We have a revenue problem, absolute proof we need to raise taxes

[Too Tall]

No, it is pretty much that simple.

Taxing corporations is just plain stupid.

Much smarter to tax the profits received by the owners of the corporation.

Many of the owners of the corporations are middle class Americans through their IRA's and 401K's. Raising capital gains taxes would severely impact the retirement income of these citizens. That solution merely gives more money to the gubmint and reduces the money retirees would spend on consumer goods.

I wouldn't call for raising capital gains taxes, but there would certainly be more capital gains. And for the most part the IRA and 401K profits are tax-deferred.

Granted that taxes are deferred on IRA and 401K plans until the funds are withdrawn. Most of my retirement funds are in mutual funds that buy and sell stocks and bonds. They have to pay capital gains taxes on their trades and any increased cost that they pay decreases my investment.

 

[Bfgrn]

The American people are STAKE-holders in our economy.

People say that in order to legitimize their attempts to claim that people owe them money. This is why Obama thinks rich people have to give back instead of give more.

Bullshit. Our founding fathers completely understood the difference between shareholders and stakeholders. That is why they HEAVILY regulated corporations. Right down to corporation records and documents being open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

Early laws regulating corporations in America

*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.

*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents

 

[Erand7899]

Libtards? Tell me this oh wise conservative, what is stopping these corporations from raising their prices TODAY? Is it because they are just being 'nice'?

Competition is stopping these corporations from raising their prices TODAY. Taxes are a cost of business for all corporations, and is included in the prices of all their products and services. However, higher taxes and the resultant higher prices make American products less competitive on the world markets.

Then President Obama's proposal to LOWER corporate tax rates should LOWER prices.

If you are really worried about higher prices making American products less competitive on the world markets, then you should be a HUGE advocate for universal health care.

I will let a former corporate CEO explain...

2007

Health care: an issue that cries out for leadership.

Health care in this country is in shambles. At a cost of almost $12,000 a year for the average family, the system is bankrupting families and it's bankrupting companies - specifically my old industry. Take General Motors. They're currently paying out $1,525 per vehicle for health care. Compare that to the $201 Toyota is paying and it sounds even more absurd. And what about those families and individuals who can't afford insurance at all? Junior breaks his arm and all of a sudden, a fall off a bike is an $8,000 trip to the ER.

Despite all of this, none of our politicians will touch the issue. Oh sure, they'll talk about it during campaign season, but once the votes are cast, it's the forgotten issue again. The last time anyone proposed real reform was in 1993, and that plan went nowhere. Fourteen years later, Hillary Clinton's failed plan is still used as an excuse to continue ignoring the problem. That's disgraceful.

I suggest you listen carefully to the '08 candidates' "plans" for health care. Let's see if any of them have the political courage to really tackle it this time around. I don't want band-aid ideas either. I want concrete solutions - and I want to hold these guys to their promises.

Lower corporate tax rates would make American products more competitive overseas and lower in cost to consumers here at home.

No, I am not in favor of universal health care, even though dumping all of those costs would make American products more competitive overseas. Because I am not in favor of sacrificing American citizens health care for the purpose of propping up corporation sales.

Universal health care leads to lesser quality health care, longer waiting times, and often denial of care due to cost and/or availability of resources.

 

[Erand7899]

That's not true, but don't let facts stop you from ranting.

That is true. Taxes are a cost of doing business, just like rent and electricity. It is all calculated into the price of the product or service, and passed on to the consumer. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

It's not that simple. The price of a product is more complicated than how much it costs to make, and there are more ways to distribute costs then to directly pass it on the the consumer.

Ah, yes, cost accounting books are pretty thick, and take in a whole lot of elements that all eventually figure into the price of the product. Even janitorial services, the cafeteria, and pest control services get factored in. Cost accounting is an accounting discipline unto itself. However, that does not mean that we cannot figure out a whole lot of things for ourselves, without getting bogged down in the what-ifs, and where-fores.

No corporation, or company eats any costs that they do not have to eat. Managers lose their jobs when that happens more than once or twice. All costs are passed on to the consumer in some form or another. Some costs, such as research and development and tooling are prorated to disperse the cost over the expected sales quantity. But, they all eventually get to the consumer.

 

[The Rabbi]

Then President Obama's proposal to LOWER corporate tax rates should LOWER prices.

If you are really worried about higher prices making American products less competitive on the world markets, then you should be a HUGE advocate for universal health care.

.

