GOP support a raise in taxes

[Skynet]

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.

small business taxes are on a different level than corporate taxes. for your business that may be the case.

case in point when a major corporation like Exxon makes a $19 billion profit but received a $156 million tax refund. im pretty sure that didnt use $19 billion to pay their bonuses and invest in new technology.

Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

Ten giant U.S. companies avoiding income taxes: Sen. Bernie Sanders list - Lynn Sweet


small business taxes should remain low, as they provide the lions share of jobs to americans. but large corporations find the loops holes and exploit them. this practice need to be addressed.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

small business taxes are on a different level than corporate taxes. for your business that may be the case.

case in point when a major corporation like Exxon makes a $19 billion profit but received a $156 million tax refund. im pretty sure that didnt use $19 billion to pay their bonuses and invest in new technology.

Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

Ten giant U.S. companies avoiding income taxes: Sen. Bernie Sanders list - Lynn Sweet


small business taxes should remain low, as they provide the lions share of jobs to americans. but large corporations find the loops holes and exploit them. this practice need to be addressed.

It is all reletive Sky.

19 billion in profit....where is the money?
It goes to investors in dividends....and thos einvestors pay taxes opn it when they cash out....
If there is money "left in the bank account" of Exxon....it is taxed.
You do not know the whole story. You read articles and blogs but none of them address WHY there were no taxes paid....ever question why?
There is more to the story than you realize.....in essence...you are being duped by left wing "reporters" and leftists politicians....and it is working.

 

[Skynet]

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.

small business taxes are on a different level than corporate taxes. for your business that may be the case.

case in point when a major corporation like Exxon makes a $19 billion profit but received a $156 million tax refund. im pretty sure that didnt use $19 billion to pay their bonuses and invest in new technology.

Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

Ten giant U.S. companies avoiding income taxes: Sen. Bernie Sanders list - Lynn Sweet


small business taxes should remain low, as they provide the lions share of jobs to americans. but large corporations find the loops holes and exploit them. this practice need to be addressed.

It is all reletive Sky.

19 billion in profit....where is the money?
It goes to investors in dividends....and thos einvestors pay taxes opn it when they cash out....
If there is money "left in the bank account" of Exxon....it is taxed.
You do not know the whole story. You read articles and blogs but none of them address WHY there were no taxes paid....ever question why?
There is more to the story than you realize.....in essence...you are being duped by left wing "reporters" and leftists politicians....and it is working.

Exxon's retained earning for 2011 - $256.75 billion (that was just the 2nd quarter)

Retained Earnings for Exxon_Mobil (XOM) 2010 Q2 - Wikinvest



http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=XOM&annual

 

[Jarhead]

small business taxes are on a different level than corporate taxes. for your business that may be the case.

case in point when a major corporation like Exxon makes a $19 billion profit but received a $156 million tax refund. im pretty sure that didnt use $19 billion to pay their bonuses and invest in new technology.

Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

Ten giant U.S. companies avoiding income taxes: Sen. Bernie Sanders list - Lynn Sweet


small business taxes should remain low, as they provide the lions share of jobs to americans. but large corporations find the loops holes and exploit them. this practice need to be addressed.

It is all reletive Sky.

19 billion in profit....where is the money?
It goes to investors in dividends....and thos einvestors pay taxes opn it when they cash out....
If there is money "left in the bank account" of Exxon....it is taxed.
You do not know the whole story. You read articles and blogs but none of them address WHY there were no taxes paid....ever question why?
There is more to the story than you realize.....in essence...you are being duped by left wing "reporters" and leftists politicians....and it is working.

Exxon's retained earning for 2011 - $256.75 billion (that was just the 2nd quarter)

Retained Earnings for Exxon_Mobil (XOM) 2010 Q2 - Wikinvest



XOM Balance Sheet | Exxon Mobil Corporation Common Stock - Yahoo! Finance

And retained earnings are used to invest in the company or pay off debt.....do you prefer the government take 25% of that money?
Are you aware of how that would affect unemployment? Innovation?

 

[Skynet]

It is all reletive Sky.

19 billion in profit....where is the money?
It goes to investors in dividends....and thos einvestors pay taxes opn it when they cash out....
If there is money "left in the bank account" of Exxon....it is taxed.
You do not know the whole story. You read articles and blogs but none of them address WHY there were no taxes paid....ever question why?
There is more to the story than you realize.....in essence...you are being duped by left wing "reporters" and leftists politicians....and it is working.

Exxon's retained earning for 2011 - $256.75 billion (that was just the 2nd quarter)

Retained Earnings for Exxon_Mobil (XOM) 2010 Q2 - Wikinvest



XOM Balance Sheet | Exxon Mobil Corporation Common Stock - Yahoo! Finance

And retained earnings are used to invest in the company or pay off debt.....do you prefer the government take 25% of that money?
Are you aware of how that would affect unemployment? Innovation?

as shown there were not used to pay down debt or reinvested, they were simply profits left over.

