John Boehner is dead wrong.

[bigrebnc1775]

A consumption tax is a good way to balance the tax code. A modest personal income tax is also required for balance. Something fair that is based on one rate / one deduction.

My humble opinion, with a small consumption tax and a modest personal income tax, the federal government could leave business alone for the states to feed off of.

You can't have one and still have the other

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If for example I'm willing to risk thousands or millions of dollars on a job-creating venture with no guarantee of a single dollar returned, you can bet your ass I expect special treatment under the Tax Code. **** the majority of taxpayers, they aren't the ones risking capital.

Do what you feel is appropriate with your assets and capital, Mr. H... I'll do the same with mine.

One rate / One deduction.

It's unfair for congress to assume the power to tax you differently from the way they tax me. The complicated tax code of deductions and favoritism for some business and ways of earning a living gives congress way to ******* much power and creates a culture of corruption.

Monkeys lookin' stupid from space.

Life is not fair, man up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You have one single example of 'spend thrift Obama'?

Cash for Clunkers
PPACA
ARRA

Wait, you said one. It is a bit like Lays potato chips, no one can stop at one.

Spending is not the issue here. That said, prove that the cash for clunkers program wasn't the difference between the auto industry repaying it's loans ahead of schedule and clunking itself.

Wrong, the only issue right now is spending.

That said, Cash for Clunkers had zero impact on the auto industry, something all the experts have repeatedly pointed out.

 

[emptystep]

Cash for Clunkers
PPACA
ARRA

Wait, you said one. It is a bit like Lays potato chips, no one can stop at one.

Spending is not the issue here. That said, prove that the cash for clunkers program wasn't the difference between the auto industry repaying it's loans ahead of schedule and clunking itself.

Wrong, the only issue right now is spending.

That said, Cash for Clunkers had zero impact on the auto industry, something all the experts have repeatedly pointed out.

And how was that Obama's?

 

[Dubya]

The revenue discussion can not be considered "closed" until the US Tax Code is considered fair and simple by a majority of taxpayers.

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Speaker John Boehner says the debate over increased revenue "is now closed."

Boehner: Revenue debate is 'closed' - Tallahassee News | ABC 27 WTXL: News: john boehner, president obama, revenue debate, fbi, taxes

**** that.

Obama wants a balanced approach, he got his tax hikes, it is time to cut the ******* spending.

What tax hike? The Bush tax cuts for the rich were passed by reconciliation and that means they are required to expire, because they weren't revenue neutral. It's time to close some loopholes, particularly the ones benefiting corporations outsourcing jobs. It's also time to treat profits from investments like income.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Spending is not the issue here. That said, prove that the cash for clunkers program wasn't the difference between the auto industry repaying it's loans ahead of schedule and clunking itself.

Wrong, the only issue right now is spending.

That said, Cash for Clunkers had zero impact on the auto industry, something all the experts have repeatedly pointed out.

And how was that Obama's?

Because, like sequestration, it was his ******* idea.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The revenue discussion can not be considered "closed" until the US Tax Code is considered fair and simple by a majority of taxpayers.

**** that.

Obama wants a balanced approach, he got his tax hikes, it is time to cut the ******* spending.

What tax hike? The Bush tax cuts for the rich were passed by reconciliation and that means they are required to expire, because they weren't revenue neutral. It's time to close some loopholes, particularly the ones benefiting corporations outsourcing jobs. It's also time to treat profits from investments like income.

There were three choices, let all the tax cuts expire, make all ot them permanent, or make some of them permanent while ending others. Obama opposed two of those positions, that makes the result, which he advocated, his.

 

[Dubya]

**** that.

Obama wants a balanced approach, he got his tax hikes, it is time to cut the ******* spending.

What tax hike? The Bush tax cuts for the rich were passed by reconciliation and that means they are required to expire, because they weren't revenue neutral. It's time to close some loopholes, particularly the ones benefiting corporations outsourcing jobs. It's also time to treat profits from investments like income.

There were three choices, let all the tax cuts expire, make all ot them permanent, or make some of them permanent while ending others. Obama opposed two of those positions, that makes the result, which he advocated, his.

Obama is a President and even Presidential vetos have been overruled, so to start off with you should start acting like an adult, instead of an Obamaholic. The Democrats wanted to keep the tax cuts for people making under $250,000 and other things which were reasonable. Now, you idiots like to claim how that hurts small business, but the fact is someone can give themselves a salary of $250,000, deduct it as a business expense, incorporate the business and only pay corporate tax rates as the business grows. Even a rich person can live off of $250,000 minus taxes per year, but let's say I wanted to build the business. I could pay myself $171,850 per year at the marginal tax rate of 28% and reinvest in the business to shelter the business profits. I could set up the business to issue stock, own it all and when I eventually sold the business claim it as capital gains paying 28%. If they are too dumb to do that, they don't deserve to have money.

