The 47% Strawman

[kaz]

Does that include everyone who refers to those people as having NO skin in the game?

Yes... for they do have no skin in the federal income tax game...

I don't recall anyone qualifying it like that.

That's for two reasons. First, it's because when people are talking about Federal taxes they assume that you're smart enough to figure out the statistics they cite refer to Federal taxes. Second, they're wrong, you aren't smart enough.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes... for they do have no skin in the federal income tax game...

I don't recall anyone qualifying it like that.

That's for two reasons. First, it's because when people are talking about Federal taxes they assume that you're smart enough to figure out the statistics they cite refer to Federal taxes. Second, they're wrong, you aren't smart enough.

We've already established that low income Americans pay federal taxes even if they don't pay the income tax, you asshole.

Try learning to read.

 

[Full-Auto]

I'm a capitalist. Hell, I'm a business-owner and a REAL job creator in that, everyone I hire is actually American.
So I watch FOX and then I see the parroting on this and other boards about how "OMG! How can they ask the Rich to pay more in income tax?!?! 47% of Americans don't even pay taxes!"
This is a pretty good strawman. It's deceitful as hell, combines truth with lies and uses some great misdirection to get attention of the real crux of the issue.
1. Those 47% do pay taxes. They pay them every time they buy things etc... We're just at a point in our history where so many people are broke, they don't pay income taxes.
2. The Effective Rate thing. They use the 47% don't pay taxes as if it applies to the Middle Class. it doesn't. Ask yourself this question: Do youpay taxes? About what percent do you pay? If it's more than 18%, you're paying more than millionaires or most business-owners. If it's more than 0%, you're paying more than many international companies that are based in the USA. Do people like me, who employ 100% American workers, get special tax loopholes from the government? Do we get special consideration, investment, tax credits, subsidies or breaks? Nope. Who does? Companies that ship jobs overseas. Do those companies ship jobs to say, India for tax reasons? The rate in India is 33% and the average effective rate is higher than the USA. So no, that's a bill of goods that is being bought by a lot of people lately.
3. "But everyone has the same laws so the rich don't get anything that others can't have! They're just smarter!" This is completel bs. Could you have your boss "hold" 90% of your pay for a few years, so you won't have to pay taxes on it? Of course not. Our tax code is specifically designed to be unfair. Income deferments, Stock options, insurance etc... are all things that "anyone" can use but practically speaking, someone making $50K a year can't live on $5K a year. But someone making $20 MILLION a year can probably scratch by on $170,000 a month.

So yes. Our tax system is unfair. It offers loopholes to "everyone" - that only the rich can afford to use. This is the only country I've ever lived in, where people will actually say "Oh those poor rich people, THEY are the ones needing protecting!" .
Now they're talking about eliminating the deduction for mortgage interest. Does anyone NOT see the long-term consequence of such follishness? Some day historians will look at this period at our history and say "That's when the Middle Class that used to exist in America, voted themselves out of existence."

The claim of 47% is from the IRS discussing federal taxes.

Anything made more of it is from drama queens such as yourself.

 

[Flaylo]

I'm a capitalist. Hell, I'm a business-owner and a REAL job creator in that, everyone I hire is actually American.
So I watch FOX and then I see the parroting on this and other boards about how "OMG! How can they ask the Rich to pay more in income tax?!?! 47% of Americans don't even pay taxes!"
This is a pretty good strawman. It's deceitful as hell, combines truth with lies and uses some great misdirection to get attention of the real crux of the issue.

Sigh. Why are you using a strawman to attack a strawman? The actual statistic is that 47% of workers do not pay federal income taxes.

1. Those 47% do pay taxes. They pay them every time they buy things etc... We're just at a point in our history where so many people are broke, they don't pay income taxes.

None of which are federal, just saying.



No I do not. They pay the exact same rate I do, on the amount I earn. When they go above a certain income they pay less on anything above that.

