How much is a fair share?

[kwc57]

Negged for being an idiot. You walked into a conversation that was already framed. If it isn't framed to your liking, tough shit....that doesn't make it misleading.

The fact that it's not framed to my liking doesn't. The fact that it's framed so as to distort reality does.

It means you aren't intelligent enough to follow the conversation as framed.

It means I'm too intelligent to fall for your bullshit.

It doesn't distort reality. Income tax (which is the topic of discussion and what Obama's "fair share" refers to) and FICA are two different animals. Your employer pays half your FICA and in the end you receive a benefit from what you paid in. Two entirely different animals. To include FICA would distort the argument as everyone pays FICA and only 53% pay income tax.

 

[Care4all]

Negged for being an idiot. You walked into a conversation that was already framed. If it isn't framed to your liking, tough shit....that doesn't make it misleading.

The fact that it's not framed to my liking doesn't. The fact that it's framed so as to distort reality does.

It means you aren't intelligent enough to follow the conversation as framed.

It means I'm too intelligent to fall for your bullshit.

It doesn't distort reality. Income tax (which is the topic of discussion and what Obama's "fair share" refers to) and FICA are two different animals. Your employer pays half your FICA and in the end you receive a benefit from what you paid in. Two entirely different animals. To include FICA would distort the argument as everyone pays FICA and only 53% pay income tax.

hasn't the SS tax surpluses been included in the budget, to mask the real deficits of the federal budget...isn't SS taxes and payouts, included in the spending of the federal budget?

SS surplus monies have been borrowed, to use for federal spending outside of SS haven't they? or at least on paper, haven't they?

 

[Flopper]

if they hired more workers, they would pay less in taxes....workers are considered an expense, and the money to pay them is tax exempt.

Add more regulations, Obamacare, throw in a union boss, and an increase in corporate taxes and any corporate expense is either (a) passed down to the consumer or (b) expenses are cut by eliminating jobs and reducing employee benefits to remain competitive.

why say all that, when it is meaningless? why not just discuss the topic for the worth that it is?

there has not been an increase in corporate taxes....most corporations do not even pay federal corporate income taxes when it is all said and done....

and yes, consumers do end up paying a good majority of the corporate taxes in the prices of the product they buy from them.....

as it should be.

the people using the corporation's products should be the ones hit with the corporate tax and certainly not one of us, who do not buy their product....through raising my individual tax rate to make up for the lost revenues if corporations are not taxed....i have no problem with the consumer fronting most of what corporations pay in federal income taxes, it's like a back door consumption tax....but i am still okay with it.

corporations used to pay the majority of federal income taxes collected, many moons ago....but truly, it was passed around to all those people who used the corporation's products.

The big Corporation are able to write off all costs associated with moving operations abroad. Then they write off the profits from abroad. We lose both jobs and tax revenue.

 

[The Rabbi]

Add more regulations, Obamacare, throw in a union boss, and an increase in corporate taxes and any corporate expense is either (a) passed down to the consumer or (b) expenses are cut by eliminating jobs and reducing employee benefits to remain competitive.

why say all that, when it is meaningless? why not just discuss the topic for the worth that it is?

there has not been an increase in corporate taxes....most corporations do not even pay federal corporate income taxes when it is all said and done....

and yes, consumers do end up paying a good majority of the corporate taxes in the prices of the product they buy from them.....

as it should be.

the people using the corporation's products should be the ones hit with the corporate tax and certainly not one of us, who do not buy their product....through raising my individual tax rate to make up for the lost revenues if corporations are not taxed....i have no problem with the consumer fronting most of what corporations pay in federal income taxes, it's like a back door consumption tax....but i am still okay with it.

corporations used to pay the majority of federal income taxes collected, many moons ago....but truly, it was passed around to all those people who used the corporation's products.

The big Corporation are able to write off all costs associated with moving operations abroad. Then they write off the profits from abroad. We lose both jobs and tax revenue.

How do you write off profits?
Answer: you dont.
For someone with more than a 2ndgrade education, what happens is money is taxed only when it is repatriated to the U.S. Thus companies are keeping a ton of money in international subsidiaries to avoid the tax, because US tax laws are screwy (we're the only ones who do it this way. Ought to be a hint).

 

[bripat9643]

One more time: A company hires the employees that it must, in order to put on the market the goods and/or services that it believes will sell. It does not hire people merely because it can.

