Fixing Tax Loopholes, 51% of Americans Pay NO Incomes Taxes

[WillowTree]

OK, let's start with step one. Other then the death tax, can you name any tax that is not baked into the price of products you buy today?

I'm going to make this very simple. Provide a source to back up your claims, or don't bother trying to have a discussion with me. If you can't be honest enough to back up your claims with evidence, then obviously what you say can't be trusted.

crybaby, petulant little shit..

 

[Modbert]

You don't have to take orders from the MODMORON. You provide your source, if he doesn't like it or approve of it it's tough shit for him. He can take it or leave it. You are not obligated to jump through his ******* hoops. Kerry On.

Let's say I do the following:

I say Republicans are morons who are incompetent and shouldn't be elected. You ask me for evidence. I link you to the DNC main website page, that's it.

I doubt you would say that's a good enough source.

 

[WillowTree]

You don't have to take orders from the MODMORON. You provide your source, if he doesn't like it or approve of it it's tough shit for him. He can take it or leave it. You are not obligated to jump through his ******* hoops. Kerry On.

Let's say I do the following:

I say Republicans are morons who are incompetent and shouldn't be elected. You ask me for evidence. I link you to the DNC main website page, that's it.

I doubt you would say that's a good enough source.

So what's new?

 

[Modbert]

So what's new?

Provide a link when I sourced the DNC website to prove any point.

 

[saveliberty]

You don't have to take orders from the MODMORON. You provide your source, if he doesn't like it or approve of it it's tough shit for him. He can take it or leave it. You are not obligated to jump through his ******* hoops. Kerry On.

Let's say I do the following:

I say Republicans are morons who are incompetent and shouldn't be elected. You ask me for evidence. I link you to the DNC main website page, that's it.

I doubt you would say that's a good enough source.

We'd be forced to say that is an improvement...

Unfortunately.

 

[oldsalt]

Get used to it, and stealing from others to only make poverty more comfortable is not an ethical or righteous act.

It's not stealing, jackass. The rich are not paying their fair share. Loopholes allow them to dodge an exorbitant amt of tax, and hide their $$ like filthy hoarders. They need a slave class, and the middle is it.

Yep, more socialist doublethink. "They aren't paying 'their fair share'." yet the poor don't pay ANY share. The top 5% or so pay 50% of the tax burden while the majority of the bottom HALF get more back than they paid in.

Who's not paying a 'fair share'?

You have problems with deductions? Fine. Eliminate them while dropping it to a single tax bracket for every person. Problem solved, bubye.

Your idea of 'fairness' is ephemeral and lacking in ethics or morality.

fitzy talking about morality. That's a laugher.
Didn't say deductions. You're just repeating meme's. Understandably, you can't think for yourself. Flat tax is fine, no capitol gains, no off limits income, etc.

 

[edthecynic]

It would increase all prices, yes

No. The taxes it would replace are already baked into the price that you pay. You realize corporate taxes are actually in the price of the product? Your income taxes are paid to you through your salary, which is generated by your company's sales, they actually charge for that. Investment taxes ditto. It would actually lower prices because so are all the tax lawyers and disincentives to economic efficiencies created by our tax code. And everyone would pay when they spend, including those who currently evade income taxes.

I didn't see this post when I made my last post. You are making my point for me. So this begs the question, how can you be for a consumption tax saying it is a "Fair Tax" and yet you want corporate taxes eliminated when you admit that corporate taxes are de facto consumption taxes?

 

[kaz]

First you praise a "Fair tax" which is a consumption tax, and then you condemn corporate taxes which are de fcto consumption taxes because corporations just pass the taxes on in the price to the consumer who buys their products.

If you truly believed a consumption tax was the fairest tax, you would be fighting to have all taxes replaced by corporate taxes!

Wow, that's a pretty lucid argument for you Ed. What you say is largely true, they are in many ways the same. But there are differences and they are important. Here are the two biggest.

1) Fairtax is based on revenue, corporate taxes are based on profit. Taxing revenue removes political power to play games, taxing profit keeps all the corporate overhead of our tax code in place as companies define and prove "profit." It would be better then current, but not as good.

2) Fairtax applies to all products sold in the US. Doesn't matter where companies are based. With corporate it's based on location of headquarters. Think of it Ed, no more companies moving offshore to avoid paying taxes.