By the way, nobody anywhere gets tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas. If you are actually a businessman, something which I sincerely doubt given your complete inabilty to actually articulate how taxes work, you would know that what actually happens is that businesses get taxed for keeping jobs in the US. The ones that can afford to move their production then move it overseas to avoid the local taxes.

That actually makes two false statments in a post where you are arguing against strawmen. Most people would call that ironic, but I actually know what ironic means.

3. "But everyone has the same laws so the rich don't get anything that others can't have! They're just smarter!" This is completel bs. Could you have your boss "hold" 90% of your pay for a few years, so you won't have to pay taxes on it? Of course not. Our tax code is specifically designed to be unfair. Income deferments, Stock options, insurance etc... are all things that "anyone" can use but practically speaking, someone making $50K a year can't live on $5K a year. But someone making $20 MILLION a year can probably scratch by on $170,000 a month.

I deferred my income once to avoid taxes, and I was making far less than a million dollars. That was a few years ago, and I understand the process is more complicated now, but you can still do it if you get a large raise.

By the way, being smart and rich doesn't help. It turns out that Romney, who has teams of lawyers and accountants, actually overpaid his taxes by $44,000 last year. If the tax code is actually biased to help rich people how did he end up paying more than he needed to?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/b...taxes-than-he-owed-high-low-finance.html?_r=1

So yes. Our tax system is unfair. It offers loopholes to "everyone" - that only the rich can afford to use. This is the only country I've ever lived in, where people will actually say "Oh those poor rich people, THEY are the ones needing protecting!" .
Now they're talking about eliminating the deduction for mortgage interest. Does anyone NOT see the long-term consequence of such follishness? Some day historians will look at this period at our history and say "That's when the Middle Class that used to exist in America, voted themselves out of existence."

Considering how little you actually know about taxes I feel pretty safe ignoring your predictions of doom.

using a strawman to attack someone else who is attacking a strawman? Humor.

 

[kaz]

I don't recall anyone qualifying it like that.

That's for two reasons. First, it's because when people are talking about Federal taxes they assume that you're smart enough to figure out the statistics they cite refer to Federal taxes. Second, they're wrong, you aren't smart enough.

We've already established that low income Americans pay federal taxes even if they don't pay the income tax, you asshole.

Try learning to read.

What Federal taxes do they pay exactly?

 

[Flaylo]

That's for two reasons. First, it's because when people are talking about Federal taxes they assume that you're smart enough to figure out the statistics they cite refer to Federal taxes. Second, they're wrong, you aren't smart enough.

We've already established that low income Americans pay federal taxes even if they don't pay the income tax, you asshole.

Try learning to read.

What Federal taxes do they pay exactly?

Ever heard of payroll taxes you shithead?

 

[Full-Auto]

We've already established that low income Americans pay federal taxes even if they don't pay the income tax, you asshole.

Try learning to read.

What Federal taxes do they pay exactly?

Ever heard of payroll taxes you shithead?

Yes, However the figure discusses federal income tax.

DUMBASS.

 

[kaz]

We've already established that low income Americans pay federal taxes even if they don't pay the income tax, you asshole.

Try learning to read.

What Federal taxes do they pay exactly?

Ever heard of payroll taxes you shithead?

I thought social security and medicare were savings and investment plans. You're saying they are just taxes? Wouldn't that make the checks welfare then?

 

[American Horse]

FICA, the so called "payroll tax" stands for Federal Insurance Contributions Act. Any part of that which might correctly be called a tax is the employers half. The other half is the participants' "contribution" to their own retirement security and medical insurance account.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Is there something in that article that says you get a break on your taxes here if you move your jobs to another country? Didn't think so.

