the most. (im not saying people with families should have it taken away tho)

i am punished by the government for not choosing to get married and have kids. yup, thats equal treatment.

There actually is a good reason behind the family deduction. It costs a lot to raise kids, and we need kids to grow to adults so that we can maintain a steady tax base. If you look at Japan, with their diminishing population, they are facing a terrible long term outlook. It has become so bad that the government will now pay couples $10,000 to $15,000 for every child they have, just so they will have kids.

i dont disagree with that statement. but by this line of though, as an american citizen, you are punished by our tax system for not choosing to have children. that is what i think is wrong.

 

[The Rabbi]

The actual rate is 12.5% on $50,000. It is closer to 28% if you include the both the employer and employee share of FICA. However, for a family of four, with two children, the rate is about 4% or $2000, and for most it is actually zero. This does not include FICA however.

i hate the family deduction the most. (im not saying people with families should have it taken away tho)

i am punished by the government for not choosing to get married and have kids. yup, thats equal treatment.

There actually is a good reason behind the family deduction. It costs a lot to raise kids, and we need kids to grow to adults so that we can maintain a steady tax base. If you look at Japan, with their diminishing population, they are facing a terrible long term outlook. It has become so bad that the government will now pay couples $10,000 to $15,000 for every child they have, just so they will have kids.

We need lots of things. But monkeying with the tax code isn't the way to do this.
How about we create an environment with low taxes across the board and economic opportunity so people will feel comfortable having more kids?

 

[The Rabbi]

So you do support the poor paying the highest percentage in taxes and the wealthy paying the least. Glad to know where you stand.

Can you explain what's wrong with that?

Not a thing if you want to turn this country into Mexico with a small wealthy class, a small middle class, and 75% of the country living in poverty.

This issue with Mexico is crony capitalism and too much gov't control, not tax rates.
Care to try again?

 

[auditor0007]

If you were paying a proportionally equal percentage, 20% of nothing is nothing.


If you and I go to IHOP, we eat the same meal and get the same service, am I responsible to pay for your dinner because I made $250,000 last year and you only made $25,000?

It is the exact same logic that dictates the well off should pay more taxes.

You're not comparing apples to apples, either. Governments can't be run like restaurants are.

The restaurant is irrelevant.

I'm not responsible for paying your share just because I make more money.

Whether it's your share of the food and service at a restaurant or your share of taxes for government protections, opportunities and services.

Here is the bottom line. A poor person has much less to lose if they lose the services of the government. They're already dirt poor. Being a little poorer will just make things tougher on them, but not much tougher than they already have it. You, on the other hand, have much more to lose, and therefore, you pay more to protect what you have worked for.

 

[DiamondDave]

can you clarify how anything rdean said is not true?

its is a fact that taxes are at a 60 year low.

i dont know about the top 12 companies exactly not paying an taxes, but these 16 extremely profitable companies paid almost no taxes.

the lowest rate was 0.53%

The 16 Profitable Companies That Pay Almost Nothing In Taxes

Tax laws including what is includes as income, deductions, etc have also changed from the times of a 90% upper tax rate, etc... What rdean does is lie by intentionally misleading

The top 12 company story is one where facts are continually twisted.. when in fact they do pay taxes...

Simple solution though, to stop all this propaganda... the simplified tax rate/system for individuals and the simplified tax rate/system for businesses as well

still how have you shown that tax rates are not a 60 year lows?

Bruce Bartlett: Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low? - NYTimes.com
Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950 - USATODAY.com

i also posted a link about 16 extremely profitable companies that paid little to taxes. is that fair? shouldnt they be paying their fair share as well?

Do you know the things not counted as income etc during those 'high' rates??

There is no 'fair' share... 'fair' is subjective... equal percentage share can be done without a question of subjective fairness... fair is not the job of the government... equal treatment is

 

[auditor0007]

I don't support tax cuts, and I am a staunch conservative

I say raise the taxes on everyone on every dollar earned to be the exact same as the very top rate.... but somehow, with everyone having an equal stake in the game of taxation on every dollar earned.. I think you would see an extreme call for lower taxation and reduced government spending

That's just plain ole stupid.