In accounting, retained earnings refers to the portion of net income which is retained by the corporation rather than distributed to its owners as dividends.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

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.

Government does not exist for the purpose of making a profit off the taxpayers.

Also, your taxes go into a huge "pot," if you will, so to think of them as paying "someone else's share" is meaningless. You have no idea whether your check is going to roads, ICBMs, or welfare programs, and neither does anyone else.

 

[Jarhead]

Exxon's retained earning for 2011 - $256.75 billion (that was just the 2nd quarter)

Retained Earnings for Exxon_Mobil (XOM) 2010 Q2 - Wikinvest



XOM Balance Sheet | Exxon Mobil Corporation Common Stock - Yahoo! Finance

And retained earnings are used to invest in the company or pay off debt.....do you prefer the government take 25% of that money?
Are you aware of how that would affect unemployment? Innovation?

as shown there were not used to pay down debt or reinvested, they were simply profits left over.

In accounting, retained earnings refers to the portion of net income which is retained by the corporation rather than distributed to its owners as dividends.

I know what retained earnings are.
And profits "left over"...
Please expolain...what good are they if no one gets them, no one uses them....dont you see?
You are ignoring the lack of logic of the whole thing.
Sooner or later "profits left over" are used to pay down debt, re-invested., distributed as dividends, or taken as income by owners...

 

[Skynet]

And retained earnings are used to invest in the company or pay off debt.....do you prefer the government take 25% of that money?
Are you aware of how that would affect unemployment? Innovation?

as shown there were not used to pay down debt or reinvested, they were simply profits left over.

In accounting, retained earnings refers to the portion of net income which is retained by the corporation rather than distributed to its owners as dividends.

I know what retained earnings are.
And profits "left over"...
Please expolain...what good are they if no one gets them, no one uses them....dont you see?
You are ignoring the lack of logic of the whole thing.
Sooner or later "profits left over" are used to pay down debt, re-invested., distributed as dividends, or taken as income by owners...

those need to be accounted for on the balance sheet prior to filing taxes.

by your logic no profits would be taxable as they would just be retained earning that could eventually be used to pay down debt, re-invest etc

 

[Jarhead]

as shown there were not used to pay down debt or reinvested, they were simply profits left over.

In accounting, retained earnings refers to the portion of net income which is retained by the corporation rather than distributed to its owners as dividends.

I know what retained earnings are.
And profits "left over"...
Please expolain...what good are they if no one gets them, no one uses them....dont you see?
You are ignoring the lack of logic of the whole thing.
Sooner or later "profits left over" are used to pay down debt, re-invested., distributed as dividends, or taken as income by owners...

those need to be accounted for on the balance sheet prior to filing taxes.

by your logic no profits would be taxable as they would just be retained earning that could eventually be used to pay down debt, re-invest etc

No...that is a spin of my logic.

My logic is....a profit is only a profit if someone can capitalize on it.

A profit that one does not use and therefore not pay taxes on is uselss.......

I mean...what is better to you....100% of Money that you can never EVER use....or 75% of that money that you CAN use?

Where is the logic of what you are saying?

 

[Skynet]

I know what retained earnings are.
And profits "left over"...
Please expolain...what good are they if no one gets them, no one uses them....dont you see?
You are ignoring the lack of logic of the whole thing.
Sooner or later "profits left over" are used to pay down debt, re-invested., distributed as dividends, or taken as income by owners...

those need to be accounted for on the balance sheet prior to filing taxes.

by your logic no profits would be taxable as they would just be retained earning that could eventually be used to pay down debt, re-invest etc

No...that is a spin of my logic.

My logic is....a profit is only a profit if someone can capitalize on it.

A profit that one does not use and therefore not pay taxes on is uselss.......

I mean...what is better to you....100% of Money that you can never EVER use....or 75% of that money that you CAN use?

Where is the logic of what you are saying?

yes and you as a corporation are suppose to capitalize it an on annual basis. they only thing you can do is offset some of those profits with losses for that tax year.

 

[auditor0007]

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

Ending the Bush tax cuts across the board would raise taxes on everyone. As I recall, conservatives said that the middle and lower income earners received the bulk of the savings from the Bush tax cuts, so you shouldn't have any problem ending them.

 

[Missourian]

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.

B.S. - public school, welfare, social security, medicare, SCHIP, medicaid, WIC, HUD all benifit the poor significantly more than the rich.


That is the lions share of the Federal Budget.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget​

 

[auditor0007]

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.

As a percentage of GDP, we have the lowest amount of revenue in over 60 years. Are you truly that dense? Last year we had $2.1 trillion in revenue. In 2000, we had $2.05 trillion. We had $500 billion more in 2010 compared to 2000, but GDP was $14.6 trillion in 2010 and only $9.8 trillion in 2000. You are a fool.

