The Rich Don't Pay Enough?!

[Steelplate]

Is the U.S. moving toward or away from the troubled EU nations?

A: Away. The boundary between the North American and Eurasian tectonic plates in the Atlantic is divergent.

Not to mention that if, economically speaking, we were to Theoretically form a "North American Union".....We'd be Germany and the rest of the Union would be Greece, Spain, etc....

 

[8537]

For those awaiting a "serious economist" for Flatminor:

The claim of double taxation comes via two erroneous claims. I'll explain why both are wrong:

1) The corporation pays taxes and then the person receiving the dividend income pays taxes.
This is wrong because the corporation and the person are both tax paying entities (That's why the SCOTUS defined corporations as having personhood. I doubt cons would like the results if corporate personhood was removed). In the US we tax income. In both cases ,the person is paying taxes in income.

2) The person is double taxed because they pay ordinary income tax on the money, then pay a tax on it when they cash in an investment. This is wrong for the obvious reason: The Capital Gains tax is applied to gains (additional income), not the initial investment.

Now For #2 you might make the case that the initial investment should be indexed. That's fine. But that doesn't mean the money is double taxed.

Actually, it does.

No, it doesn't. It's the same reason why estate and gift taxes aren't double taxation.

EFlat is awaiting clarification from the "consensus" of "serious economists" (not to be confused with silly and whimsical economists) as to how to respond.

 

[Polk]

Actually, it does.

No, it doesn't. It's the same reason why estate and gift taxes aren't double taxation.

EFlat is awaiting clarification from the "consensus" of "serious economists" (not to be confused with silly and whimsical economists) as to how to respond.

I don't recall if you or someone else said it, but I liked the point earlier in the thread where someone pointed out that using the same logic that considers these things double taxation, we really have infinite taxation, because money moves in a circular flow through the economy.

 

[edthecynic]

No, it doesn't. It's the same reason why estate and gift taxes aren't double taxation.

EFlat is awaiting clarification from the "consensus" of "serious economists" (not to be confused with silly and whimsical economists) as to how to respond.

I don't recall if you or someone else said it, but I liked the point earlier in the thread where someone pointed out that using the same logic that considers these things double taxation, we really have infinite taxation, because money moves in a circular flow through the economy.

Guilty.

 

[Papageorgio]

I agree....but not necessarily taxes. If they were doing what, according to Reagan, they should be doing....trickling down...we wouldn't need to worry about taxation....because the viable tax base would be much larger and the need for government aid would be much less.

But since they refuse to do that? I don't give a shit if they tax the piss out of them.

You realize don't you if you tax the piss out of them they'll just move! Then what?

Unlike in the fantasyland of John Galt, we'll replace them. Ciao.

Where will they move? Mitt Romney's income was taxed at 13.9% and he still felt the need to park large amounts of money in offshore tax shelters. How low does it need to be to encourage people to stay?

And Romney gave over 16% to charity. Not sure what the point is.

He actually gave 30% of his income to taxes and charity, how much would he have given if he was asked to pay more in taxes?

Seems to all work out, unless you are Biden, he gave 0.02% to charities and took all his legal deductions,

 

[8537]

You realize don't you if you tax the piss out of them they'll just move! Then what?

Unlike in the fantasyland of John Galt, we'll replace them. Ciao.

Where will they move? Mitt Romney's income was taxed at 13.9% and he still felt the need to park large amounts of money in offshore tax shelters. How low does it need to be to encourage people to stay?

And Romney gave over 16% to charity. Not sure what the point is.

The point is that 13% is not "overtaxed" by any rational measure. I don't think even Ayn Rand would have gone Galt over 13%.

He actually gave 30% of his income to taxes and charity, how much would he have given if he was asked to pay more in taxes?

as much as his church and his government required he give.

 

[Polk]

You realize don't you if you tax the piss out of them they'll just move! Then what?

Unlike in the fantasyland of John Galt, we'll replace them. Ciao.

Where will they move? Mitt Romney's income was taxed at 13.9% and he still felt the need to park large amounts of money in offshore tax shelters. How low does it need to be to encourage people to stay?

And Romney gave over 16% to charity. Not sure what the point is.

He actually gave 30% of his income to taxes and charity, how much would he have given if he was asked to pay more in taxes?

Seems to all work out, unless you are Biden, he gave 0.02% to charities and took all his legal deductions,

Does he want a cookie for a charitable giving?

 

[daveman]

Oh....so you gettin' some of that "Gubmint" money, are you? Guess you'll get that for the rest of your life....probably with survivor's benefits for your family.....

Yes, I earned those with 20 years of uniformed service. And I pay premiums for the SBP.

It's funny the way you leftist morons try to call veteran's benefits welfare.

We EARNED them. I know that's a difficult concept for you to grasp.

Good for you.....Stop trying to fuck with my future....I didn't fuck with yours.

But you're sure as hell trying to, with your idiot leftist economic plans. Europe's circling the bowl and you want that same failed trash here?

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.

Really? I've been working for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for three years.longer than you did in the military....and I still have 12 to go before I can retire....
which I have no problem with....but all I see from you assholes is how you want to take it away from us. You also want to take away Social Security and Medicare that we've been paying into all our lives.

Guess it's all OK because you got yours.

Nobody wants to take away your SS and Medicare, you moron.

 

[Steelplate]

Yes, I earned those with 20 years of uniformed service. And I pay premiums for the SBP.

It's funny the way you leftist morons try to call veteran's benefits welfare.

We EARNED them. I know that's a difficult concept for you to grasp.

But you're sure as hell trying to, with your idiot leftist economic plans. Europe's circling the bowl and you want that same failed trash here?

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.

Really? I've been working for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for three years.longer than you did in the military....and I still have 12 to go before I can retire....
which I have no problem with....but all I see from you assholes is how you want to take it away from us. You also want to take away Social Security and Medicare that we've been paying into all our lives.

Guess it's all OK because you got yours.

Nobody wants to take away your SS and Medicare, you moron.

What about the pension that I've been busting my ass for all these years?

EDIT: BTW.....bullshit. Your side wants to get rid of it....either that or make it so one has to work until they're damn near dead before they can use what they've been paying into their whole lives.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You realize don't you if you tax the piss out of them they'll just move! Then what?

Unlike in the fantasyland of John Galt, we'll replace them. Ciao.

Where will they move? Mitt Romney's income was taxed at 13.9% and he still felt the need to park large amounts of money in offshore tax shelters. How low does it need to be to encourage people to stay?

And Romney gave over 16% to charity. Not sure what the point is.

He actually gave 30% of his income to taxes and charity, how much would he have given if he was asked to pay more in taxes?

Seems to all work out, unless you are Biden, he gave 0.02% to charities and took all his legal deductions,

Not sure how it "works out" for the people who make a fraction of what Romney makes and yet have to pay a 35% tax rate on their last dollar. But I know the entire Republican philosophy is based around an "I got mine, so fuck you" attitude, so I doubt the fact that tens of thousands of Americans who earn their millions through work have to pay more than twice what Romney pays for earning his by market profit alone is relevant to you. Everything is OK - so long as your Dear Leader Mittens gets the lowest rate possible - everyone else can fuck off.

 

[kaz]

$0.02

Capital gains should be taxed as income.

A REALLY bad idea. Capital gains is already double taxed. Besides, taxing it as income would kill capital investments in this country and that's where jobs are created.

Corporations are people, my friend. So capital gains are not double taxed -we tax people in this country, not dollars.

People ... pool their money together. Government taxes the pooled money, but that isn't taxing people. Then it taxes the money ... again ... when the people take it. We taxed the money that was pooled together twice, but the people only once. Do you make this shit up as you go? Corporations aren't people, they are strange and evil lizard people from a planet half way across the galaxy.

Did it kill capital investment last time we taxed it as ordinary income?

Yes, as was demonstrated by both the grown in government income from gains (people paid a lower rate but sold more) and general tax revenue when the rate was lowered.

 

[8537]

A REALLY bad idea. Capital gains is already double taxed. Besides, taxing it as income would kill capital investments in this country and that's where jobs are created.

Corporations are people, my friend. So capital gains are not double taxed -we tax people in this country, not dollars.

People ... pool their money together. Government taxes the pooled money, but that isn't taxing people. Then it taxes the money ... again ... when the people take it. We taxed the money that was pooled together twice, but the people only once. Do you make this shit up as you go? Corporations aren't people, they are strange and evil lizard people from a planet half way across the galaxy.

We don't tax money people pool together to fund corporations. We tax the profits on those corporations.

Yes, as was demonstrated by both the grown in government income from gains (people paid a lower rate but sold more) and general tax revenue when the rate was lowered.

Capital investment declined during the Reagan years?

 

[kaz]

Not sure how it "works out" for the people who make a fraction of what Romney makes and yet have to pay a 35% tax rate on their last dollar. But I know the entire Republican philosophy is based around an "I got mine, so fuck you" attitude, so I doubt the fact that tens of thousands of Americans who earn their millions through work have to pay more than twice what Romney pays for earning his by market profit alone is relevant to you. Everything is OK - so long as your Dear Leader Mittens gets the lowest rate possible - everyone else can fuck off.

So you whine to high heaven when Republicans take tax breaks they are entitled to, but don't give a damn when Democrats do. Even when the millionaire Republican donates 15% additional to charity and the DEMOCRAT VP donates under $150 a year to charity, the Democrat Pres says he should pay more (and doesn't), a billionaire Buffet hires an army of accountants and takes his "salary" as gains or when Democrats like Dashle, Clinton and Rangle actually do cheat on their taxes.

Do you want some cheese with your whine? And you're a h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e...

 

[kaz]

Corporations are people, my friend. So capital gains are not double taxed -we tax people in this country, not dollars.

People ... pool their money together. Government taxes the pooled money, but that isn't taxing people. Then it taxes the money ... again ... when the people take it. We taxed the money that was pooled together twice, but the people only once. Do you make this shit up as you go? Corporations aren't people, they are strange and evil lizard people from a planet half way across the galaxy.

We don't tax money people pool together to fund corporations. We tax the profits on those corporations.

Yes, you do, twice.

Yes, as was demonstrated by both the grown in government income from gains (people paid a lower rate but sold more) and general tax revenue when the rate was lowered.

Capital investment declined during the Reagan years?

I said when the rate was lowered, revenue went up. Reagan was trying to simplify and flatten taxes, which was a good idea and lead to an overall gain, but yeah, doing it for gains was a mistake.

 

[8537]

People ... pool their money together. Government taxes the pooled money, but that isn't taxing people. Then it taxes the money ... again ... when the people take it. We taxed the money that was pooled together twice, but the people only once. Do you make this shit up as you go? Corporations aren't people, they are strange and evil lizard people from a planet half way across the galaxy.

We don't tax money people pool together to fund corporations. We tax the profits on those corporations.

Yes, you do, twice.

No, that money is not taxed. You can purchase a share of a company without paying tax.

I said when the rate was lowered, revenue went up. Reagan was trying to simplify and flatten taxes, which was a good idea and lead to an overall gain, but yeah, doing it for gains was a mistake.

When the rate went up, revenues went up. Perhaps revenues went up in 1997 because we increased the value of the EITC.

 

[BlindBoo]

The left's plan is to punish those that succeed as much as possible.
After all who do they think they are....

Other people work just as hard and are just as smart.
How dare they have more then others...

3% just doesn't seem to rise to "As much as possible" at least to me......

 

[BlindBoo]

A REALLY bad idea. Capital gains is already double taxed. Besides, taxing it as income would kill capital investments in this country and that's where jobs are created.

Corporations are people, my friend. So capital gains are not double taxed -we tax people in this country, not dollars.

Did it kill capital investment last time we taxed it as ordinary income?

When capital gains taxes were lowered during the Clinton administration, revenue from these taxes exploded and the economy boomed. When you tax capital gains, you tax growth.

What is the upside of raising taxes on capital gains?

The economy boomed because people were buying PC's and getting on the WWW and internet.

Only long term capital gains are taxed at 15%. Regular (assets held less that one year) are taxed as income.

 

[truvia]

Really if taxes have multiple pages of rules and guidelines,, the richer will always out-flank the poorer. Only a flat tax on what is spent will make every body pay the same based on what is spent and there will no loop holes. Only the upper middle class (not really rich, just slightly richer than you) are taxed back to being pooragan. I thnk the super wealth does not want newly arrived with money people threaten the status quot. Every time a new tax law of some kind comes out, its the new money successful people that get slapped right back to being poor again.

 

[ilia25]

We don't have an revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

Fact.

This is not a fact, but a blatant lie that right-wing propaganda hammered in silly heads.

The recent deficits are clearly the result of depressed revenues (red line):

 

[edthecynic]

People ... pool their money together. Government taxes the pooled money, but that isn't taxing people. Then it taxes the money ... again ... when the people take it. We taxed the money that was pooled together twice, but the people only once. Do you make this shit up as you go? Corporations aren't people, they are strange and evil lizard people from a planet half way across the galaxy.

We don't tax money people pool together to fund corporations. We tax the profits on those corporations.

Yes, you do, twice.

Yes, as was demonstrated by both the grown in government income from gains (people paid a lower rate but sold more) and general tax revenue when the rate was lowered.

Capital investment declined during the Reagan years?

I said when the rate was lowered, revenue went up. Reagan was trying to simplify and flatten taxes, which was a good idea and lead to an overall gain, but yeah, doing it for gains was a mistake.

You can say it all you want, but it will not make it true. When St Ronnie cut taxes in 1981 revenue went down and didn't go up until after Reagan RAISED taxes in 1983. All the increased revenue from then on were due to Reagan tax increases.