No.. it's plain ol' stupid to think you should get benefit that others pay for and you get off scott free on the bill

But uber-libs like yourself love the class warfare game and selective equal treatment, when it benefits you

It seems you are playing the class warfare game. A flat federal tax with no deductions would leave the poor and middle class paying the highest overall taxes, more than the wealthy, when you include all forms of taxes. I love how you and many like you want to make the lowest income earners pay the largest percentage in taxes. It's unbelievable, and then you claim class warfare, lmao.

 

[Skynet]

i hate the family deduction the most. (im not saying people with families should have it taken away tho)

i am punished by the government for not choosing to get married and have kids. yup, thats equal treatment.

There actually is a good reason behind the family deduction. It costs a lot to raise kids, and we need kids to grow to adults so that we can maintain a steady tax base. If you look at Japan, with their diminishing population, they are facing a terrible long term outlook. It has become so bad that the government will now pay couples $10,000 to $15,000 for every child they have, just so they will have kids.

We need lots of things. But monkeying with the tax code isn't the way to do this.
How about we create an environment with low taxes across the board and economic opportunity so people will feel comfortable having more kids?

how much lower do taxes need to be? 0% ?

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950 - USATODAY.com

 

[auditor0007]

i hate the family deduction the most. (im not saying people with families should have it taken away tho)

i am punished by the government for not choosing to get married and have kids. yup, thats equal treatment.

There actually is a good reason behind the family deduction. It costs a lot to raise kids, and we need kids to grow to adults so that we can maintain a steady tax base. If you look at Japan, with their diminishing population, they are facing a terrible long term outlook. It has become so bad that the government will now pay couples $10,000 to $15,000 for every child they have, just so they will have kids.

We need lots of things. But monkeying with the tax code isn't the way to do this.
How about we create an environment with low taxes across the board and economic opportunity so people will feel comfortable having more kids?

We have the lowest tax rates in over 60 years. How much more do you want to reduce the rates? The reason we have such horrific deficits is in great part due to these incredibly low tax rates. Yes, we can make cuts in the federal budget, but we cannot cut half of the spending without completely destroying our economy.

 

[DiamondDave]

That's just plain ole stupid.

No.. it's plain ol' stupid to think you should get benefit that others pay for and you get off scott free on the bill

But uber-libs like yourself love the class warfare game and selective equal treatment, when it benefits you

It seems you are playing the class warfare game. A flat federal tax with no deductions would leave the poor and middle class paying the highest overall taxes, more than the wealthy, when you include all forms of taxes. I love how you and many like you want to make the lowest income earners pay the largest percentage in taxes. It's unbelievable, and then you claim class warfare, lmao.

No.. it would have every person paying the exact same tax per dollar... taxing the dollar, not the class or bracket

So I assume things like sales tax are unfair as well?? laughable lib

 

[Robert]

There actually is a good reason behind the family deduction. It costs a lot to raise kids, and we need kids to grow to adults so that we can maintain a steady tax base. If you look at Japan, with their diminishing population, they are facing a terrible long term outlook. It has become so bad that the government will now pay couples $10,000 to $15,000 for every child they have, just so they will have kids.

We need lots of things. But monkeying with the tax code isn't the way to do this.
How about we create an environment with low taxes across the board and economic opportunity so people will feel comfortable having more kids?

We have the lowest tax rates in over 60 years. How much more do you want to reduce the rates? The reason we have such horrific deficits is in great part due to these incredibly low tax rates. Yes, we can make cuts in the federal budget, but we cannot cut half of the spending without completely destroying our economy.

We don't have a Tax problem we have a spending problem. Having said are we to assume you'll be in favor of returning the bottom 40% to the Tax roles as a way to decrease the deficit

 

[The Rabbi]

There actually is a good reason behind the family deduction. It costs a lot to raise kids, and we need kids to grow to adults so that we can maintain a steady tax base. If you look at Japan, with their diminishing population, they are facing a terrible long term outlook. It has become so bad that the government will now pay couples $10,000 to $15,000 for every child they have, just so they will have kids.

We need lots of things. But monkeying with the tax code isn't the way to do this.
How about we create an environment with low taxes across the board and economic opportunity so people will feel comfortable having more kids?