When you get back to the subject, the issue is the deficit. That means either revenue has to be increased or spending has to be reduced. The deficit is a product of trashing the economy and losing revenue by doing it. What is called government spending is either true government spending or a transfer of funds. Reducing either reduces GDP. Revenue can be increased by increasing taxes or growing the economy. The smart way to do it is to grow the economy and close some loopholes allowing the rich to pay less taxes than working people. Growing the economy is easy. Just ask a Republican what to do and do the opposite. You'll be right a 100% of the time.

Correction, I gave you the marginal rate for 2010. It's $183,250 for a single person in 2013.

 

[auditor0007]

If for example I'm willing to risk thousands or millions of dollars on a job-creating venture with no guarantee of a single dollar returned, you can bet your ass I expect special treatment under the Tax Code. **** the majority of taxpayers, they aren't the ones risking capital.

You don't have to risk your capital. You can just buy government bonds if you are afraid to invest your money. Oh yea, about that idea.....

Sorry, but you don't deserve or require any special treatment because you are choosing to put your money at risk. What the Hell else are you going to do with it, put it under your mattress? I really have no clue where this idea came up that investors should be given preferential treatment in the tax code. Throughout history, those with money have invested with the idea of making more money, always knowing that their money was at risk. That never stopped them before, why would it now? You guys think we should be stroking every investor because they are doing us such a big favor. Sorry, they are doing fine without all the free passes.

Are you serious? Or just seriously ******* stupid. Maybe it's a sarcastic jab. Either way it's a sick attempt and a big phat fail.

Government bonds... returning what - 30 years at 3%? So you put $10k in this sorry shit and tie up your capital for the next 3 decades. $100k? $1 million? No difference.

And to what end? Loan the government your money?

And what does that money do? Languish in bureaucritic morass?

Or you could take that money of yours and invest it in something that does something. Now. Think quick, ******. Buy a rental property, open a pizza parlor, invest in a mutual fund and realizes *gasp* capital gains and/or dividends that are taxed at the magical "Romney" 15%.

You sick pimp, putting faith in such a usless nonproductive instrument as a government bond. Go buy something with your money. Buy something and use it to produce something of more worth. Christ you're a sorry ass.

You really are brain dead, aren't you? Of course putting money in government bonds is pointless if you have lots of money to invest. You missed my point you stupid ****. The point is that if you have that much money, you're going to invest it anyway. You don't need a million ******* tax breaks. What ends up happening is that the tax breaks become the real incentive rather than the return on investment being the incentive. Investors don't invest so much to make more money as they do trying to make money off of tax incentives. Why do you think we have American businesses sitting on close to $3 trillion dollars right now?

I tell you, for someone who is supposed to be halfway intelligent, you showed an extreme lack of thought in your response.

 

[Dubya]

You don't have to risk your capital. You can just buy government bonds if you are afraid to invest your money. Oh yea, about that idea.....

Sorry, but you don't deserve or require any special treatment because you are choosing to put your money at risk. What the Hell else are you going to do with it, put it under your mattress? I really have no clue where this idea came up that investors should be given preferential treatment in the tax code. Throughout history, those with money have invested with the idea of making more money, always knowing that their money was at risk. That never stopped them before, why would it now? You guys think we should be stroking every investor because they are doing us such a big favor. Sorry, they are doing fine without all the free passes.

Are you serious? Or just seriously ******* stupid. Maybe it's a sarcastic jab. Either way it's a sick attempt and a big phat fail.

Government bonds... returning what - 30 years at 3%? So you put $10k in this sorry shit and tie up your capital for the next 3 decades. $100k? $1 million? No difference.

And to what end? Loan the government your money?

And what does that money do? Languish in bureaucritic morass?

Or you could take that money of yours and invest it in something that does something. Now. Think quick, ******. Buy a rental property, open a pizza parlor, invest in a mutual fund and realizes *gasp* capital gains and/or dividends that are taxed at the magical "Romney" 15%.

You sick pimp, putting faith in such a usless nonproductive instrument as a government bond. Go buy something with your money. Buy something and use it to produce something of more worth. Christ you're a sorry ass.

You really are brain dead, aren't you? Of course putting money in government bonds is pointless if you have lots of money to invest. You missed my point you stupid ****. The point is that if you have that much money, you're going to invest it anyway. You don't need a million ******* tax breaks. What ends up happening is that the tax breaks become the real incentive rather than the return on investment being the incentive. Investors don't invest so much to make more money as they do trying to make money off of tax incentives. Why do you think we have American businesses sitting on close to $3 trillion dollars right now?

I tell you, for someone who is supposed to be halfway intelligent, you showed an extreme lack of thought in your response.

Actually, you are both wrong. Many of those people and entities who invest in US government bonds have hugh sums of money and want a secure investment for some of it, so it does make sense to even buy hundreds of millions to billions of dollar in government bonds. Another thing is the ease of investment. Bonds have a daily value so they are worth some price from the day they are acquired. Money can be made trading bonds, just like in trading stock.

For normal people, the bond/stock ration for an investment portfolio is to buy stock at 100% minus your age, so at 40 years old the person should have investments representing 60% stock and 40% bonds.

 

[editec]

Fair?? Fair is subjective... No place for subjectivity in this... Until there is a system based on equality in treatment of every dollar earned by every person.. or every dollar spent by every person.. without exception, exemption, loophole, etc.. no tax discussion should ever be closed

One way to provide fair and equal treatment of every dollar would be everyone paying the same rate and everyone getting exactly the same deduction.

Like 18% with one and only one deduction of $40,000 for citizens.

Yeah actually, AVG-Joe, that's not a bad proposal in my opinion.

Not sure about the 18% rate, but treating every dollar the same way certainly makes sense. Certainly the deduction for each individual ought to be about that high.

It still doesn't do all that much to simplify the tax codes though, at least as it pertains to what one can write off as legitimate business expenses.

But what is a legitimate business expense is a complex issue given the wildly different expenses that different kinds of businesses often face.

 

[FA_Q2]

If for example I'm willing to risk thousands or millions of dollars on a job-creating venture with no guarantee of a single dollar returned, you can bet your ass I expect special treatment under the Tax Code. **** the majority of taxpayers, they aren't the ones risking capital.

You don't have to risk your capital. You can just buy government bonds if you are afraid to invest your money. Oh yea, about that idea.....

Sorry, but you don't deserve or require any special treatment because you are choosing to put your money at risk. What the Hell else are you going to do with it, put it under your mattress? I really have no clue where this idea came up that investors should be given preferential treatment in the tax code. Throughout history, those with money have invested with the idea of making more money, always knowing that their money was at risk. That never stopped them before, why would it now? You guys think we should be stroking every investor because they are doing us such a big favor. Sorry, they are doing fine without all the free passes.

If you don't understand where the idea that investors should be treated differently then you are being willfully ignorant. just because you disagree with the idea (as I do, I believe that ALL income should be taxed at the same rate) does not mean that you should not understand why such things are put into place. Ill give you one, and likely the best, reason that investment is treated differently: mobility.

Labor is not mobile. Generally, if you want to live here and enjoy the perks of being an American you need to work here. You cant go to China and work for Foxcon. You cant make cloths in Taiwan. Money is entirely different. I am capable of investing that money anywhere on earth. There needs to be some incentive for me to keep that investment here. Essentially, a better chance that I will get a grater ROI if that investment is in an American company or endeavor. The same holds true if I am a foreign investor. America wants to take that capitol away from other countries and bring it here. Again, the ONLY way to do this is to ensure that ROI here is comparable or better than in other nations. Lie it or not, Tax policy greatly affects your possible ROI.

Now, I personally believe that a simplified tax code and proper spending levels will solve this problem by making our economy very strong and our taxes low. That is why I believe in flat tax rates. Not only that but even if we suffer some investment loss, the gains that we make to limiting corruption within our political system are MORE than worth the losses. WAAAAAAY MORE!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the OP,

You are taking Boehner out of context and misrepresenting what he is saying. You also cannot separate this statement and Obama as it directly relates to Obama's demands. First, as another poster already pointed out, he is not saying that tax reform is off the take but that increasing taxes is. He is all for revenue neutral tax reform. Obama just wants to squeeze more cash out of the system. Further, Boehner is directly relating this to the fact that Obama has received his tax increase and now Obama is acting like that has nothing to do with the 'balanced' approach to cutting the deficit. As usual, democrats have got the tax increases that they promised before cutting any spending and now that it is time to cut what do they say? We need more tax increases! Boehner is completely correct in this particular statement, we have the tax increases. That ship has sailed. It is time to talk about the cuts now. Cuts that the democrats seem unable to allow to occur. After some cuts are made then the tax increase question can be brought back up. Not until we see some movement on cutting though or, as usual, we will NEVER see anything cut.