For that reason, putting more money in the pockets of businesses by cutting taxes will not result in more hiring, and taking money out of businesses' pockets by raising taxes will not result in less hiring. On the other hand, more hiring will result in more hiring, because there will be more demand for goods and services. Anything that puts money in the pockets of customers -- not businesses -- will result in more hiring.

That's wrong. Most companies have a minimum rate of return they expect to get from any new project before they will consider investing in it. There are always a number of proposals that have varying rates of return. If their costs are increased, then the potential rate of return for each proposal will see a corresponding decrease. That means fewer investment projects will meet the approval of the board of directors. Higher costs means less expansion.

It's as simple as that.

 

[Intense]

The fact that it's not framed to my liking doesn't. The fact that it's framed so as to distort reality does.

It means I'm too intelligent to fall for your bullshit.

It doesn't distort reality. Income tax (which is the topic of discussion and what Obama's "fair share" refers to) and FICA are two different animals. Your employer pays half your FICA and in the end you receive a benefit from what you paid in. Two entirely different animals. To include FICA would distort the argument as everyone pays FICA and only 53% pay income tax.

hasn't the SS tax surpluses been included in the budget, to mask the real deficits of the federal budget...isn't SS taxes and payouts, included in the spending of the federal budget?

SS surplus monies have been borrowed, to use for federal spending outside of SS haven't they? or at least on paper, haven't they?

OMG!!! You mean there is No Lock Box!!!

It was a No-Lock Box?

So you were down on Cash For Clunkers too right? That cost us big time.

 

[Intense]

One more time: A company hires the employees that it must, in order to put on the market the goods and/or services that it believes will sell. It does not hire people merely because it can.

For that reason, putting more money in the pockets of businesses by cutting taxes will not result in more hiring, and taking money out of businesses' pockets by raising taxes will not result in less hiring. On the other hand, more hiring will result in more hiring, because there will be more demand for goods and services. Anything that puts money in the pockets of customers -- not businesses -- will result in more hiring.

That's wrong. Most companies have a minimum rate of return they expect to get from any new project before they will consider investing in it. There are always a number of proposals that have varying rates of return. If their costs are increased, then the potential rate of return for each proposal will see a corresponding decrease. That means fewer investment projects will meet the approval of the board of directors. Higher costs means less expansion.

It's as simple as that.

Except for the Government Regulators that have no interest in Cost of production, or services, or the real world.

 

[The Rabbi]

One more time: A company hires the employees that it must, in order to put on the market the goods and/or services that it believes will sell. It does not hire people merely because it can.

For that reason, putting more money in the pockets of businesses by cutting taxes will not result in more hiring, and taking money out of businesses' pockets by raising taxes will not result in less hiring. On the other hand, more hiring will result in more hiring, because there will be more demand for goods and services. Anything that puts money in the pockets of customers -- not businesses -- will result in more hiring.

That's wrong. Most companies have a minimum rate of return they expect to get from any new project before they will consider investing in it. There are always a number of proposals that have varying rates of return. If their costs are increased, then the potential rate of return for each proposal will see a corresponding decrease. That means fewer investment projects will meet the approval of the board of directors. Higher costs means less expansion.

It's as simple as that.

See, your problem is you are talking about the real world. Dragon and his little friends inhabit the world of CNN and HuffPo. In that world businesses are always flush with cash, awarding billions of dollars to CEOs because they have nothing better to do with the money, which is usually lying around heaped up in someone's office. In that world employees work for min wage even though they could be making far more money as brain surgeons and international lawyers because they are too dumb to realize they are underpaid. In that world execs grumble about taxes because it means they have to take time to shovel some of the money in someone's office out the door onto a waiting truck. The stockholders are busy getting enormous dividends that they blow on champaigne parties, when they aren't getting their pictures taken by Vogue. Meanwhile men with 9 children are scraping by on $10,000 a year with no assistance and dying because they don't have health insurance.
Government causes demand by spending money that appears out of thin air, or from Obama's stash. That demand makes other people suddenly run out and buy a kitchen full of appliances because they will save $15/year on electric costs. The rich are largely heirs of big fortunes who are busy touring the Cote d'Argent with Mumsy, and of course don't work.
In their world fining corporate criminals reduces crime while fining harder work increases output. You destroy assets to increase their number and award unemployment insurance to get people back to work. You increase prices to save people money and eliminate competition to make American companies stronger.
Do you see what you are up against here? Quit living in the real world and come on over. They have cookies.