We have the lowest tax rates in over 60 years. How much more do you want to reduce the rates? The reason we have such horrific deficits is in great part due to these incredibly low tax rates. Yes, we can make cuts in the federal budget, but we cannot cut half of the spending without completely destroying our economy.

Actually we don't. But even if we did that is irrelevant.
We have horrific deficits because we also have the highest gov't spending rate in 60 years.
But all of that isa non-response to my post.
Monkeying with the tax code to achieve social goals is not a legitimate function of gov't. Taxation ought to be equal with the goal of funding legitimate expenses of gov't, not supporting pet projects.

 

[Skynet]

We need lots of things. But monkeying with the tax code isn't the way to do this.
How about we create an environment with low taxes across the board and economic opportunity so people will feel comfortable having more kids?

We have the lowest tax rates in over 60 years. How much more do you want to reduce the rates? The reason we have such horrific deficits is in great part due to these incredibly low tax rates. Yes, we can make cuts in the federal budget, but we cannot cut half of the spending without completely destroying our economy.

We don't have a Tax problem we have a spending problem. Having said are we to assume you'll be in favor of returning the bottom 40% to the Tax roles as a way to decrease the deficit

if taxes are at the lowest rate in 60 years.... how is that not a tax problem. out budget problems are both tax related and spending related. we can not solve this problem by only addressing one of those problems.

 

[Jarhead]

ok mr genius... explain why they pay no taxes....

I did.

DO you not understand what tax credits are?
Do you knwo what LIHTC are? Section 42?

Read up on it.

Got a lunch meeting....cya

i dont think you understand the difference between personal taxes and business taxes...

Im back.

And yes...I do understand the difference. Afterall, I am a business owner. My company specializes in business planning and human resource solutions. Part of what I do is analyze the tax advantages of alternative decisions.

You see....there are many different ways a company can avoid paying taxes...but by no means does it mean the company is not paying their fair share.

For example....in an LLC...or an S-corp.....the ownership can leave excess revenue available at the end of the calandar year....and that will be taxed....or he/she can take the excess revenue as a distribution and have their existing corporate liquid capital be near 0 and pay no corporate taxes.....BUT....now they will pay it as personal taxes...so either way, tax is paid on the money.

In a large corporation.....the "profits" can be distributed as bonuses.....and therfore very little left to be taxed....but those bonuses? They are now personal income for the recipients of the bonuses...and they must pay taxes on them.

So you see.....even with tax credits aside.....whether or not corporations pay taxes is irrelevant......as the revenue (profit) is ultimately taxed anyway.

Seems to me you listen to the rhetoric...and dont really understand the situation.

 

[Jarhead]

We have the lowest tax rates in over 60 years. How much more do you want to reduce the rates? The reason we have such horrific deficits is in great part due to these incredibly low tax rates. Yes, we can make cuts in the federal budget, but we cannot cut half of the spending without completely destroying our economy.

We don't have a Tax problem we have a spending problem. Having said are we to assume you'll be in favor of returning the bottom 40% to the Tax roles as a way to decrease the deficit

if taxes are at the lowest rate in 60 years.... how is that not a tax problem. out budget problems are both tax related and spending related. we can not solve this problem by only addressing one of those problems.

Taxes being at the lowest rate in 60 years is actually a spin...usually said by those on the left that know better...but know it sounds good.

Yes, the percentage is lower....

BUT....

Tax shelters have been eliminated.

When the tax rate was higher, tax shelters were legal....and used by everyone...so the actual amount of tax revenue per dollar earned was really no different than it is today.

You should question why your politicians..such as Obama...hide this fact.

 

[The Rabbi]

We have the lowest tax rates in over 60 years. How much more do you want to reduce the rates? The reason we have such horrific deficits is in great part due to these incredibly low tax rates. Yes, we can make cuts in the federal budget, but we cannot cut half of the spending without completely destroying our economy.

We don't have a Tax problem we have a spending problem. Having said are we to assume you'll be in favor of returning the bottom 40% to the Tax roles as a way to decrease the deficit

if taxes are at the lowest rate in 60 years.... how is that not a tax problem. out budget problems are both tax related and spending related. we can not solve this problem by only addressing one of those problems.

Do we have the lowest gov't revenue in 60 years? No. We have over $2T in revenue to the federal gov;t.
The issue is spending, not revenue.