 

[Dubya]

If for example I'm willing to risk thousands or millions of dollars on a job-creating venture with no guarantee of a single dollar returned, you can bet your ass I expect special treatment under the Tax Code. **** the majority of taxpayers, they aren't the ones risking capital.

You don't have to risk your capital. You can just buy government bonds if you are afraid to invest your money. Oh yea, about that idea.....

Sorry, but you don't deserve or require any special treatment because you are choosing to put your money at risk. What the Hell else are you going to do with it, put it under your mattress? I really have no clue where this idea came up that investors should be given preferential treatment in the tax code. Throughout history, those with money have invested with the idea of making more money, always knowing that their money was at risk. That never stopped them before, why would it now? You guys think we should be stroking every investor because they are doing us such a big favor. Sorry, they are doing fine without all the free passes.

If you don't understand where the idea that investors should be treated differently then you are being willfully ignorant. just because you disagree with the idea (as I do, I believe that ALL income should be taxed at the same rate) does not mean that you should not understand why such things are put into place. Ill give you one, and likely the best, reason that investment is treated differently: mobility.

Labor is not mobile. Generally, if you want to live here and enjoy the perks of being an American you need to work here. You cant go to China and work for Foxcon. You cant make cloths in Taiwan. Money is entirely different. I am capable of investing that money anywhere on earth. There needs to be some incentive for me to keep that investment here. Essentially, a better chance that I will get a grater ROI if that investment is in an American company or endeavor. The same holds true if I am a foreign investor. America wants to take that capitol away from other countries and bring it here. Again, the ONLY way to do this is to ensure that ROI here is comparable or better than in other nations. Lie it or not, Tax policy greatly affects your possible ROI.

Now, I personally believe that a simplified tax code and proper spending levels will solve this problem by making our economy very strong and our taxes low. That is why I believe in flat tax rates. Not only that but even if we suffer some investment loss, the gains that we make to limiting corruption within our political system are MORE than worth the losses. WAAAAAAY MORE!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the OP,

You are taking Boehner out of context and misrepresenting what he is saying. You also cannot separate this statement and Obama as it directly relates to Obama's demands. First, as another poster already pointed out, he is not saying that tax reform is off the take but that increasing taxes is. He is all for revenue neutral tax reform. Obama just wants to squeeze more cash out of the system. Further, Boehner is directly relating this to the fact that Obama has received his tax increase and now Obama is acting like that has nothing to do with the 'balanced' approach to cutting the deficit. As usual, democrats have got the tax increases that they promised before cutting any spending and now that it is time to cut what do they say? We need more tax increases! Boehner is completely correct in this particular statement, we have the tax increases. That ship has sailed. It is time to talk about the cuts now. Cuts that the democrats seem unable to allow to occur. After some cuts are made then the tax increase question can be brought back up. Not until we see some movement on cutting though or, as usual, we will NEVER see anything cut.

Did Boner win the election or did Romney lose? We want these tax shelters for the rich closed and that's what the majority of Americans voted for. What is this shit about a hedge fund using someone else's money to invest and only paying 15% for taxes on the profits they make? What about the tax loopholes that encourage American corporations to outsource jobs? Can't you figure out your corporatism and elitism has went too far? You took a functioning economy that was making surpluses and destroyed it so mindlessly, it looks intentionally done for the Republican "Starve the Beast" agenda. Doing that during wartime is an act of treason.

We've had enough of your Republican nonsense calling for reductions in government spending during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression that you also caused. You've been a plague on the American economy since your party was founded and you've been working since day one to cause another recession and blame it on Obama. Whatever is good is bad and what is bad is good to the Republicans. They have to know what works in the economy to oppose it continuously. You fucked it up, so fix it! You aren't going to play the American people like fools and if you cause another recession, they may just come after your asses.

 

[AVG-JOE]

A consumption tax is a good way to balance the tax code. A modest personal income tax is also required for balance. Something fair that is based on one rate / one deduction.

My humble opinion, with a small consumption tax and a modest personal income tax, the federal government could leave business alone for the states to feed off of.

You can't have one and still have the other

Bullshit. PLENTY of states have both sales taxes and income taxes. The trick is to make them both modest of rate and simple in application.

 

[AVG-JOE]

If for example I'm willing to risk thousands or millions of dollars on a job-creating venture with no guarantee of a single dollar returned, you can bet your ass I expect special treatment under the Tax Code. **** the majority of taxpayers, they aren't the ones risking capital.

Do what you feel is appropriate with your assets and capital, Mr. H... I'll do the same with mine.

One rate / One deduction.