 

[Polk]

I don't even know where to start. 51% of Americans pay no income tax that is the name of the thread. FICA we've been told is an investment in a trust fund not a tax. It's a lie, but that is neither here nor there.

And the thread title is accurate, as long as we ignore a rather significant tax on income. It's like saying you don't consume a lot of calories because you ate a carrot and banana for lunch. Just ignore the steak and loaded baked potato you ate at dinner.

As for the corporate jet tax loophole you are wrong:

"Just a few months after lawmakers scolded auto executives for flying to Washington in private jets, Congress approved a tax break in the stimulus package to help businesses buy their own planes.

The incentive -- first used to help plane makers recover from the 2001 terror attacks -- sharply reduces the up front tax bill for companies who buy assets like business planes.

The aviation industry, which is cutting jobs as it suffers from declining shipments and canceled orders, hopes the tax break in the economic-stimulus bill just signed by President Barack Obama will persuade more companies to buy planes and snap a slump in general aviation that began last year." Stimulus Includes Tax Break to Promote Private Jet Sales - FoxNews.com I could have provided the NBC story, but I know it will piss you off that it's from Fox. Let's hear you attack the source.

Congratulations, you found the bonus depreciation I've already talked about. That wasn't what was being discussed, however.

While critics charge the president with flip-flopping, the story is more complicated. Obama included the tax break, called “accelerated depreciation,” in the 2009 economic-stimulus law to lower the cost of capital investments—including aircraft purchases—for millions of companies. Today, the administration is targeting a tax disparity dating back to 1987 that specifically favors business planes over commercial airliners.

Obama?s Taxing Corporate Jet Policy - Tim Fernholz - NationalJournal.com

Revenue is at historic lows because of the economy, not lack of taxes. Unemployment is at prolonged historic highs. How in the hell is raising taxes, something your savior Obama and former president Clinton, have said would be counter-productive for economic growth.

‪FLASHBACK: Obama Says You Don't Raise Taxes In A Recession‬‏ - YouTube

Part of the revenue problem is tepid growth, but the bulk of it are repeated rounds of tax cuts. Also, the argument that raising taxes harms the economy is too clever by half. Why would increasing taxes during a recession harm the economy? Because it would decrease demand. You know what would be an even bigger drain on demand? Decreasing spending.

The majority of American are against raising the debt ceiling. I can say it because it's true and here is the Gallup poll that shows it. I could provide more polls, but I'd rather you provide one that shows otherwise.

Attention to Debt Ceiling Debate Doesn't Affect Policy Views

That's a strawman argument. I never claimed a majority of Americans support increasing the debt ceiling.

 

[Polk]

Meanwhile, a large portion of Corporations also don't pay taxes due to loopholes and exemptions. But we can't close those.

Corporate taxes are just double taxes, they should be eliminated. Income is already taxed when it's passed to shareholders. Taxing the same money multiple times is a big part of what's crippling our economy. As Democrats cripple the economy and they don't have new money to go after, they just keep going after the same money again...and again.

This is a good example of how dishonest this argument is. You guys rail against corporate income taxes on the one hand, saying it's a double tax and should be eliminated. Then you rail against the capital gains tax, saying it's a double tax and should be eliminated. Either one of those positions is fine on it's own, but taken together, it means you're arguing for no taxes whatsoever.

 

[kaz]

I didn't see this post when I made my last post. You are making my point for me. So this begs the question, how can you be for a consumption tax saying it is a "Fair Tax" and yet you want corporate taxes eliminated when you admit that corporate taxes are de facto consumption taxes?

Just answered. BTW, that isn't what "begging the question" means. You may want to Google what that logical fallacy means before you use it wrong again.

 

[Polk]

It's easy to fix tax loopholes. Flat and Fair Tax for Everybody. No exceptions.

Flat tax and Fair tax.

21% regressive sales tax, that's fair alright.

21%? Try 50%+.

 

[Polk]

The poor would be hit just as hard as the rich, as they consume, by nature, less and cheaper items.

That's one of the main reasons why a 21% sales tax would never work. You want to complain about high taxation on corporations and the rich but don't mind implementing a system where the poor would be systematically destroyed. 21% of the poor's income and 21% of the rich's income are not even nearly the same.