Since many people seem confused about this, I'll clarify. There are laws in our tax code which are pretty old and have unintended consequences. Basically, if a company moves a plant from say, New York to Arizona, they are allowed to accelerate depreciation on assets at the current location to 100% in that year. So if you have say, fifty million in assets and are able to deduct five million a year, moving overseas suddenly gives you a fifty million dollar deduction! This can be hugely advantageous and is definitely a "break". Pretty much everyone realizes it needs to be modified and it's only this year that politicians on both sides of the aisle have begun talking about it.
Here's another one: If you open a facility overseas, you can "offshore" profits made in the USA to those facilities. For example, Forrest Laboratories produces Lexapro only in America, it is sold only in America, all profits are realized in America (billions) and the taxes? Not a penny paid here. Zero. Why? They opened a facility in Ireland! Welcome to the "Double Irish". Like the "Dutch Sandwich" it is a scheme to use our tax code to screw our country and also our workers. You're welcome to google these phrases if you want to learn more.

And yes, when someone owns a corporation for a few years or more, they tend to know more about corporate taxes than those who don't. That's just common sense.

Let me see if I get you. The tax code allows you to fully deduct equipment that cannot be moved and is no longer in use, and you want to argue that this is the equivalent of a tax break for moving jobs overseas. Does that sum up your position?

Lemme see if I get you. You think 150 laptops cannot be moved or no longer put to use?
And the profits from Lexapro? You have no opinion on that? Just going to ignore and therefore it doesn't exist?

BTW, that is the funniest danm avatar I have seen in a long time!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We've already established that low income Americans pay federal taxes even if they don't pay the income tax, you asshole.

Try learning to read.

What Federal taxes do they pay exactly?

Ever heard of payroll taxes you shithead?

Ever hear of the Earned Income Credit which is intended to help poor people by refunding the payroll tax?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Since many people seem confused about this, I'll clarify. There are laws in our tax code which are pretty old and have unintended consequences. Basically, if a company moves a plant from say, New York to Arizona, they are allowed to accelerate depreciation on assets at the current location to 100% in that year. So if you have say, fifty million in assets and are able to deduct five million a year, moving overseas suddenly gives you a fifty million dollar deduction! This can be hugely advantageous and is definitely a "break". Pretty much everyone realizes it needs to be modified and it's only this year that politicians on both sides of the aisle have begun talking about it.
Here's another one: If you open a facility overseas, you can "offshore" profits made in the USA to those facilities. For example, Forrest Laboratories produces Lexapro only in America, it is sold only in America, all profits are realized in America (billions) and the taxes? Not a penny paid here. Zero. Why? They opened a facility in Ireland! Welcome to the "Double Irish". Like the "Dutch Sandwich" it is a scheme to use our tax code to screw our country and also our workers. You're welcome to google these phrases if you want to learn more.

And yes, when someone owns a corporation for a few years or more, they tend to know more about corporate taxes than those who don't. That's just common sense.

Let me see if I get you. The tax code allows you to fully deduct equipment that cannot be moved and is no longer in use, and you want to argue that this is the equivalent of a tax break for moving jobs overseas. Does that sum up your position?

Lemme see if I get you. You think 150 laptops cannot be moved or no longer put to use?
And the profits from Lexapro? You have no opinion on that? Just going to ignore and therefore it doesn't exist?

BTW, that is the funniest danm avatar I have seen in a long time!

How is Lexapro subject to depreciation? Are you trying to confuse me by acting really stupid?

 

[IndependntLogic]

Let me see if I get you. The tax code allows you to fully deduct equipment that cannot be moved and is no longer in use, and you want to argue that this is the equivalent of a tax break for moving jobs overseas. Does that sum up your position?

Lemme see if I get you. You think 150 laptops cannot be moved or no longer put to use?
And the profits from Lexapro? You have no opinion on that? Just going to ignore and therefore it doesn't exist?

BTW, that is the funniest danm avatar I have seen in a long time!

How is Lexapro subject to depreciation? Are you trying to confuse me by acting really stupid?

Ah. Too daft to tackle more than one example or idea at a time? Okay, lemme dumb it down for ya there, Junior.