 

[Big Fitz]

Let's keep trying.

Bump.

I think they just want you to sign the check and leave everything else blank.

The model taxpayer...................

that would be the desired liberal model, yes. As long as it was not them.

 

[bripat9643]

One more time: A company hires the employees that it must, in order to put on the market the goods and/or services that it believes will sell. It does not hire people merely because it can.

For that reason, putting more money in the pockets of businesses by cutting taxes will not result in more hiring, and taking money out of businesses' pockets by raising taxes will not result in less hiring. On the other hand, more hiring will result in more hiring, because there will be more demand for goods and services. Anything that puts money in the pockets of customers -- not businesses -- will result in more hiring.

That's wrong. Most companies have a minimum rate of return they expect to get from any new project before they will consider investing in it. There are always a number of proposals that have varying rates of return. If their costs are increased, then the potential rate of return for each proposal will see a corresponding decrease. That means fewer investment projects will meet the approval of the board of directors. Higher costs means less expansion.

It's as simple as that.

See, your problem is you are talking about the real world. Dragon and his little friends inhabit the world of CNN and HuffPo. In that world businesses are always flush with cash, awarding billions of dollars to CEOs because they have nothing better to do with the money, which is usually lying around heaped up in someone's office. In that world employees work for min wage even though they could be making far more money as brain surgeons and international lawyers because they are too dumb to realize they are underpaid. In that world execs grumble about taxes because it means they have to take time to shovel some of the money in someone's office out the door onto a waiting truck. The stockholders are busy getting enormous dividends that they blow on champaigne parties, when they aren't getting their pictures taken by Vogue. Meanwhile men with 9 children are scraping by on $10,000 a year with no assistance and dying because they don't have health insurance.
Government causes demand by spending money that appears out of thin air, or from Obama's stash. That demand makes other people suddenly run out and buy a kitchen full of appliances because they will save $15/year on electric costs. The rich are largely heirs of big fortunes who are busy touring the Cote d'Argent with Mumsy, and of course don't work.
In their world fining corporate criminals reduces crime while fining harder work increases output. You destroy assets to increase their number and award unemployment insurance to get people back to work. You increase prices to save people money and eliminate competition to make American companies stronger.
Do you see what you are up against here? Quit living in the real world and come on over. They have cookies.

Giving more money to useless parasites and government bureaucrats is so obviously a bad idea that even Democrats understand it. The libs need some kind of strategy to justify taking a bigger piece of your paycheck. Hence, the concept of the "consumer driven economy" was born. This theory turns blood suckers into heroes.

Whenever you see it, just know that you're watching a tic on the ass of society trying to justify more sustenance.

 

[xcelerate]

OK
High income earners pay a higher percentage of their income to taxes than lower income earners.
Sound fair to you?

That's not what Buffet says. You're listening to propaganda.

Buffet is full of shit on this one, as it the President. This morning's AP article points that fact out: FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries? - AP Washington Heads - MyNorthwest.com

Buffet makes his money from capital gains (he only pays himself $100k per year). Capital gains are NOT part of the president's plan to raise taxes. Hmmmm...

Cause is he ***** with capital gains taxes and raises them he KNOWS the economy will fall into depression. All this fair share stuff is a bunch of vote buying bullshit imo.

 

[Moonglow]

try tax avoision, it works for the rich

 

[Big Fitz]

That's wrong. Most companies have a minimum rate of return they expect to get from any new project before they will consider investing in it. There are always a number of proposals that have varying rates of return. If their costs are increased, then the potential rate of return for each proposal will see a corresponding decrease. That means fewer investment projects will meet the approval of the board of directors. Higher costs means less expansion.

It's as simple as that.

See, your problem is you are talking about the real world. Dragon and his little friends inhabit the world of CNN and HuffPo. In that world businesses are always flush with cash, awarding billions of dollars to CEOs because they have nothing better to do with the money, which is usually lying around heaped up in someone's office. In that world employees work for min wage even though they could be making far more money as brain surgeons and international lawyers because they are too dumb to realize they are underpaid. In that world execs grumble about taxes because it means they have to take time to shovel some of the money in someone's office out the door onto a waiting truck. The stockholders are busy getting enormous dividends that they blow on champaigne parties, when they aren't getting their pictures taken by Vogue. Meanwhile men with 9 children are scraping by on $10,000 a year with no assistance and dying because they don't have health insurance.
Government causes demand by spending money that appears out of thin air, or from Obama's stash. That demand makes other people suddenly run out and buy a kitchen full of appliances because they will save $15/year on electric costs. The rich are largely heirs of big fortunes who are busy touring the Cote d'Argent with Mumsy, and of course don't work.
In their world fining corporate criminals reduces crime while fining harder work increases output. You destroy assets to increase their number and award unemployment insurance to get people back to work. You increase prices to save people money and eliminate competition to make American companies stronger.
Do you see what you are up against here? Quit living in the real world and come on over. They have cookies.