It's unfair for congress to assume the power to tax you differently from the way they tax me. The complicated tax code of deductions and favoritism for some business and ways of earning a living gives congress way to ******* much power and creates a culture of corruption.

Monkeys lookin' stupid from space.

Life is not fair, man up.

So much for government of the Monkeys, by the Monkeys and for the Monkeys, eh?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Cash for Clunkers
PPACA
ARRA

Wait, you said one. It is a bit like Lays potato chips, no one can stop at one.

Spending is not the issue here. That said, prove that the cash for clunkers program wasn't the difference between the auto industry repaying it's loans ahead of schedule and clunking itself.

Wrong, the only issue right now is spending.

That said, Cash for Clunkers had zero impact on the auto industry, something all the experts have repeatedly pointed out.

If 'all' the experts have panned it so vehemently, it shouldn't be too hard for you to come up with a link, eh?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Fair?? Fair is subjective... No place for subjectivity in this... Until there is a system based on equality in treatment of every dollar earned by every person.. or every dollar spent by every person.. without exception, exemption, loophole, etc.. no tax discussion should ever be closed

One way to provide fair and equal treatment of every dollar would be everyone paying the same rate and everyone getting exactly the same deduction.

Like 18% with one and only one deduction of $40,000 for citizens.

Yeah actually, AVG-Joe, that's not a bad proposal in my opinion.

Not sure about the 18% rate, but treating every dollar the same way certainly makes sense. Certainly the deduction for each individual ought to be about that high.

It still doesn't do all that much to simplify the tax codes though, at least as it pertains to what one can write off as legitimate business expenses.

But what is a legitimate business expense is a complex issue given the wildly different expenses that different kinds of businesses often face.

I'm thinking of personal income taxes - if 18/40 doesn't work there's only 2 numbers to adjust. If we're not working hard to put H&R Block out of business, we're foolish Monkeys.

Business taxes are obviously different. The costs of production need to be exempt from taxes. As I suggested in another post, perhaps taxing business income might be best left to the states. That way the folks who live closest to a chemical plant will have negotiated the contract that allows it to operate.

 

[emptystep]

The context is just slightly different but the back and forth on this thread is not that far off from the House House Budget Committee Markup for 2013. MR. H being the archetype Republican and AVG-JOE or/and Dubya being the archetype Democrat.

How would you vote?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

It's not about increasing or decreasing taxes on anyone in particular. It's about simplifying tax law and making it more fair.

Will fairness in the tax code change things for some? I hope so... if things don't need changing for some of us, they're fine. I think we can all agree that things at this moment, especially with regards to the US Tax Code, are far from 'fine'.

It's not about raising taxes on anyone in particular? Nonsense. All we hear and all we will ever hear is how taxes need to be raised on the "rich".

No one ever talks about raising taxes on the middle class or below, however, the funny part is Obama just inflicted the largest tax increase in US history on the middle class via Obamacare and no one flinched.

In the interim, we will continue to hear demagoguery on raising taxes on the "rich" even though they assumingly just raised taxes on the "rich". It is never enough and will never be enough because spending is so outrageous.

You tax the rich because they are the ones with the money, and then you tax the less rich a little less, and so on and so forth. When the system works well the country moves ahead at a strong steady pace. When the system is out of balance to the less wealthy the top is shriveling up while the less fortunate are living easy. When the system is out of balance to the wealthy the top builds more wealth than it can even spend and the bottom are going to bed hungry.

Money should not run this country because it will, quite obviously, make the system out of balance. The government should run this country because this country is for and by the people, not by the people for the rich.

I find it interesting..... this big cry from this administration .... to have those who are the most financially responsible and know how to manage their books, to use their resources to "bail-out" an organization that is the most irresponsible and mismanaged.

It's just like the Democrats to simply throw money at a problem, and hope it resolves itself and just goes away. They did it with Fannie and Freddie, with public education ( which is why Obama's kids go to a private school. Gotta love that "being able to relate with empathy towards the middle class") then there's Obama's pet projects to his contributors ..... a whole list of failing green energy projects like Solyndra. How much taxpayer dollars has the Federal Government simply wasted?

 

[AVG-JOE]

The sooner the American Monkeys learn that the job of their government with regards to the market place is to establish a simple, predictable and fairly perceived cost of operating locally, and to negotiate contracts on behalf of The Monkeys with the big multinationals and other governments, the better.

It'll happen. I've recently been abroad and you can feel it. Local Monkeys running local Monkey Business and democracy is working. Step one for the US is fair and simple taxes so that congress doesn't have the corruptible authority to customize taxes.

Where the hell is the freedom in that kind of business environment?