First, there is a point abot depreciating things. This is where you made a counter about "unmovable, useless machinery" etc... and I retorted with the fact that 150 laptops could probably be both moved and used - which you have now dodged.

Then there was another point. It is a "different" point. It displays how Forrest Labs, makes billions off Lexapro and by opening a facility in Ireland, pays ZERO taxes on all those profits. I think this is not good! What do you think? Hmmm. Better go look in your Little Book of Conserv Replies. Uh oh. Might not have on in there for either of these points.

I suggest you keep dodging!

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's for two reasons. First, it's because when people are talking about Federal taxes they assume that you're smart enough to figure out the statistics they cite refer to Federal taxes. Second, they're wrong, you aren't smart enough.

We've already established that low income Americans pay federal taxes even if they don't pay the income tax, you asshole.

Try learning to read.

What Federal taxes do they pay exactly?

The payroll tax, federal excise taxes on such things as fuel.

Tell us what the poor should pay, and how it should be implemented.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What Federal taxes do they pay exactly?

Ever heard of payroll taxes you shithead?

I thought social security and medicare were savings and investment plans. You're saying they are just taxes? Wouldn't that make the checks welfare then?

Stop being an idiot just because you've lost the argument.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Lemme see if I get you. You think 150 laptops cannot be moved or no longer put to use?
And the profits from Lexapro? You have no opinion on that? Just going to ignore and therefore it doesn't exist?

BTW, that is the funniest danm avatar I have seen in a long time!

How is Lexapro subject to depreciation? Are you trying to confuse me by acting really stupid?

Ah. Too daft to tackle more than one example or idea at a time? Okay, lemme dumb it down for ya there, Junior.

First, there is a point abot depreciating things. This is where you made a counter about "unmovable, useless machinery" etc... and I retorted with the fact that 150 laptops could probably be both moved and used - which you have now dodged.

Then there was another point. It is a "different" point. It displays how Forrest Labs, makes billions off Lexapro and by opening a facility in Ireland, pays ZERO taxes on all those profits. I think this is not good! What do you think? Hmmm. Better go look in your Little Book of Conserv Replies. Uh oh. Might not have on in there for either of these points.

I suggest you keep dodging!

The single point I am arguing here is that no company gets a tax break for outsourcing jobs, and I challenged you to prove otherwise. Rather than admit that, after talking to your CPA you found out that I was right that no one actually gets a tax break for moving jobs overseas you are making thing up.

Depreciation is not a tax break for moving jobs overseas. If the tax code allow a business to accelerate the depreciation of laptops after they move a business from Illinois to Arizona it is wrong, but it is far from the dumbest thing in the tax code.

Guess who else does not pay taxes on profits they make in Iceland? Icelandic Air. My question is, why should they? Do you think the US should be able to level taxes on other countries? Does that mean Iceland should be able to force you to pay taxes because you have a business in the US?

Your desperation is showing, you are making less sense every time you post.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The average 'poor' person who is paying no federal income taxes is probably using exemptions, deductions, and credits to knock 2 or 3 or 4 thousand dollars off his tax bill.

Compare that to a rich person who uses a variety of the same to knock 10 or 20 or 30 or 100 thousand off his tax bill,

then tell us who's getting the freer ride.

 

[IndependntLogic]

How is Lexapro subject to depreciation? Are you trying to confuse me by acting really stupid?

Ah. Too daft to tackle more than one example or idea at a time? Okay, lemme dumb it down for ya there, Junior.

First, there is a point abot depreciating things. This is where you made a counter about "unmovable, useless machinery" etc... and I retorted with the fact that 150 laptops could probably be both moved and used - which you have now dodged.

Then there was another point. It is a "different" point. It displays how Forrest Labs, makes billions off Lexapro and by opening a facility in Ireland, pays ZERO taxes on all those profits. I think this is not good! What do you think? Hmmm. Better go look in your Little Book of Conserv Replies. Uh oh. Might not have on in there for either of these points.

