Ok tax's on a new ferrari are $25K
Make sense now on top of local sales tax.
10% of a 5 million dollar house is ?
the rich "top 1%"don't pay tax's. Thats the joke on us.
Ok tax's on a new ferrari are $25K
Make sense now on top of local sales tax.
10% of a 5 million dollar house is ?
the rich "top 1%"don't pay tax's. Thats the joke on us.
Sorry, but I still don't quite think you understand.
The economic term for what others were trying to tell you is Marginal Utility. Here is a link to explain the concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility
OK one more time the rich ALREADY DON'T PAY TAX's.
they cannot AVOID a flat tax. What part of that do you not understand ???
I own a bussiness. I know how to avoid paying tax's. LOL.
They do pay taxes, and more than you. The difference is the Marginal Cost of what they pay is most likely less than the Marginal Cost of what you pay. Again it's all explained on the wiki link.
Here is a quick link I googled showing you that the rich DO pay taxes.
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
The RICH do not PAY tax's.
They might pay property tax's on a home but by and in large they do not pay income or other tax's.
It is a CONTRIVED LIE
THE RICH DO NOT PAY TAX'S
You have no IDEA what I do or do not pay.
For me to prove my point you'd have to actually know a good accountant.
They might pay property tax's on a home but by and in large they do not pay income or other tax's.
It is a CONTRIVED LIE
THE RICH DO NOT PAY TAX'S
You have no IDEA what I do or do not pay.
For me to prove my point you'd have to actually know a good accountant.
Those numbers I posted are all from the IRS themselves on income taxes collected and from whom they were collected.
If we raise the Corporate Income Tax rates, then what happens is we lower the return on retirement accounts. This will just reduce income to stock holders. Some of the major stock holders are Mutual funds that people depend on for retirement. It is like shooting yourself in the foot.
Because the average person spends a high percent of their income on consumption, while the ultra rich spend a drop in the bucket of their income on consumption, so it's an incredibly regressive tax - even with 'help' built in like an exempt amount - that does nothing but benefit the rich, increasing the concentration of wealth to make us a banana republic economy even faster, and discourage consumption which guts out economy.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Well since they use 95% of our courts, rely on federal enforcement of their patents and trademarks, rely on limited liability to shield fuck ups from officers and get prime rates on money I'd say they should pay something for that service/advantage. Actually a lot more.
What the right whining about corporate taxation, pointing out what no one understood, that taxes cost money, is really saying, is simply that they oppose taxes, period.
Name a tax and their 'argument' applies: hey, it costs those people money, and that affects other people too to an extent!
This is a sort of stealth argument that pretends to be saying one thing, but is really just saying 'don't tax anyone'.
They again unwittingly support nothing but the transfer of wealth to the ultra rich with this nonsense and their ideology 'always cut taxes'.
Good thing that if they had their way, it's impossible to ever have a private power economic tyranny, with an economic elite the unelected masters of the universe.
If they turned the US into a Latin American banana economy where a few people owned everything and the government as it were is at best a powerless plaything that can't touch the elites, and more likely at worst the tool of the powerful for repression of the people, they wouldn't have a clue what to do - either claim how great virtual slavery is, or say 'sorry, we were wrong'. No, they are ignorantly fixated on wanting to not spend $20 on their own taxes and join the bandwagon to go down that road to do it.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
LOL It already works this way. Most smart small businessmen don't even screw with S corps & SPs because of lack of ability to deduct health and huge fringe benis. I've turned guys onto my accountant a big C corp proponent from dent repairmen to McDonalds franchise owners who end up showing zero corporate profit paying zero dividends just salary and untaxed fringe and of course a small salary taxed at regular rates. You have to a fool to pay both in this tax code. Hell GS one of the richest corps on planet is smart enough not to pay taxes.
Last edited:
I dare say, you're not anywhere near the 'ultra high end' rich of our nation, I've little doubt.
You don't seem to have a clue about the ultra rich, or the larger socio-economic issues, you just want to keep the few $ you can.
You don't show any principle either, sounding like you at least are friendly to tax fraud, if not actually doing it. You're a common thief if you do it.
The rich *underpay* their taxes as a class. Some pay a lot and some pay none and some pay less than they should. Tax avoidance schemes are rampant and underinvestigated.
But as a class they still pay a lot of taxes, but are you so clueless you don't understand what I posted above, that the rich pay a far, far smaller part of their income to consume?
When Bill Gates gets one of the most expensive homes in the nation and has a wall full of dozens of televisions (I saw it, from a boat off his dock), whatever nice cars and vacations and jewelry and art and Da Vinci books he buys, it's like you buying a deal at a chain restaurant, a tiny drop in the bucket of his income?