What is Pres Obama's proposal to "lower corporate tax rate"? I'll bet smoke and mirrors. And as you said, it wont necessarily lower prices at all. And American products are more or less competitive based on any number of other factors, like the exchange rate.
I can't believe you want to let corporations dump their liabilities on the FedGov by letting the feds pick up the tab for medical insurance. Aren't you always screaming about "corporate welfare"?? What a hypocrite.

You can read it yourself. There is no smoke or mirrors. It would require negotiations and dialog as with any major reform.

THE PRESIDENT’S FRAMEWORK FOR BUSINESS TAX REFORM


V. Restore fiscal responsibility and not add a dime to the deficit:[/B] Business tax reform should be fully paid for and lead to greater fiscal responsibility than our current business tax system by either eliminating or making permanent and fully paying for temporary tax provisions now in the tax code.

Oh, it's not going to add a dime to the deficit.
Wasn't that the same claim made for health care reform, which is now going to add trillions to the deficit over 20 years?
There are no details at all, just a lot of empty rhetoric. What does "refocus manufacturing credit" mean? Who knows?
But given this administration's problems with crony capitalism I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw Barney Frank underwater.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The American people are STAKE-holders in our economy.

People say that in order to legitimize their attempts to claim that people owe them money. This is why Obama thinks rich people have to give back instead of give more.

Bullshit. Our founding fathers completely understood the difference between shareholders and stakeholders. That is why they HEAVILY regulated corporations. Right down to corporation records and documents being open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

Early laws regulating corporations in America

*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.

*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents

I thought you learned your lesson the last time you tried to argue about how the the government used to regulate corporations. Those corporations were actually monopolies that were protected by the force of law from any competition. If we go back to that you will be here whining that AT&T has a lock on cell phones, landlines, and the Internet.

 

[Darkwind]

That our FEDERAL and state governments piss money away foolishly is a given.

Most of the money is redistributed to the wealthiest people in America.

That same group of people pay very low percentages of their incomes back in taxes.

There's the two root sources of our nation's economic woes.

Where do you people come up with the kinds of statements that most of the money is redistributed to the wealthiest.

Show Me the government program that gives money to the wealthiest people in America?

Because if your talking about what they earn, then you just lied in your post. Earning money is not having money redistributed.

So, show Me that or those government programs that give money from the poor and middle class to the wealthiest people. Give Me a link to those government programs.

 

[NYcarbineer]

(By the way, who would go to the IRS to get help with housing?) If we cannot afford to fund 160 programs across multiple federal agencies we obviously need to raise taxes.

:

Maybe you should have read your source.

Listed under the IRS section of all these costs:

The mortgage interest deduction - annual cost in lost revenue - 79 billion dollars.

So, as you say in the above, if cannot afford that program, we would have to raise taxes.

That mortgage deduction cost, btw, costs almost twice what the entire budget of HUD is, 44 billion.

 

[Mac1958]

Many of the owners of the corporations are middle class Americans through their IRA's and 401K's. Raising capital gains taxes would severely impact the retirement income of these citizens. That solution merely gives more money to the gubmint and reduces the money retirees would spend on consumer goods.

I wouldn't call for raising capital gains taxes, but there would certainly be more capital gains. And for the most part the IRA and 401K profits are tax-deferred.

Granted that taxes are deferred on IRA and 401K plans until the funds are withdrawn. Most of my retirement funds are in mutual funds that buy and sell stocks and bonds. They have to pay capital gains taxes on their trades and any increased cost that they pay decreases my investment.

Little tip: If you're being taxed on your retirement funds, they must be in a non-qualified account. If that's the case, look into ETF's instead of mutual funds. The tax treatment is often much better...

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Also listed as COSTS in the report in the link:

1. Your property tax deduction - 15 billion a year

2. Capital gains exclusion on home sales - 22 billion a year

And those along with the mortgage deduction are just the big ones.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

(By the way, who would go to the IRS to get help with housing?) If we cannot afford to fund 160 programs across multiple federal agencies we obviously need to raise taxes.

:

Maybe you should have read your source.

Listed under the IRS section of all these costs:

The mortgage interest deduction - annual cost in lost revenue - 79 billion dollars.

So, as you say in the above, if cannot afford that program, we would have to raise taxes.

That mortgage deduction cost, btw, costs almost twice what the entire budget of HUD is, 44 billion.

Maybe you should answer the question.

 

[NYcarbineer]

(By the way, who would go to the IRS to get help with housing?) If we cannot afford to fund 160 programs across multiple federal agencies we obviously need to raise taxes.

:

Maybe you should have read your source.