Giving more money to useless parasites and government bureaucrats is so obviously a bad idea that even Democrats understand it. The libs need some kind of strategy to justify taking a bigger piece of your paycheck. Hence, the concept of the "consumer driven economy" was born. This theory turns blood suckers into heroes.

Whenever you see it, just know that you're watching a tic on the ass of society trying to justify more sustenance.

and people wonder why I hate Robin Hood.

 

[Big Fitz]

try tax avoision, it works for the rich

If you don't want them to avoid taxes, make it unprofitable to do so. Lower the tax burden so it does not make it more profitable to hide it, and remove exemptions and deductions.

I'm for flat tax, no deductions for ALL citizens, paid on election day.

You?

 

[Care4all]

It doesn't distort reality. Income tax (which is the topic of discussion and what Obama's "fair share" refers to) and FICA are two different animals. Your employer pays half your FICA and in the end you receive a benefit from what you paid in. Two entirely different animals. To include FICA would distort the argument as everyone pays FICA and only 53% pay income tax.

hasn't the SS tax surpluses been included in the budget, to mask the real deficits of the federal budget...isn't SS taxes and payouts, included in the spending of the federal budget?

SS surplus monies have been borrowed, to use for federal spending outside of SS haven't they? or at least on paper, haven't they?

OMG!!! You mean there is No Lock Box!!!

It was a No-Lock Box?

So you were down on Cash For Clunkers too right? That cost us big time.

the bottom line is, SS surplus indirectly, helped fund congress's spending by masking the true yearly deficit. And now the congress wants to cut SS benefits that we were promised, cuz they don't want to pay it back in full....

there isn't a working person out there that pays in to ss, that hasn't helped fund what income taxes should have been paying for....if it's all paid back to the ss fund, and no benefits promised are cut....then that's one thing....but if it's not paid back or benefit's cut, then the40% labeled with not contributing in income taxes to support this nation, is simply not true....

 

[The Rabbi]

hasn't the SS tax surpluses been included in the budget, to mask the real deficits of the federal budget...isn't SS taxes and payouts, included in the spending of the federal budget?

SS surplus monies have been borrowed, to use for federal spending outside of SS haven't they? or at least on paper, haven't they?

OMG!!! You mean there is No Lock Box!!!

It was a No-Lock Box?

So you were down on Cash For Clunkers too right? That cost us big time.

the bottom line is, SS surplus indirectly, helped fund congress's spending by masking the true yearly deficit. And now the congress wants to cut SS benefits that we were promised, cuz they don't want to pay it back in full....

there isn't a working person out there that pays in to ss, that hasn't helped fund what income taxes should have been paying for....if it's all paid back to the ss fund, and no benefits promised are cut....then that's one thing....but if it's not paid back or benefit's cut, then the40% labeled with not contributing in income taxes to support this nation, is simply not true....

U,m, not to make you think too hard, but who do you want to pay this money back? The lowest income group, on whom most of it was spent? Or working taxpayers, who have already paid into it?

 

[Ame®icano]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKH8Tp1r4QE]Obama's Fair Share - YouTube[/ame]

Fair share, what is it?

 

[Mr Natural]

***** about the 50% who don't pay taxes all you want but who among us would trade places with them?

 

[Big Fitz]

***** about the 50% who don't pay taxes all you want but who among us would trade places with them?

that doesn't justify access to other people's money. Poverty should be neither an enviable or comfortable status. It should be painful enough to drive them to strive to work and profit with a stigma and shame attached to it to make it less desirous than work.

 

[Mr Natural]

***** about the 50% who don't pay taxes all you want but who among us would trade places with them?

that doesn't justify access to other people's money. Poverty should be neither an enviable or comfortable status. It should be painful enough to drive them to strive to work and profit with a stigma and shame attached to it to make it less desirous than work.

Yeah, I'm sure that 50% is living high on the hog.