So that your claim rich 'don't pay taxes' - false as a class - and that the tiny bit they'd pay under your play is 'at least something' and an increase - is wrong.
Every rich person in America has his fortune from others. Every one. And it's perfectly appropriate that they both get more net income than others, and pay more taxes.
A progressive - small p - income tax, preferably one with a high maximum rate like JFK's reduction to 70%, is a good way to tax.
I think people forget that corporate profit is not a bad thing. It leads to R&D, growth, and new jobs. Sure you could take all of that away from the bad corporations that make money. But honestly, is the average Joe really going to do as much with it. And lets really get realistic, is the government going to do anything useful with it other than to dangle it out as a carrot to the masses.
Corporate tax should be at zero. They pay all necessary fees (hidden taxes) and employment taxes. Everything else just gets added to their costs, and prices go up. If there is any way to make American companies less competitive on a worldwide scale, force their prices higher. This is the failure of the backwards thinking of the progressives. If American companies are making less money (or spending more on taxes) everyone loses out - including the government.
Corporate tax should be at zero. They pay all necessary fees (hidden taxes) and employment taxes. Everything else just gets added to their costs, and prices go up. If there is any way to make American companies less competitive on a worldwide scale, force their prices higher. This is the failure of the backwards thinking of the progressives. If American companies are making less money (or spending more on taxes) everyone loses out - including the government.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,407
- 8,595
- 126
i suspect that the dead weight loss of an income tax is lower than with other taxes (as a percentage of tax revenue) (and especially a consumption tax, though we may be paying a dead weight loss on that end anyway with lower available cash due to income tax).
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
70% of nothing is still nothing Craig. Until you address why some can drive a brand new car (or 747 jet in case of GS execs) from non taxed dollars (aka expenses) while poor saps working pay payments on that car with post tax dollars you are just spouting irrelevancies....unless of course you want to treat gains as income
Now you're talking.
Your boy Bill by seaside only paid 10-15% on billions way he pulled income out. My first job at LA convention center as a waiter I paid more than that... Just SS/med was half that percentage and he paid none let alone high Fed/state/UE taxes I paid coming out to about 35% of my check. Bill Paid 10-15% I paid 35% true story and almost had to live in my car due to high ass rent.
Now you're talking.Your boy Bill by seaside only paid 10-15% on billions way he pulled income out. My first job at LA convention center as a waiter I paid more than that... Just SS/med was half that percentage and he paid none let alone high Fed/state/UE taxes I paid coming out to about 35% of my check. Bill Paid 10-15% I paid 35% true story and almost had to live in my car due to high ass rent.
Last edited:
Corporate profit is a *wonderful* thing. In ways.
The attempt to make a profit, whether by an employee making a wage, or someone starting a corporation hoping for profits, it all is a force for making people do things that will make money, which in part is for the benefit of society. The farmer making a profit to grow and sell wheat, to a bakery who makes and sells bread, to the grocer who sells it to you at a nicely maintained convenient location, are all doing these things because they profit, which gives you a loaf of bread to eat.
Not all profitable activities are good for society. If the military-industrial complex uses its influence to start an unnecessary war that generates profit for itself (both for the war and for 'being prepared'), that's not good for society. If a drug company uses its influence to relax rules to let it market and sell an unnecessary if not harmful drug, that's not good for society. When the tire or oil industries use their money to buy out public transportation systems to create the car market for their products, that's not good for society.
Remember my nice simple wheat example above? The situation starts to change when you add in complexities, such as 'economic justice' for the labor who picks our fruit here - in the past, poor roving migrants of any race, currently more likely to be Hispanics, typically illegally here, pitting the low prices consumers want against the opportunities for the labor to make much income. It gets even more 'complicated' when you look at the history of imported fruit.
The United Fruit company in the past - like the 1950's and 1960's - was a very powerful interest in Latin America. It owned much of the production for the fruit industry that dominated many countries' economies. It didn't care for its profits that most of the people were in terrible poverty, if not the edge of starvation, as they got periodic work for the company - indeed, the poverty increased their profits. There was a need to keep the people from doing anything about that poverty and the excesses of the corporation, which meant controlling the government - and they did, paying large sums to the military regimes and other dictators who would use terrible violence to use killing and torture and threats against any potential political opponents - students, liberal politicians, labor leaders, left-wing intellectuals and others. The company would pay death squads at times who took part in this. The resulting tyranny did not matter much to them, because it was profitable. (The silence of the American people who enjoyed the, er, fruits of these policies are an issue of shame to the American system for their inaction and lack of concern, as well as the media to inform and the political leaders to provide the moral concern and influence public opinion).