I suggest you keep dodging!

The single point I am arguing here is that no company gets a tax break for outsourcing jobs, and I challenged you to prove otherwise. Rather than admit that, after talking to your CPA you found out that I was right that no one actually gets a tax break for moving jobs overseas you are making thing up.

BS. I proved you wrong. A tax break is any deduction a person or company would not receive in the normal course of business. The accelartion of depreciation is a "break". If you were just a liiiitle bit smarter, you would realize this but I know - in your case, ideology trumps intellect. Got it.

Depreciation is not a tax break for moving jobs overseas. If the tax code allow a business to accelerate the depreciation of laptops after they move a business from Illinois to Arizona it is wrong, but it is far from the dumbest thing in the tax code.

Guess who else does not pay taxes on profits they make in Iceland? Icelandic Air. My question is, why should they? Do you think the US should be able to level taxes on other countries? Does that mean Iceland should be able to force you to pay taxes because you have a business in the US?

Your desperation is showing, you are making less sense every time you post.

Dude are you REALLY that daft? I really don't think I can dumb this down any more:

All Lexapro is produced in the USA
All Lexapro is sold in the USA
All profits are made in the USA.
Zero taxes are paid on those profits in the USA.
They are "offshored" through a loophole known as the Double Irish (Not Iceland genius).

You were saying?

 

[Mr.Nick]

The average 'poor' person who is paying no federal income taxes is probably using exemptions, deductions, and credits to knock 2 or 3 or 4 thousand dollars off his tax bill.

Compare that to a rich person who uses a variety of the same to knock 10 or 20 or 30 or 100 thousand off his tax bill,

then tell us who's getting the freer ride.

Not only that - the rich man writes a check to the government while the government writes a check to the poor man.

The rich pay money.

The poor receive money.

The governments wont take money unless you earn X amount.

 

[IndependntLogic]

The average 'poor' person who is paying no federal income taxes is probably using exemptions, deductions, and credits to knock 2 or 3 or 4 thousand dollars off his tax bill.

Compare that to a rich person who uses a variety of the same to knock 10 or 20 or 30 or 100 thousand off his tax bill,

then tell us who's getting the freer ride.

Not only that - the rich man writes a check to the government while the government writes a check to the poor man.

The rich pay money.

The poor receive money.

The governments wont take money unless you earn X amount.

This is exactly what I was talking about: The Rich vs. The Poor. That's the strawman because the issue isn't Rich vs. Poor, it's Rich vs. Middle to Upper-Middle Class.

I don't dispute the poor get money from the government and pay no taxes. This is a given. BUT the Rich and corporations are able to use tax breaks that are specifically designed only to benefit them.
Now. I don't think the rich should pay a higher marginal rate. Are we clear? I don't think they should be punished just for being rich. Is this clear? I ask only because so many people immediately jump on the dichotomy.
What I think is:
We should eliminate corporate and individual tax breaks that only the rich can use and are just plain unfair. An example of this would be like deferred comp or SO's breaks. Can you live on 10% of your income? Most people can't. So if the COO at GE is GUARANTEED $20M in income this year, but has it deferred and then shuffled through trusts etc... so that he ends up paying 1/3 of what a guy making $70K makes, is that fair? Or if he is given Stock Options worth $10M but not taxed on them, how is that something the gal working at Denny's could ever have access to.
Yes it's all legal. My point is that it shouldn't be. It's a sham.
As a business owner, I get to deduct my car, computers etc...
As a citizen, I used to get the same breaks as businesses! This spurred buying! Then they took all those deductions away. This gave us a Recession!
I would like to see the playing field leveled.

And what we give major international companies that ship jobs overseas, while ignoring the great American small to medium sized businesses that hire 100% American and pay their taxes 100% in America, is just plain bullshit.

Our tax code is screwed. It most helps those who need the least help. It least helps those who need the most help and can contribute the most (No, NOT the poor!).
We need to change our tax code.