Listed under the IRS section of all these costs:

The mortgage interest deduction - annual cost in lost revenue - 79 billion dollars.

So, as you say in the above, if cannot afford that program, we would have to raise taxes.

That mortgage deduction cost, btw, costs almost twice what the entire budget of HUD is, 44 billion.

Maybe you should answer the question.

You would go to the IRS via your tax returns when you filed to get part of the approximately 100 billion or more per year in tax breaks related to housing, aka, help with your housing.

That was obvious. Why did you ask me to state the obvious?

So if over 100 billion in what you posted are REVENUE 'problems', what was your point exactly?

 

[Bfgrn]

People say that in order to legitimize their attempts to claim that people owe them money. This is why Obama thinks rich people have to give back instead of give more.

Bullshit. Our founding fathers completely understood the difference between shareholders and stakeholders. That is why they HEAVILY regulated corporations. Right down to corporation records and documents being open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

Early laws regulating corporations in America

*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.

*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents

I thought you learned your lesson the last time you tried to argue about how the the government used to regulate corporations. Those corporations were actually monopolies that were protected by the force of law from any competition. If we go back to that you will be here whining that AT&T has a lock on cell phones, landlines, and the Internet.

LOL... in your furious effort to win the battle, you just surrendered the war. My God, our founding fathers outlawed competition by the force of law. They picked winners and losers and believed in complete control of enterprise.

NOW, please tell me how America was founded on free enterprise principles? Paint for me what health care corporations would look like if our founding fathers were still in charge?

Our founding fathers sound more like communists than capitalists.

Have a great day...smile!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Maybe you should have read your source.

Listed under the IRS section of all these costs:

The mortgage interest deduction - annual cost in lost revenue - 79 billion dollars.

So, as you say in the above, if cannot afford that program, we would have to raise taxes.

That mortgage deduction cost, btw, costs almost twice what the entire budget of HUD is, 44 billion.

Maybe you should answer the question.

You would go to the IRS via your tax returns when you filed to get part of the approximately 100 billion or more per year in tax breaks related to housing, aka, help with your housing.

That was obvious. Why did you ask me to state the obvious?

So if over 100 billion in what you posted are REVENUE 'problems', what was your point exactly?

FYI, the program that I was reffering to that is run by the IRS is called LHITC and works in conjunction with state HUD programs. If you had actually followed the links I posted and read them you would know this, and wouldn't be blathering about mortgage interest deductions.

Thanks for playing though, it was fun bitch slapping you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bullshit. Our founding fathers completely understood the difference between shareholders and stakeholders. That is why they HEAVILY regulated corporations. Right down to corporation records and documents being open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

Early laws regulating corporations in America

*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.

*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents

I thought you learned your lesson the last time you tried to argue about how the the government used to regulate corporations. Those corporations were actually monopolies that were protected by the force of law from any competition. If we go back to that you will be here whining that AT&T has a lock on cell phones, landlines, and the Internet.

LOL... in your furious effort to win the battle, you just surrendered the war. My God, our founding fathers outlawed competition by the force of law. They picked winners and losers and believed in complete control of enterprise.

NOW, please tell me how America was founded on free enterprise principles? Paint for me what health care corporations would look like if our founding fathers were still in charge?

Our founding fathers sound more like communists than capitalists.

Have a great day...smile!

There you go again, making a fool out of yourself.

Feel free to go back and point out where I, personally, have ever pointed to the founding fathers as perfect examples of what we should aspire to.

 

[Bfgrn]

I thought you learned your lesson the last time you tried to argue about how the the government used to regulate corporations. Those corporations were actually monopolies that were protected by the force of law from any competition. If we go back to that you will be here whining that AT&T has a lock on cell phones, landlines, and the Internet.

LOL... in your furious effort to win the battle, you just surrendered the war. My God, our founding fathers outlawed competition by the force of law. They picked winners and losers and believed in complete control of enterprise.

NOW, please tell me how America was founded on free enterprise principles? Paint for me what health care corporations would look like if our founding fathers were still in charge?

Our founding fathers sound more like communists than capitalists.

Have a great day...smile!

There you go again, making a fool out of yourself.

Feel free to go back and point out where I, personally, have ever pointed to the founding fathers as perfect examples of what we should aspire to.

Oh yea, don't get any of the right wing shit on your shoes when cornered. What a coward.

So, what economic theory was our nation was founded on? Please feel free to explain.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I agree, it would be a win for the economy. The issue would be the deficit, how is eliminating the revenue from corporate taxes going to help pay down our debt?

Because corporations will make more efficient use of the money than the fedgov will, thus growing the economy.
That is the issue. Democrats, who haven't cared about the deficit (if they do now), insist we need tax increases to pay for the deficit. History shows this never works. Spending only increases.
The way to pay for the deficit is to 1) quit spending so damn much;2) grow the economy and with it tax revenue to pay the accumulated debt.
I do not worship at the altar of balanced budgets. But I think at some point spending is out of control. And we are past that point.

Corporations more efficient use of the money will be to line the pockets of shareholders. The American people are STAKE-holders in our economy.

Democrats, who haven't cared about the deficit? BULLSHIT!


Paul O'Neill Treasure Secretary - The White House 2002:

The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.

But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, Suskind writes that O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.

"Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand," says Suskind. "He says, 'You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.' … O'Neill is speechless."

"It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society," says O'Neill. "And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction."

Did he think it was irresponsible? "Well, it's for sure not what I would have done," says O'Neill.

Corporations more efficient use of the money will be to line the pockets of shareholders.

OMG! That would be awful. Retirees would have more money to spend, families could afford to send their kids to college, state pension funds might be able to afford the bloated benefits they promised their government workers.

We don't want that to happen, no way!

 

[Bfgrn]

Because corporations will make more efficient use of the money than the fedgov will, thus growing the economy.
That is the issue. Democrats, who haven't cared about the deficit (if they do now), insist we need tax increases to pay for the deficit. History shows this never works. Spending only increases.
The way to pay for the deficit is to 1) quit spending so damn much;2) grow the economy and with it tax revenue to pay the accumulated debt.
I do not worship at the altar of balanced budgets. But I think at some point spending is out of control. And we are past that point.

Corporations more efficient use of the money will be to line the pockets of shareholders. The American people are STAKE-holders in our economy.

Democrats, who haven't cared about the deficit? BULLSHIT!


Paul O'Neill Treasure Secretary - The White House 2002:

The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.

But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, Suskind writes that O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.

"Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand," says Suskind. "He says, 'You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.' … O'Neill is speechless."

"It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society," says O'Neill. "And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction."

Did he think it was irresponsible? "Well, it's for sure not what I would have done," says O'Neill.

Corporations more efficient use of the money will be to line the pockets of shareholders.

OMG! That would be awful. Retirees would have more money to spend, families could afford to send their kids to college, state pension funds might be able to afford the bloated benefits they promised their government workers.

We don't want that to happen, no way!

You are very confused. Employees are not shareholders unless it is part of their compensation package. And state workers do not work for a corporation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Corporations more efficient use of the money will be to line the pockets of shareholders. The American people are STAKE-holders in our economy.

Democrats, who haven't cared about the deficit? BULLSHIT!


Paul O'Neill Treasure Secretary - The White House 2002:

The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.

But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, Suskind writes that O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.

"Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand," says Suskind. "He says, 'You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.' … O'Neill is speechless."

"It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society," says O'Neill. "And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction."

Did he think it was irresponsible? "Well, it's for sure not what I would have done," says O'Neill.

Corporations more efficient use of the money will be to line the pockets of shareholders.

OMG! That would be awful. Retirees would have more money to spend, families could afford to send their kids to college, state pension funds might be able to afford the bloated benefits they promised their government workers.

We don't want that to happen, no way!

You are very confused. Employees are not shareholders unless it is part of their compensation package. And state workers do not work for a corporation.

Employees are not shareholders unless it is part of their compensation package.

You're confused, I never said they were.

And state workers do not work for a corporation.

State pension funds count on their bond and stock holdings to make the money needed to pay state worker pensions. If those ebil corporations make and keep more money, pensions might actually be paid to government retirees.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Many of the owners of the corporations are middle class Americans through their IRA's and 401K's. Raising capital gains taxes would severely impact the retirement income of these citizens. That solution merely gives more money to the gubmint and reduces the money retirees would spend on consumer goods.

I wouldn't call for raising capital gains taxes, but there would certainly be more capital gains. And for the most part the IRA and 401K profits are tax-deferred.

Granted that taxes are deferred on IRA and 401K plans until the funds are withdrawn. Most of my retirement funds are in mutual funds that buy and sell stocks and bonds. They have to pay capital gains taxes on their trades and any increased cost that they pay decreases my investment.

Most of my retirement funds are in mutual funds that buy and sell stocks and bonds. They have to pay capital gains taxes on their trades

Actually, they distribute capital gains to shareholders who then pay the taxes, not the fund.