What's needed is the balance between not too little corporate profit and freedom so that the productivity of useful goods and services for society isn't reduced, and not too much so that they become amoral tyrants above the people and untouchable by democracy, shifting back to when the people serve the few, rather than the other way around.
The right typically misses the side of this with the problems of 'too much power' for corporations. When they discuss the topic, they ignore the problems at the real situations of too much power, and instead use false analogies to the other side - 'the guy who grows our wheat needs the chance to make some profit' - as if the basic functions of the economy have anything to do with the issues with big business. Any restraint on mega industries is the same to some of them as putting mom and pop out of business.
In our democratic ideal, the people sort this out and decide where the balance should be drawn, rationally. But that's not how it works, really. There's a whole powerful mythology around the issues and a lot of bad information pushed out who serves someone's interest over the public. When the corporations 'hire' politicians who will support their interests, and the politicians needing the public's votes tells them things to make it seem like it's the public's interest, there becomes a feedback cycle as people fall for the myths.
Our early presidents noted the danger of powerful private interests becoming able to defeat democracy. The funny thing is, the result of that isn't a nation of furious people who are in rebellion against the powerful, it's a nation of people who are seduced to like the tyranny. We don't exactly have tyranny yet - in this country, we've exported plenty to other countries - but we have a lot of the conditions to keep moving that direction, including a public compliant to big business and massive control of our politics.
Yet things are not as bad as they could be - we still have voices, if not majorities, in Congress who are 'for the people' - the Bernie Sanders, Alan Graysons, and so on - who could be purged as our system now lets the big business interests target unlimited funds to removes its opponents.
To your point in the OP above, why should corporate taxes be passed along to the public to increase the people's taxes? 'Competitive interests' can lead to terrible extremes - 'how can we not let people earn 10 cents an hour, when the other countries offer corporations such low wages' - but it also ignores the advantages that come from investing the tax money - both in terms of competitive interests, and our own public well-being. The rhetoric from the right typically pretends the money is burned and had no benefit.
With that wrong ideology, of course they're 'right' in the wrong conclusion that it leads to to get rid of all taxes as waste. But it's not right.
We need to protect the interests of the American people - including the balanced policies allowing for the benefits of corporations but not the abuses.
I'd say we should also look to benefit the human race, as much as our political system is weighted for citizens 100%, non-citizens 0%. When we've bragged of being 'a leader in the world for freedom and democracy against tyranny', when we brag our economic system is better, those are good goals, but they include not just exploiting anyone else for our benefit.
70% of nothing is still nothing Craig. Until you address why some can drive a brand new car (or 747 jet in case of GS execs) from non taxed dollars (aka expenses) while poor saps working pay payments on that car with post tax dollars you are just spouting irrelevancies....unless of course you want to treat gains as income
Your boy Bill by seaside only paid 10-15% on billions way he pulled income out. My first job at LA convention center as a waiter I paid more than that... Just SS/med was half that percentage and he paid none let alone high Fed/state/UE taxes I paid coming out to about 35% of my check. Bill Paid 10-15% I paid 35% true story and almost had to live in my car due to high ass rent.
I can't tell what you're arguing from your post.
Your 70% of nothing point is wrong, because the taxable income of corporations when the tax rate is 70% is not zero, not close. We've had this; it worked.
I don't know what you're on about the transportation; in fact there is a scandalous loophole in te tax law, as David Cay Johnston has written about, whereby CEOs can get private corporate jet flights and pay taxes on the very large value only at the same rate as a commercial first-class airline ticket, which is why many corporations give this as a highly desired perk to the CEOs, but I doubt you are referring to that.
As for treating gains as wages for taxes - I recognize the need to further consider the issue, but I have a presumption in favor of doing just that. The ultra wealthy, who own most of the passive investments in the society, not only pay the low tax rates when the cash out the investments, they can leave them getting the massive benefits of tax-deferred accumulation for decades, pulling out small amounts for expenses. Why should they pay less taxes if they sit at the beach, than the guy bringing their drink?
Bill and his friend Warren Buffet have made the point about their low taxes. Whatever your point is. A consumption tax would only worsen the situation.
Bill paying 10-15% as you say is better than his paying much less with a consumption tax.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
You pretty much got it. Good decode.
One thing I'd like to clarify about "transportation" Its just used as a euphemism for being able to expense potentially dual use or at the very least deriving utility from a non taxed item for business owners which employees can't take advantage of unless boss lets them.
those with gold and brains make the rules. Normal people are too fucking stupid to understand 1040 let alone 50,000 pages IRS code which does not apply to them.
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter