SurfaceTension
New Member
Ha! {slaps forehead} Duh! The way Dems keeps shifting the subject and redefining terms, I guess that shoulda been obvious!
:razz2:
Tax Cut!
- Thread starter Christy
- Start date
:razz2:Hollywood Bound
New Member
Dems
Dems you are right I was confused and associated republicans as conservatives and democrats as liberals and bought into the republican propaganda and tried to pass it on. At the time southern democrats were conservative and some did change parties (Thurmond for one).
So if I post to this thread again I will try to keep it as conservative vs liberal. Happily awaiting to take a pounding on my thoughts on immigration.
Dems you are right I was confused and associated republicans as conservatives and democrats as liberals and bought into the republican propaganda and tried to pass it on. At the time southern democrats were conservative and some did change parties (Thurmond for one).
So if I post to this thread again I will try to keep it as conservative vs liberal. Happily awaiting to take a pounding on my thoughts on immigration.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Hey Dems... you and the other Democrats keep talking about how big a tax break the fat cats are getting, but you never seem to mention how much money they are paying even after the tax break. Since you seem to have a handle on the Chairman of Nike's finances I was wondering if you could post how much money he's sending in so we can compare that to the amount we're sending in? I'm guessing it's a lot more than the $5k-$10k most of us send in. Let's see both sides of this story. That way we can more better determine how fair the tax breaks the fat cats get are. Thanks.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
How did Liberals come to power? Easy... they sought out every needy group in the country and promised them whatever it was they needed. Conservatives may have all the money in the private sector, but for decades the Democrats controlled the government money. So they told the poor they could have more and more "social" spending, they told the old that they could have more and more benefits, they told the unions that they could do whatever they wanted, etc., and these large voter blocks were enough to keep the Liberals in power. That was until recently, when a lot of Conservatives decided that enough was enough and we finally became a bigger voter block.
What's really sad to me is that the Republicans have adopted the Democratic strategy and we now seem to be in a footrace to see who can give away more. To me it's like the fight between the recording companies and the MP3 traders... how do you compete against something that's free? Same deal here... how can Republicans push people to carry their share of the load when the Dems are saying they don't have to and the government will provide for them.
Okay so the rich are going to invest their tax cut. I'll buy that one, however where will it be invested? I doubt may decent paying jobs will be developed in this country. Most of that money will be invested in new plants, etc built in other countries not the USA.
Did anyone look at the tax cuts that effect the average person? Most of them return to their current or lower levels in a few years. Even if Congress is able to make them permenant, at what levels will that be? Will they keep the $1000 per child tax credit or wait until it goes down to $500?
I know that as soon as I get my first paycheck showing the new witholding I will be making an adjustment to take out more. Why? Because eventually I will need to pay it back to the government at tax time. Bush Sr. did the same thing during his term. Lowering payroll witholding to me is just a gimmick. The extra amount most people will see is so small it just isn't worth it.
Did anyone look at the tax cuts that effect the average person? Most of them return to their current or lower levels in a few years. Even if Congress is able to make them permenant, at what levels will that be? Will they keep the $1000 per child tax credit or wait until it goes down to $500?
I know that as soon as I get my first paycheck showing the new witholding I will be making an adjustment to take out more. Why? Because eventually I will need to pay it back to the government at tax time. Bush Sr. did the same thing during his term. Lowering payroll witholding to me is just a gimmick. The extra amount most people will see is so small it just isn't worth it.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
You're right Alex. If your cut of the tax cut is minimal, but you need to look beyond your own tax bracket. Someone who gets back $700 isn't going to do much investing, but what about Dem's Mr. Nike, who's getting back $7,000,000? Do you think his accountants are going to have him leave that in a savings account drawing 2% interest or a 401k making 4%?
While there are many "rich people" who got that way by inheriting the money from someone else, there are a lot more self-made "rich people", and these people didn't get rich by letting their money sit around earning the minimum. By cutting taxes, especially the taxes on capital gains, it's mroe attractive to take some risks with that money.
While there are many "rich people" who got that way by inheriting the money from someone else, there are a lot more self-made "rich people", and these people didn't get rich by letting their money sit around earning the minimum. By cutting taxes, especially the taxes on capital gains, it's mroe attractive to take some risks with that money.
SmallTown
Football season!
One point that is overlooked is that one way the rich become rich is by finding ways to make money with minimal tax hits. Since they are taking minimum hits as it is, the "windfall" from the top isn't all that great. Sure, compared to the average joe, there tax bill is higher than ours, but compared to their overall assets, it really can be pretty minimal.
so when debating this argument, you really do need to separate the high income wage earner, from the rich who obtain wealth from other entities besides the stock market and a payroll check.
so when debating this argument, you really do need to separate the high income wage earner, from the rich who obtain wealth from other entities besides the stock market and a payroll check.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Looks like a great time...
...to talk about taxes over all.
Right now the Federal government costs about $.25 for every dollar of annual GDP.
GDP, gross domestic product, is in essence our national paycheck. We have almost $10 trillion a year in gross economic activity, almost $2.5 trillion which goes to run the federal government.
Does that sound like to much or to little? Just about right?
(the $2.5 trill does NOT include your old age supplemental disability insurance, Social Security).
...to talk about taxes over all.
Right now the Federal government costs about $.25 for every dollar of annual GDP.
GDP, gross domestic product, is in essence our national paycheck. We have almost $10 trillion a year in gross economic activity, almost $2.5 trillion which goes to run the federal government.
Does that sound like to much or to little? Just about right?
(the $2.5 trill does NOT include your old age supplemental disability insurance, Social Security).
No his accountants won't do that but do you really think he is going to invest in a new plant in the US? More likely it will go into a tax shelter and/or a new plant in Singapore or Thailand.
How does that help our economy grow? Do more jobs at Taco Bell really help the economy or just add to growing gap between rich and poor who then ask and/or need more services from their government because they can't make a living wage?
I don't think this tax cut is going to do much of anything for the majority of people just like the last one didn't. I took my $600 put in my emergency fund, I will probably do the same with the $400 I am supposed to get after July 1 because I will probably have to pay at least state income tax on it if not federal too.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Oz... everybody remembers Bush I breaking his "Read my lips..." pledge, but most people either don't know, or have chosen to forget, the pledge made by the Democrats in the house that led Bush to break his pledge. In order to try to balance the budget the Dems told Bush that they would make cuts to spending if, and only if, Bush increased the taxes a bit. Bush raised the taxes, but the House leadership never came through on the cuts.
Smalltown... since we haven't heard back from Dems yet, I'll use the 15% cut to "rich people" taxes and guestimate that if Mr. Nike is saving $7,000,000 then he's paying about $47,000,000 in taxes.... and that's after all of his sheltering. So who's to say that $47,000,000 is minimal to anybody? Libs are all so willing to take money from other people... I just don't understand it.
Alex... what do you think tax shelters are? Most "Rich People" shelter their money by investing it back into businesses, or, investing in good deal bonds. Most like to see a higher return from a business than the lower yields of bonds, but when capital gains taxes are high you go with munis to lower your tax obligation. When that happens, roads, bridges, etc., get built, but then the bonds have to be paid off. So the "Rich" get the principal and the interest, in many cases tax free, while the community issuing the bond gets the bill plus has to pay unemployment benefits once the work gets done. It's better for the businesses to get built up and use the resulting tax dollar increases to fund projects.
As for moving businesses overseas, that's not a factor of investment or sheltering, that's a problem of over-regulation. If you don't want companies moving overseas, then plan on paying $800 for a 19" TV, or $500 for a VCR, or $70 for a common shirt. Everybody wants more pay and benefits for employees, but they also want cheap consumer goods and low inflation. You can't have both.
Smalltown... since we haven't heard back from Dems yet, I'll use the 15% cut to "rich people" taxes and guestimate that if Mr. Nike is saving $7,000,000 then he's paying about $47,000,000 in taxes.... and that's after all of his sheltering. So who's to say that $47,000,000 is minimal to anybody? Libs are all so willing to take money from other people... I just don't understand it.
Alex... what do you think tax shelters are? Most "Rich People" shelter their money by investing it back into businesses, or, investing in good deal bonds. Most like to see a higher return from a business than the lower yields of bonds, but when capital gains taxes are high you go with munis to lower your tax obligation. When that happens, roads, bridges, etc., get built, but then the bonds have to be paid off. So the "Rich" get the principal and the interest, in many cases tax free, while the community issuing the bond gets the bill plus has to pay unemployment benefits once the work gets done. It's better for the businesses to get built up and use the resulting tax dollar increases to fund projects.
As for moving businesses overseas, that's not a factor of investment or sheltering, that's a problem of over-regulation. If you don't want companies moving overseas, then plan on paying $800 for a 19" TV, or $500 for a VCR, or $70 for a common shirt. Everybody wants more pay and benefits for employees, but they also want cheap consumer goods and low inflation. You can't have both.
Bruzilla is right. 15% is 15% no matter if your Bill Gates, Mr Nike or Joe Smith next door. It's impact on their life will be the same. Let's face it, Bill Gates doesn't live in ah $150,000 even though he makes billions. He lives at his means.
By implementing the tax cut they are allowing the rich to have the extra money to heavily invest in business and create more jobs and boost the economy.
Personally, I think by abolishing the income tax and going with a flat national sales tax it would be the best way to boost the economy. With the use of POS systems and daily uploads/updates of the sales taxes it would allow a better means to determine the taxes owed. It would also change the tax of your income to a tax of your expenditures, rewarding those who DO save and consequently provide more capital for businesses.
By implementing the tax cut they are allowing the rich to have the extra money to heavily invest in business and create more jobs and boost the economy.
Personally, I think by abolishing the income tax and going with a flat national sales tax it would be the best way to boost the economy. With the use of POS systems and daily uploads/updates of the sales taxes it would allow a better means to determine the taxes owed. It would also change the tax of your income to a tax of your expenditures, rewarding those who DO save and consequently provide more capital for businesses.
If we had a national sales tax though would everything be taxable? If so how much would this effect the person living paycheck to paycheck? Wouldn't taxing the daily needs like food hurt more than help?
What is wrong with a flat tax? I like that idea better. Of course if there was no tax on savings wouldn't people save more any way?
What is wrong with a flat tax? I like that idea better. Of course if there was no tax on savings wouldn't people save more any way?
I think if they were to use something like a 1% national sales tax while abolishing withholding tax, the amount of money added to the paycheck would more than offset the amount of money paid in sales tax. The people who make more money will spend more and contribute more tax. The people who make less will contribute less. An equal tax for everyone based on what they spend not what they make. If you want to pay less taxes, don't buy as much goods and save more.
A tax on savings would be a tax on income which would be gone.
There is also the possibility of augmenting this with a voluntary tax such as a ntaional lottery that would be managed by the Government under strict rules that the money be used ONLY for educational purposes. Better schools, better salaries, more scholorships...
B
Bruzilla
Guest
I like the idea of a flat tax better than a national sales tax. I feel that it's about time that ALL Americans chip in. If everyone is paying something into the till they might not be so willing to support a lot of frivoulous spending. As it stands now, most of the upper-middle class and below pay no taxes, so they don't really feel that it's "their" money being spent because it isn't their money.
A national sales tax would be paid more by the wealthy than the poor, and we would be right back to where we are now. If we imposed a flat 17% tax then everybody has to pay an equal amount and has an equal stake in what's happening to their money.
A national sales tax would be paid more by the wealthy than the poor, and we would be right back to where we are now. If we imposed a flat 17% tax then everybody has to pay an equal amount and has an equal stake in what's happening to their money.
What is all that money they take out of my salary then. I consider myself to be in that group.
If you look at peoples spending habits based on gross income, they spend between 40% and 60% of their gross income. By implementing even a 5% national sales tax it would amount to the equivalent of a 2% to 3% tax on the gross income amount.
That would leave approximately a 14% to 15% increase in net pay based as opposed to a 17% flat taz rate. Now, remember that a part of the additional 14% to 15% will be spent, increaseing the taxes raised, and the rest will be saved, increasing the capital for businesses.
The increase in capital will decrease the unemployment rate and consequently decrease the money required for welfare and unemployment expenses.
Overall, GW is correct in thinking that putting money in the hands of Americans will increase the money flow and boost the economy. I just think they should increase it substantially more than they are.
Prior to this Bru you asked me to give you the in-depth details of the Nike Corporation's chairman. I was using that figure from a Time Magazine article from a couple of months back, right around the time that Bush proposed the dividend tax break. It also included other rich people and their benefits while also providing the $15 dollar tax cut that their Average Joe received. I attempted to find the article online but I could not but then again I was interrupted several times so maybe you would like to stab at it. Just take a look at time.com and search the site.
A national sales tax is absolutely terrible...it unduely burdens the poor and the middle class. It is by definition a regressive tax and will not help the economy. I think that the states shouldn't institute a sales tax either. A flat tax is not the answer either. The most prevalent percentage out there to be levied in a flat tax scheme is in the neighborhood of 17 or 20%. (At least the Republican plan for the flat tax in the 90s was in that ballpark). Under that plan according to economists, a person earning $45,000 has a $1200 tax increase if there is a flat tax because tax credits are no longer applicable in the flat tax scenario. Yet a person earning $200,000 would receive a $10,000 tax break. Is that fair?
Here is what I have done with my tax cuts and my plans for future ones...save all of it. I am not going to help the economy. Why? There is nothing to invest in. Extra money will be spent only when there is something worthwhile to invest in. The rich are already on the sidelines with their money, why would giving them more change their mind to jump back into the game? From this tax cut, I will have about an extra $200,000 in my pockets. But there is nothing to invest in and I have no plans to buy anything. The market just is not right. We need to fix the market before we can cut taxes.
There is a form of tax cutting that will help America. A tax rebate of about $600 for a married couple as well as increased child tax credits and increased tax credits for college will all help the middle class of America and thus America itself. Instead of stopping the double taxation of dividends, we should end the double taxation of Social Security benefits. Is it fair that the workers of this nation are taxed for income that they never receive? Absolutely not.
Oz
You're all F'in Mad...
I think you guys can quit wasting your time talking about a flat tax. It won't happen, ever. And, I'm one of these "never say never" people, but a flat tax is one that I will NEVER see in my lifetime.
I think it's more likely to see a National Sales Tax, or VAT tax. I doubt if it would be 1%. Probably much higher than that. Unfortunately, this will probably be "in addition to" current taxes.
There isn't a solution or much of an improvement to government or taxes, as long as professional politicians run government especially when many are former attorneys, accountants, etc. Politics don't allow change, because the parties are always working against eachother. Sadly, this thread is a waste of time because the reality of change doesn't exist.
I think it's more likely to see a National Sales Tax, or VAT tax. I doubt if it would be 1%. Probably much higher than that. Unfortunately, this will probably be "in addition to" current taxes.
There isn't a solution or much of an improvement to government or taxes, as long as professional politicians run government especially when many are former attorneys, accountants, etc. Politics don't allow change, because the parties are always working against eachother. Sadly, this thread is a waste of time because the reality of change doesn't exist.