So for you to say they would be hit just as hard is such a pathetic joke that I can't even laugh at how stupid it is.

It's even worse than that. Poor people spend a much higher percentage of their income, so the effective rate paid by the poor would be significantly higher.

 

[Big Fitz]

It's not stealing, jackass. The rich are not paying their fair share. Loopholes allow them to dodge an exorbitant amt of tax, and hide their $$ like filthy hoarders. They need a slave class, and the middle is it.

Yep, more socialist doublethink. "They aren't paying 'their fair share'." yet the poor don't pay ANY share. The top 5% or so pay 50% of the tax burden while the majority of the bottom HALF get more back than they paid in.

Who's not paying a 'fair share'?

You have problems with deductions? Fine. Eliminate them while dropping it to a single tax bracket for every person. Problem solved, bubye.

Your idea of 'fairness' is ephemeral and lacking in ethics or morality.

fitzy talking about morality. That's a laugher.
Didn't say deductions. You're just repeating meme's. Understandably, you can't think for yourself. Flat tax is fine, no capitol gains, no off limits income, etc.

Loopholes = deductions "Oleshit".

Income's income, regardless of source.

But do please try to push my demonization. It helps your argument SSSoooooOOOoooo much!

 

[Modbert]

It's even worse than that. Poor people spend a much higher percentage of their income, so the effective rate paid by the poor would be significantly higher.

Pretty much.

 

[kaz]

This is a good example of how dishonest this argument is. You guys rail against corporate income taxes on the one hand, saying it's a double tax and should be eliminated. Then you rail against the capital gains tax, saying it's a double tax and should be eliminated. Either one of those positions is fine on it's own, but taken together, it means you're arguing for no taxes whatsoever.

I said money should be taxed once. A Fair Tax would tax all financial transactions on primary markets once. How is that "dishonest." All sales are taxed once and only once with a Fair Tax, so how can you have any other taxes, including income or capital gains taxes? BTW, I haven't addressed capital gains taxes in this conversation, but yes, with the Fair Tax they should be eliminated or they'd be a double tax.

 

[WillowTree]

So what's new?

Provide a link when I sourced the DNC website to prove any point.

I don't jump through your hoops either. deal with it, or as you said, cease conversing with me/us.. what the **** ever.

 

[Polk]

It would increase all prices, yes

No. The taxes it would replace are already baked into the price that you pay. You realize corporate taxes are actually in the price of the product? Your income taxes are paid to you through your salary, which is generated by your company's sales, they actually charge for that. Investment taxes ditto. It would actually lower prices because so are all the tax lawyers and disincentives to economic efficiencies created by our tax code. And everyone would pay when they spend, including those who currently evade income taxes.

Talk about magical thinking.

 

[WillowTree]

The poor would be hit just as hard as the rich, as they consume, by nature, less and cheaper items.

That's one of the main reasons why a 21% sales tax would never work. You want to complain about high taxation on corporations and the rich but don't mind implementing a system where the poor would be systematically destroyed. 21% of the poor's income and 21% of the rich's income are not even nearly the same.

So for you to say they would be hit just as hard is such a pathetic joke that I can't even laugh at how stupid it is.

It's even worse than that. Poor people spend a much higher percentage of their income, so the effective rate paid by the poor would be significantly higher.

good incentive to SAVE

 

[kaz]

It's easy to fix tax loopholes. Flat and Fair Tax for Everybody. No exceptions.

Flat tax and Fair tax.

21% regressive sales tax, that's fair alright.

Are you speaking of a VAT? Sure why not? As long as it replaces Federal Income Tax. worth a try. No rebates, no subsidies. Everyone has skin in the game. We could do away with the entire IRS. Think what a savings that would be.

Good question. The Fair Tax isn't a VAT because the Fair Tax is only charged to end consumers in the primary market sale of the product. No steps are taxed and no secondary market sales of items are taxed. The problem with a VAT is that it taxes every step in the development of a product, which would be double taxation since the end product is taxed again. The VAT also is counter to the Fair Tax in that you once again start having advantages or disadvantages in production driven not by efficiency but by tax law. The purpose of a Fair Tax is not to reduce taxes collected, it's to make our economy more efficient.