According to you, in the year 2100, we'll be okay with $2.2 trillion in revenue on a GDP of over $200 trillion since revenue is still higher. What an idiot.

 

[Missourian]

Now here's the real bottom line.

As long as citizens can contribute little or nothing in taxes to the federal government but then vote themselves more and more government services at the expense of others, that's exactly what will continue to occur.

 

[auditor0007]

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

And you are another one of the zombies. You can't see that tax revenue is at it's lowest levels in 60 years. You continue to tell us it's all a spending problem when it is not. Federal tax revenues have averaged approximately 18.5% of GDP for the last 60 years. Last year, they were only 14.4% of GDP. That is a loss in revenue that has helped create the massive deficit. This ain't rocket science; it's simple math.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

As a percentage of GDP, we have the lowest amount of revenue in over 60 years. Are you truly that dense? Last year we had $2.1 trillion in revenue. In 2000, we had $2.05 trillion. We had $500 billion more in 2010 compared to 2000, but GDP was $14.6 trillion in 2010 and only $9.8 trillion in 2000. You are a fool.

According to you, in the year 2100, we'll be okay with $2.2 trillion in revenue on a GDP of over $200 trillion since revenue is still higher. What an idiot.

That's probably because we had a recession.
In any case what does it matter? Does gov't have some claim on a given percentage of revenue? Do you want to claim that raising taxes is a patriotic duty or something? Do you really think that with 9% unemployment and the lowest workforce participation rate in 50 years that a tax increase will make the economy zoom?
No, you are the fool I think.

 

[auditor0007]

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.

B.S. - public school, welfare, social security, medicare, SCHIP, medicaid, WIC, HUD all benifit the poor significantly more than the rich.


That is the lions share of the Federal Budget.

2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

If you truly believe that having a very small percentage of people increase their wealth exponentially while the rest of the people's wealth diminishes than nobody can help you. This is exactly what has been happening over the last 30 years. If it continues, eventually there will be a revolution. History has proven this time and time again.

I used to support much of this type of thinking. The difference is that I see how much it has hurt us as a country. It is the main reason that our kids, as a whole, will have a lower standard of living than our generation, and it will only get worse from there if we continue with policies that reward an elite class of people while completely neglecting the needs of the masses.

 

[Skynet]

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.

As a percentage of GDP, we have the lowest amount of revenue in over 60 years. Are you truly that dense? Last year we had $2.1 trillion in revenue. In 2000, we had $2.05 trillion. We had $500 billion more in 2010 compared to 2000, but GDP was $14.6 trillion in 2010 and only $9.8 trillion in 2000. You are a fool.

According to you, in the year 2100, we'll be okay with $2.2 trillion in revenue on a GDP of over $200 trillion since revenue is still higher. What an idiot.

That's probably because we had a recession.
In any case what does it matter? Does gov't have some claim on a given percentage of revenue? Do you want to claim that raising taxes is a patriotic duty or something? Do you really think that with 9% unemployment and the lowest workforce participation rate in 50 years that a tax increase will make the economy zoom?
No, you are the fool I think.

so pick your poison -

well you know all those tax cuts grew the economy so well, lets keep up that practice, but you better be willing accept huge deficits for the foreseeable future.

or we just eliminate all the social programs and throw grandma, grandpa and the poor out on the street.

cause both of those are just great ideas for the country.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

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.

As a percentage of GDP, we have the lowest amount of revenue in over 60 years. Are you truly that dense? Last year we had $2.1 trillion in revenue. In 2000, we had $2.05 trillion. We had $500 billion more in 2010 compared to 2000, but GDP was $14.6 trillion in 2010 and only $9.8 trillion in 2000. You are a fool.

According to you, in the year 2100, we'll be okay with $2.2 trillion in revenue on a GDP of over $200 trillion since revenue is still higher. What an idiot.

Most of the board has The AntiSemite on ignore. No point responding to his posts.

 

[Missourian]

If you truly believe that having a very small percentage of people increase their wealth exponentially while the rest of the people's wealth diminishes than nobody can help you. This is exactly what has been happening over the last 30 years. If it continues, eventually there will be a revolution. History has proven this time and time again.

I used to support much of this type of thinking. The difference is that I see how much it has hurt us as a country. It is the main reason that our kids, as a whole, will have a lower standard of living than our generation, and it will only get worse from there if we continue with policies that reward an elite class of people while completely neglecting the needs of the masses.

Income taxes, which is the topic we are discussing, only apply to money that is earned.

It isn't a "reward" to keep the same percentage of what one earns as everyone else.

That's called justice, equality, and equal treatment.




On a separate topic:

For the record, I agree that we will need to increase taxes.

But first, spending needs to be cut to the bone.

If we raise taxes before spending is cut, spending won't be cut...congress will just kick the can down the road....again.