Phaethon,
You are assuming that the added revenue from increased taxes will go to pay off the debt, IT WON’T, AND IT NEVER DOES.
All government does, is spend it on more pork and bullshit for their pet projects and kickbacks to those who donated to their campaign funds.
A perfect example of this was Solyndra and George Kaiser.
In response to the “The top 1% already pay 37% of income tax and the top 10% pay 70%”: it is important to note what the distribution of wealth actually looks like when saying that that is unfairly high.
Quick google search returned this article: The Average Net Worth Of Americans—By Age, Education And Ethnicity – Forbes Advisor
which went on to state that the top 1% control 43% of the wealth in the nation, with the next 4% controlling an additional 29%. Thus, paying 37% of income taxes hardly seems to be unfair. Furthermore, with only 5% of the nation controlling 72% of wealth, it hardly seems unfair that the top 10% pay 70% of the income tax. Take into consideration the fact that ~1/2 the nation does not pay income tax, and all of a sudden that 37% number does not at all look ridiculous.
In regards to direct refutation of your previous points:
1: Obama is on record promoting the extension of the Bush tax cuts for 98% of the country and letting them expire for the top 1% or 2%, I can’t remember at the moment. The article I will link below was a decent explanation to me as to the potential effect of this on small business.
As far as “Obama has already raised taxes” goes, it appears that the majority of this sentiment coming from Romney comes from the idea that he has effectively raised taxes through the passage of PPACA and the resulting ruling by the SC that the penalty for not getting insurance is a tax. That’s 110% fine by me. Healthcare costs, especially as the baby boomer bubble grows, without proper insurance will continue to skyrocket. Any tax pales in comparison to the costs people would experience due to this crisis.
2: As has been mentioned, this is a question of context. Honestly, there is going to be no convincing people who are firmly entrenched on either side of this question so further discussion is futile. For a reverse situation, see Romney and the 47% comments.
3: I work in an INCREDIBLY regulated industry as a quality engineer for a company that I hardly consider to be an extremely large business. With that being said, while the regulations we have to deal with and work with can be burdensome, they have a place. I’m assuming you wouldn’t want me making a product that will go into your body that has not been thoroughly vetted no?
4: See initial paragraph.
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
In response to the “The top 1% already pay 37% of income tax and the top 10% pay 70%”: it is important to note what the distribution of wealth actually looks like when saying that that is unfairly high.
which went on to state that the top 1% control 43% of the wealth in the nation, with the next 4% controlling an additional 29%. Thus, paying 37% of income taxes hardly seems to be unfair. Furthermore, with only 5% of the nation controlling 72% of wealth, it hardly seems unfair that the top 10% pay 70% of the income tax. Take into consideration the fact that ~1/2 the nation does not pay income tax, and all of a sudden that 37% number does not at all look ridiculous.[/quote]
The figure is grossly unfair. Since when is it ever appropriate for 10% of the taxpayers to shoulder 70% of the tax burden? How much wealth the top 1% “control” has nothing…got it? NADA!! to do with how much they should be taxed. Otherwise you could rationalize taking 90% from the top 10%. And then magically P O O F socialism sprouts.
One more person steps up to do Mufasa’s work. One has already failed so let’s see what you have to say.
I hope the rest of your efforts are better than this first whiff. My point was that the taxation of those top 2% are what is harming the US. Did you know that most small businesses are either an “S” or an “LLC” corp? Do you know what that means? It means that money flows through their business as if it is actual income to them. Should Obama be reelected he will put the hammer down on ten’s of thousands of mom and pop businesses. And why? “DUHHHH the rich are not paying their fair share they need to pay 100% of all income taxes.”
So you admit that he has already taxed us in this area. Good for you. And what happens if you don’t pay a fine for not having health insurance? What happens? Come on…JAIL! The 10,000 new IRS agents that Obama hired will make sure that your life is changed forever. NICE!
And you seem to be thowing your hands up in the air and saying that there is no other way to do it. That capitalism has failed (before it’s even been tried).
And let’s not forget the rest of Obama’s train wreck that effects small business and everyone else as well:
Electricity: Due to Obamaâ??s war on coal, nuclear power, and sundry new EPA regulations, all Americans “necessarily” pay more for their electric bills.
Fuel/Food: Due to Obamaâ??s war on oil production and refining, all Americans necessarily pay more for fuel. They also pay more for food and almost every other product that relies heavily on transportation.
Cars: Due to Obamaâ??s support for higher CAFE standards, all Americans will necessarily pay more to purchase cars. Due to his support for renewable fuels mandates, all Americans will pay more to fuel those cars.
Money/Savings: Due to Obamaâ??s support for monetary stimulus and a weak dollar, all Americans are forced to pay more for a number of commodities. All Americans are seeing their savings depleted.
Credit: Due to Obamaâ??s credit card regulations (Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act), it is harder for the poor to obtain credit.
Corporate Regulations: Finally, Obamaâ??s onerous new regulations â?? from Obamacare to Dodd-Frank â?? affect almost every business. We all know that corporations pass down the extra costs to consumers. We will never know how much more consumers pay for typical goods and services as a result of this presidentâ??s policies.
You’re 0-1
So…not even going to try to defend the socialist and chief on this one huh? Well…I don’t blame you.
But now you’re 0-2
This is totally unrelated to the hell that Obama has dealt to small businesses. If you want to say that the government should oversee meat packing plants etc. fine I agree. But why do they have their nose in the typical small business? From retailing, to service business the regulation on small business has grown under Obama to opressive levels.
The NFIB has labelled Obama the least friendly President to small business in modern history!
This is just at tiny peak inside what small business owners like myself must put up with DAILY!
http://www.nfib.com/advocacy/government-and-regulatory-reform
http://www.nfib.com/advocacy/item/cmsid/58652
You’re 0-3
And now 0-4
Bye
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
In response to the “The top 1% already pay 37% of income tax and the top 10% pay 70%”: it is important to note what the distribution of wealth actually looks like when saying that that is unfairly high.
Quick google search returned this article: The Average Net Worth Of Americans—By Age, Education And Ethnicity – Forbes Advisor
.[/quote]
Utter horse shit. In any given year incomes flux.
Oh boohoo rich people are rich.
Forbes can get the fuck out of here with that misleading horse shit. I scanned it until I got to “fallacy of hard work” noted I saw dick for references as to where these numbers came from and realized this is the same shithole rag that tried to say Obama only spent 1 trillion dollars…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
In response to the “The top 1% already pay 37% of income tax and the top 10% pay 70%”: it is important to note what the distribution of wealth actually looks like when saying that that is unfairly high.
Quick google search returned this article: The Average Net Worth Of Americans—By Age, Education And Ethnicity – Forbes Advisor
.[/quote]
Utter horse shit. In any given year incomes flux.
Oh boohoo rich people are rich.
Forbes can get the fuck out of here with that misleading horse shit. I scanned it until I got to “fallacy of hard work” noted I saw dick for references as to where these numbers came from and realized this is the same shithole rag that tried to say Obama only spent 1 trillion dollars…
[/quote]
Lol. Beans it is becoming more and more apparent to me that I have developed a man-crush for your posts lately. You are cracking me up
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
The article I will link below was a decent explanation to me as to the potential effect of this on small business.
.[/quote]
Matthew Yglesias should be careful calling other people ignoramus…
Oh, and he is an obvious progressive.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
In response to the “The top 1% already pay 37% of income tax and the top 10% pay 70%”: it is important to note what the distribution of wealth actually looks like when saying that that is unfairly high.
Quick google search returned this article: The Average Net Worth Of Americans—By Age, Education And Ethnicity – Forbes Advisor
.[/quote]
Utter horse shit. In any given year incomes flux.
Oh boohoo rich people are rich.
Forbes can get the fuck out of here with that misleading horse shit. I scanned it until I got to “fallacy of hard work” noted I saw dick for references as to where these numbers came from and realized this is the same shithole rag that tried to say Obama only spent 1 trillion dollars…
[/quote]
Lol. Beans it is becoming more and more apparent to me that I have developed a man-crush for your posts lately. You are cracking me up
[/quote]
haha, High five man.
Phaethon,
Thinking like yours is the reason why my state went from 5th largest economy in the world, to the land rated worst for business, worst schools, and highest taxes, and a cess pool swirling the bowl.
Schwarzen-failure raised taxes by $7 Billion, know what the government did the next year ?..spent $7 Billion MORE than the previous year.
You cannot chase the carrot if you continue to move the stick. Government just budgets more money for the next year if you pass higher taxes, don’t be this stupid.
Beans: I literally just went with the first article that came up under google to get a number to pull. My general point is that I believe that tax you pay should be correlated incredibly with you income and the general proportion of income you hold in a society.
ZEB: (Sorry for moving out of order here-I am just going to be scrolling between your response and my reply.)
4: I think we have a fundamental disagreement here. As I just stated to Beans, I believe that that tax you pay should be strongly proportional to the proportion of national income you hold. Period. If the top 10% has 90% of the wealth, I would expect 90% of the tax relating directly to wealth to come from them. I do not call this socialism, I call this fairness. Why should a dollar I have be taxed less than a dollar somebody with 10% of the money I have is taxed. Again, a fundamental difference, and I look forward to the cries of socialism, but I wouldn’t mind even seeing my dollar taxed more than somebody who has less than me…
1: Yes, I understand that these businesses are taxed at the individual rate and that taxing the top 2% more thus causes these entities to be taxed accordingly. I honestly wish that there were a way to separate these businesses from individuals, but there simply is not to my knowledge (obviously). You need to narrow the scope of your original claim-obviously, as I note in my original post, the base tax rate will go up for those affected in this case. For 98% of us, there is no direct increase. We can argue about the effects, but directly, 98% of us will not see our taxes increase.
In regards to the PPACA, you want to start to get into the indirect effects of policy? The indirect effect of uninsured people going to the emergency room for care is healthcare costs skyrocketing, or people dying because they are refused care. I am of the mindset that health insurance is one of the most important investments somebody can possibly make for their own good. You say I’m throwing my hands up before capitalism has even been tried-what do you call the last several decades? There has been a market, there have been incentives for people to purchase health insurance and it has not happened. The magical free market has failed in this instance. Period.
Nearly every regulation you noted either deals with regulation of finance or environmental protection. In terms of Dodd Frank and other financial based regulations-as the housing crash demonstrated, regulation is a necessary evil to a point. It will IMO always move on a pendulum-bad things happen due to too little, then there is too much, then you strip away the overly oppressive ones until you accidentally have too little again. If things are slightly stunted but allowed to grow overall for as far as the eye can see, I would prefer that to the crisis we just had. In regards to environmental protection-there is never going to an ideal time to start defending the environment but it has to happen sometime. Oil and coal will not be here forever: it is better to start working on alternatives now rather than when we have a ticking clock. I truly and firmly believe that while people are worried about passing the financial debt on to their children, the environmental debt that is continuing to grow will only be noticed when it is truly too late. Steps need to be taken and I am glad they are. Both situations are better in the longview.
2: My point was that no matter what I say, you are never going to go “The heavens have opened and I have been enlightened! Thank you Cornsprint!”. It’s the same as when I attempt to explain my position to liberal friends about Romney’s quotes having more to do with election strategy than a worldview. Personally, I’m not too worried about your judgements of my arguments, I expect to go 0-x no matter what I say, but on this one a draw is obvious.
3: Before answering, I need to retract my statement that I work for a business I do not consider to be extremely large. It is larger than any business that would be worried about a $250,000 cutoff. However, I hold my statements about working in a regulated industry as tracking to what you go through. While the regulations are different, the hoops I go through are comparable. I wish I could be more specific but I cannot due to various fun things I have signed.
Reading the regulations you posted as examples of “crushing” regulation…I had to scratch my head. Looking at most of them, there are either formal or informal exemptions in place/what was listed there really did not look intimidating in the slightest. If you could point out which of those you linked me to are the most strenuous and why, I would greatly appreciate it because frankly, I just don’t see it. As far as why they have to put their nose in, there needs to be oversight of production practices, quality of goods, environmental practices, and employee rights in my mind. Just like you don’t want meat packing plants reproducing The Jungle at every opportunity, you don’t want your local Mom & Pop lying about wages, worker’s rights, recycling corroded or otherwise defective scrap, spewing an unnecessary amount of smog, etc etc. Any change is going to be difficult to navigate and there will be turbulence. However, an equilibrium will be hit and business will continue as usual.
Honestly ZEB, I feel you are not really interested in having a legitimate conversation on these topics. You do not simply attack, attack, attack in a conversation if you are. I find this exercise tiresome, so if you just want to post something along the lines of “0-4 DUUUUH LOL @ CornSprint” and save us both a lot of time that would be fine by me.
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
Beans: I literally just went with the first article that came up under google to get a number to pull. My general point is that I believe that tax you pay should be correlated incredibly with you income and the general proportion of income you hold in a society.
[/quote]
Eh, my post was more disgust at Forbes than you.
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
Beans: I literally just went with the first article that came up under google to get a number to pull. My general point is that I believe that tax you pay should be correlated incredibly with you income and the general proportion of income you hold in a society.
ZEB: (Sorry for moving out of order here-I am just going to be scrolling between your response and my reply.)
4: I think we have a fundamental disagreement here. As I just stated to Beans, I believe that that tax you pay should be strongly proportional to the proportion of national income you hold. Period. If the top 10% has 90% of the wealth, I would expect 90% of the tax relating directly to wealth to come from them. I do not call this socialism, I call this fairness. Why should a dollar I have be taxed less than a dollar somebody with 10% of the money I have is taxed. Again, a fundamental difference, and I look forward to the cries of socialism, but I wouldn’t mind even seeing my dollar taxed more than somebody who has less than me…
1: Yes, I understand that these businesses are taxed at the individual rate and that taxing the top 2% more thus causes these entities to be taxed accordingly. I honestly wish that there were a way to separate these businesses from individuals, but there simply is not to my knowledge (obviously). You need to narrow the scope of your original claim-obviously, as I note in my original post, the base tax rate will go up for those affected in this case. For 98% of us, there is no direct increase. We can argue about the effects, but directly, 98% of us will not see our taxes increase.
In regards to the PPACA, you want to start to get into the indirect effects of policy? The indirect effect of uninsured people going to the emergency room for care is healthcare costs skyrocketing, or people dying because they are refused care. I am of the mindset that health insurance is one of the most important investments somebody can possibly make for their own good. You say I’m throwing my hands up before capitalism has even been tried-what do you call the last several decades? There has been a market, there have been incentives for people to purchase health insurance and it has not happened. The magical free market has failed in this instance. Period.
Nearly every regulation you noted either deals with regulation of finance or environmental protection. In terms of Dodd Frank and other financial based regulations-as the housing crash demonstrated, regulation is a necessary evil to a point. It will IMO always move on a pendulum-bad things happen due to too little, then there is too much, then you strip away the overly oppressive ones until you accidentally have too little again. If things are slightly stunted but allowed to grow overall for as far as the eye can see, I would prefer that to the crisis we just had. In regards to environmental protection-there is never going to an ideal time to start defending the environment but it has to happen sometime. Oil and coal will not be here forever: it is better to start working on alternatives now rather than when we have a ticking clock. I truly and firmly believe that while people are worried about passing the financial debt on to their children, the environmental debt that is continuing to grow will only be noticed when it is truly too late. Steps need to be taken and I am glad they are. Both situations are better in the longview.
2: My point was that no matter what I say, you are never going to go “The heavens have opened and I have been enlightened! Thank you Cornsprint!”. It’s the same as when I attempt to explain my position to liberal friends about Romney’s quotes having more to do with election strategy than a worldview. Personally, I’m not too worried about your judgements of my arguments, I expect to go 0-x no matter what I say, but on this one a draw is obvious.
3: Before answering, I need to retract my statement that I work for a business I do not consider to be extremely large. It is larger than any business that would be worried about a $250,000 cutoff. However, I hold my statements about working in a regulated industry as tracking to what you go through. While the regulations are different, the hoops I go through are comparable. I wish I could be more specific but I cannot due to various fun things I have signed.
Reading the regulations you posted as examples of “crushing” regulation…I had to scratch my head. Looking at most of them, there are either formal or informal exemptions in place/what was listed there really did not look intimidating in the slightest. If you could point out which of those you linked me to are the most strenuous and why, I would greatly appreciate it because frankly, I just don’t see it. As far as why they have to put their nose in, there needs to be oversight of production practices, quality of goods, environmental practices, and employee rights in my mind. Just like you don’t want meat packing plants reproducing The Jungle at every opportunity, you don’t want your local Mom & Pop lying about wages, worker’s rights, recycling corroded or otherwise defective scrap, spewing an unnecessary amount of smog, etc etc. Any change is going to be difficult to navigate and there will be turbulence. However, an equilibrium will be hit and business will continue as usual.
Honestly ZEB, I feel you are not really interested in having a legitimate conversation on these topics. You do not simply attack, attack, attack in a conversation if you are. I find this exercise tiresome, so if you just want to post something along the lines of “0-4 DUUUUH LOL @ CornSprint” and save us both a lot of time that would be fine by me.[/quote]
You may not convince Zeb of anything but I’m learning a lot from both of ya’ll. I’m just letting you know that your posts aren’t utterly lost in cyberspace.
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
Beans: I literally just went with the first article that came up under google to get a number to pull. My general point is that I believe that tax you pay should be correlated incredibly with you income and the general proportion of income you hold in a society.
ZEB: (Sorry for moving out of order here-I am just going to be scrolling between your response and my reply.)
4: I think we have a fundamental disagreement here. As I just stated to Beans, I believe that that tax you pay should be strongly proportional to the proportion of national income you hold. Period. If the top 10% has 90% of the wealth, I would expect 90% of the tax relating directly to wealth to come from them. I do not call this socialism, I call this fairness. Why should a dollar I have be taxed less than a dollar somebody with 10% of the money I have is taxed. Again, a fundamental difference, and I look forward to the cries of socialism, but I wouldn’t mind even seeing my dollar taxed more than somebody who has less than me…
1: Yes, I understand that these businesses are taxed at the individual rate and that taxing the top 2% more thus causes these entities to be taxed accordingly. I honestly wish that there were a way to separate these businesses from individuals, but there simply is not to my knowledge (obviously). You need to narrow the scope of your original claim-obviously, as I note in my original post, the base tax rate will go up for those affected in this case. For 98% of us, there is no direct increase. We can argue about the effects, but directly, 98% of us will not see our taxes increase.
In regards to the PPACA, you want to start to get into the indirect effects of policy? The indirect effect of uninsured people going to the emergency room for care is healthcare costs skyrocketing, or people dying because they are refused care. I am of the mindset that health insurance is one of the most important investments somebody can possibly make for their own good. You say I’m throwing my hands up before capitalism has even been tried-what do you call the last several decades? There has been a market, there have been incentives for people to purchase health insurance and it has not happened. The magical free market has failed in this instance. Period.
Nearly every regulation you noted either deals with regulation of finance or environmental protection. In terms of Dodd Frank and other financial based regulations-as the housing crash demonstrated, regulation is a necessary evil to a point. It will IMO always move on a pendulum-bad things happen due to too little, then there is too much, then you strip away the overly oppressive ones until you accidentally have too little again. If things are slightly stunted but allowed to grow overall for as far as the eye can see, I would prefer that to the crisis we just had. In regards to environmental protection-there is never going to an ideal time to start defending the environment but it has to happen sometime. Oil and coal will not be here forever: it is better to start working on alternatives now rather than when we have a ticking clock. I truly and firmly believe that while people are worried about passing the financial debt on to their children, the environmental debt that is continuing to grow will only be noticed when it is truly too late. Steps need to be taken and I am glad they are. Both situations are better in the longview.
2: My point was that no matter what I say, you are never going to go “The heavens have opened and I have been enlightened! Thank you Cornsprint!”. It’s the same as when I attempt to explain my position to liberal friends about Romney’s quotes having more to do with election strategy than a worldview. Personally, I’m not too worried about your judgements of my arguments, I expect to go 0-x no matter what I say, but on this one a draw is obvious.
3: Before answering, I need to retract my statement that I work for a business I do not consider to be extremely large. It is larger than any business that would be worried about a $250,000 cutoff. However, I hold my statements about working in a regulated industry as tracking to what you go through. While the regulations are different, the hoops I go through are comparable. I wish I could be more specific but I cannot due to various fun things I have signed.
Reading the regulations you posted as examples of “crushing” regulation…I had to scratch my head. Looking at most of them, there are either formal or informal exemptions in place/what was listed there really did not look intimidating in the slightest. If you could point out which of those you linked me to are the most strenuous and why, I would greatly appreciate it because frankly, I just don’t see it. As far as why they have to put their nose in, there needs to be oversight of production practices, quality of goods, environmental practices, and employee rights in my mind. Just like you don’t want meat packing plants reproducing The Jungle at every opportunity, you don’t want your local Mom & Pop lying about wages, worker’s rights, recycling corroded or otherwise defective scrap, spewing an unnecessary amount of smog, etc etc. Any change is going to be difficult to navigate and there will be turbulence. However, an equilibrium will be hit and business will continue as usual.
Honestly ZEB, I feel you are not really interested in having a legitimate conversation on these topics. You do not simply attack, attack, attack in a conversation if you are. I find this exercise tiresome, so if you just want to post something along the lines of “0-4 DUUUUH LOL @ CornSprint” and save us both a lot of time that would be fine by me.[/quote]
Tough to have a legitimate argument with anyone who thinks that taxes should be higher than they’ve ever been in the history of this great country.
I see why you like Obama you too are a socialist.
Also, difficult to debate in a mannerly way anyone who tries to tell me how small business “should be” relative to taxes and regulations. I’ve been operating various small businesses for about 25 years. You’ve never even worked at one…like Obama…so pardon me if your opinion rings a bit hollow.
Certainly the heavens have not opened and I do not feel enlightened speaking to you about these topics.
But certainly you have not shown why raising taxes on small business is a good idea. You even lament that you wish there was another way…well there isn’t! Obama paints with one very wide brush stroke. But who cares if about 65% of all new hires come from small business. We’ve stopped expanding and when he raises our taxes we’ll cut salaries and raise prices. Think Obama will expect that? Nope he’ll wonder what happened won’t he? He has the same amount of experience as you do.
Nor have you convinced me that there need be more regulation on my small business. What? You are not trying to say there should be more? Then certainly you think that there should be less…right? No? That’s right you have no idea you’ve never owned a small business and are clueless as to the inner workings. But it’s fun to comment on a message board so you keep that up. But don’t expect to ever understand what it’s like having your ass on the line for a half million dollar loan and working 12-14 hours a day 6 days a week to make sure that you can repay that loan. And don’t expect me to respect anything you have to say on the topic…right now I’m just mildly amused. But keep posting you’ll get a belly laugh out of me yet.
Finally, as for Obama claiming, “you didn’t build that someone else did it for you…” As I’ve already said whether he meant to say this exactly as he said is irrelevant. We KNOW that he loves big government and to him government is the answer. Therefore, we all must look to government for help or fade away to nothingness because…sniff…sniff…we just can’t do it alone.
Yeah you’re 0-4…AGAIN!
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
You may not convince Zeb of anything but I’m learning a lot from both of ya’ll. I’m just letting you know that your posts aren’t utterly lost in cyberspace. [/quote]
Hey there buddy how many times do you allow someone to convince you that what you’re doing is wrong? That what you’ve succeeded a lifetime at is wrong?
I have no idea your age or what you do for a living. But I’ve sacrificed plenty and dedicated my life creating my small business. So you’ll have to forgive me if I disagree with some 20 something (or older) who has not even a hint of what it’s like to start and run a small business mouthing off that the many useless regulations are a good thing. And that taxes should be even higher.
Most of the people I’ve debated with on this topic are as clueless as the President that they endorse.
^
With so many competing ideas a and viewpoints, it’s really hard to tell who’s right or who’s wrong. I’m just trying to soak it all in make the best judgements so I can be the best citizen I can.
edit: I’m not asking you to agree. One of the things I like about these forums is that I see both sides despite the right leanings of this site.
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
I believe that that tax you pay should be strongly proportional to the proportion of national income you hold. Period. If the top 10% has 90% of the wealth, I would expect 90% of the tax relating directly to wealth to come from them. [/quote]
First things first. Are you talking about a tax on wealth or a tax on income?
Because taxes on wealth come in the form of property taxes and excise taxes, etc.
Income taxes are completely different from that and are already set up so that the more money you make the more tax you pay. Romney is an aberration, exception to the rule bar none. What he has, rarely happens.
If you are calling for a tax on the savings you have in your bank account, good luck finding a new nation to live in. Not even lefties would try and tax shit twice.
It isn’t now, nor as it ever worked like that. You have been feed a line of bullshit from a politician and ate it up.
The IRC doesn’t work that way. Otherwise poor people would pay me to do their taxes, and instead, rich people do.
[quote] but I wouldn’t mind even seeing my dollar taxed more than somebody who has less than me…
[/quote]
Again, it already is.
But, if you’re that concerned with “fair” feel free to donate to a charity or volunteer to pay more to the government. No one is stopping you.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
Beans: I literally just went with the first article that came up under google to get a number to pull. My general point is that I believe that tax you pay should be correlated incredibly with you income and the general proportion of income you hold in a society.
ZEB: (Sorry for moving out of order here-I am just going to be scrolling between your response and my reply.)
4: I think we have a fundamental disagreement here. As I just stated to Beans, I believe that that tax you pay should be strongly proportional to the proportion of national income you hold. Period. If the top 10% has 90% of the wealth, I would expect 90% of the tax relating directly to wealth to come from them. I do not call this socialism, I call this fairness. Why should a dollar I have be taxed less than a dollar somebody with 10% of the money I have is taxed. Again, a fundamental difference, and I look forward to the cries of socialism, but I wouldn’t mind even seeing my dollar taxed more than somebody who has less than me…
1: Yes, I understand that these businesses are taxed at the individual rate and that taxing the top 2% more thus causes these entities to be taxed accordingly. I honestly wish that there were a way to separate these businesses from individuals, but there simply is not to my knowledge (obviously). You need to narrow the scope of your original claim-obviously, as I note in my original post, the base tax rate will go up for those affected in this case. For 98% of us, there is no direct increase. We can argue about the effects, but directly, 98% of us will not see our taxes increase.
In regards to the PPACA, you want to start to get into the indirect effects of policy? The indirect effect of uninsured people going to the emergency room for care is healthcare costs skyrocketing, or people dying because they are refused care. I am of the mindset that health insurance is one of the most important investments somebody can possibly make for their own good. You say I’m throwing my hands up before capitalism has even been tried-what do you call the last several decades? There has been a market, there have been incentives for people to purchase health insurance and it has not happened. The magical free market has failed in this instance. Period.
Nearly every regulation you noted either deals with regulation of finance or environmental protection. In terms of Dodd Frank and other financial based regulations-as the housing crash demonstrated, regulation is a necessary evil to a point. It will IMO always move on a pendulum-bad things happen due to too little, then there is too much, then you strip away the overly oppressive ones until you accidentally have too little again. If things are slightly stunted but allowed to grow overall for as far as the eye can see, I would prefer that to the crisis we just had. In regards to environmental protection-there is never going to an ideal time to start defending the environment but it has to happen sometime. Oil and coal will not be here forever: it is better to start working on alternatives now rather than when we have a ticking clock. I truly and firmly believe that while people are worried about passing the financial debt on to their children, the environmental debt that is continuing to grow will only be noticed when it is truly too late. Steps need to be taken and I am glad they are. Both situations are better in the longview.
2: My point was that no matter what I say, you are never going to go “The heavens have opened and I have been enlightened! Thank you Cornsprint!”. It’s the same as when I attempt to explain my position to liberal friends about Romney’s quotes having more to do with election strategy than a worldview. Personally, I’m not too worried about your judgements of my arguments, I expect to go 0-x no matter what I say, but on this one a draw is obvious.
3: Before answering, I need to retract my statement that I work for a business I do not consider to be extremely large. It is larger than any business that would be worried about a $250,000 cutoff. However, I hold my statements about working in a regulated industry as tracking to what you go through. While the regulations are different, the hoops I go through are comparable. I wish I could be more specific but I cannot due to various fun things I have signed.
Reading the regulations you posted as examples of “crushing” regulation…I had to scratch my head. Looking at most of them, there are either formal or informal exemptions in place/what was listed there really did not look intimidating in the slightest. If you could point out which of those you linked me to are the most strenuous and why, I would greatly appreciate it because frankly, I just don’t see it. As far as why they have to put their nose in, there needs to be oversight of production practices, quality of goods, environmental practices, and employee rights in my mind. Just like you don’t want meat packing plants reproducing The Jungle at every opportunity, you don’t want your local Mom & Pop lying about wages, worker’s rights, recycling corroded or otherwise defective scrap, spewing an unnecessary amount of smog, etc etc. Any change is going to be difficult to navigate and there will be turbulence. However, an equilibrium will be hit and business will continue as usual.
Honestly ZEB, I feel you are not really interested in having a legitimate conversation on these topics. You do not simply attack, attack, attack in a conversation if you are. I find this exercise tiresome, so if you just want to post something along the lines of “0-4 DUUUUH LOL @ CornSprint” and save us both a lot of time that would be fine by me.[/quote]
Tough to have a legitimate argument with anyone who thinks that taxes should be higher than they’ve ever been in the history of this great country.
I see why you like Obama you too are a socialist.
Also, difficult to debate in a mannerly way anyone who tries to tell me how small business “should be” relative to taxes and regulations. I’ve been operating various small businesses for about 25 years. You’ve never even worked at one…like Obama…so pardon me if your opinion rings a bit hollow.
Certainly the heavens have not opened and I do not feel enlightened speaking to you about these topics.
But certainly you have not shown why raising taxes on small business is a good idea. You even lament that you wish there was another way…well there isn’t! Obama paints with one very wide brush stroke. But who cares if about 65% of all new hires come from small business. We’ve stopped expanding and when he raises our taxes we’ll cut salaries and raise prices. Think Obama will expect that? Nope he’ll wonder what happened won’t he? He has the same amount of experience as you do.
Nor have you convinced me that there need be more regulation on my small business. What? You are not trying to say there should be more? Then certainly you think that there should be less…right? No? That’s right you have no idea you’ve never owned a small business and are clueless as to the inner workings. But it’s fun to comment on a message board so you keep that up. But don’t expect to ever understand what it’s like having your ass on the line for a half million dollar loan and working 12-14 hours a day 6 days a week to make sure that you can repay that loan. And don’t expect me to respect anything you have to say on the topic…right now I’m just mildly amused. But keep posting you’ll get a belly laugh out of me yet.
Finally, as for Obama claiming, “you didn’t build that someone else did it for you…” As I’ve already said whether he meant to say this exactly as he said is irrelevant. We KNOW that he loves big government and to him government is the answer. Therefore, we all must look to government for help or fade away to nothingness because…sniff…sniff…we just can’t do it alone.
Yeah you’re 0-4…AGAIN![/quote]
ZEB: It is apparent that there is nothing to be gained on either side in this discourse. For the record, I don’t consider you “mean ol’ ZEB” who I am bitter towards and afraid of (?), I actually find you to be quiet knowledgable, which is why I lament the fact that your tact is to scream as loudly as possible and prove that you are “right” rather than to express your opinion and explain things in such a way that it would cause somebody to actually stop and think. I know I have a lot to learn and I am learning quite a lot on this forum-I am truly looking at things in ways I never have before.
As for our futile conversation, a couple quick notes before I end my part in our discussion:
-While I do not think raising taxes on small business is a good thing, I see it as an unfortunate side effect of raising taxes on a group of individuals who by and large can take the hit.
-In regards to regulation, it is a given that for the individual business, less regulation makes it easier to operate and makes for lower overhead. However, my contention is that since it is not in the interest of the individual business to self-regulate in various areas (environment for instance), it must be added on by a third-party who has an eye on the greater picture. Wall Street is a great example of this.
-I don’t believe that without government we can’t do it on our own. I see government as a way to make sure that as we do whatever we are doing, we do it together. When man enters into society, he, to varying extents, agrees to give up some measure of freedom in order to take advantage of the security and profitability of working in a larger group. Government, in my eyes, comes into the picture to make sure that while individual drive is promoted and rewarded, it is not done so at the extreme detriment of that group as a whole.
Those are my $0.02-feel free to ignore or tear apart my posts in the future, as you see fit.
Beans: Good call on wealth vs income. I misspoke-my apologies. I am definitely not calling for a tax on savings and such. That also clears up the rest of the post there.
The general sentiment remains however-I do believe changes should be made to make sure those earning X% of total income pay X%+ of total tax coming from income without fail. I know that there are a variety of reasons for aberrations such as Romney, especially the capital gains rate. I also recognize it’s hard to hit individuals on that without additionally making life hell for businesses…my general feeling of X for X remains consistent however.
CB:
You may have answered this already in your Tax thread…
But what do you think about some combination of a Flat plus/minus Consumption Tax for most Americans?
(I’m still trying to formulate the pluses and minuses in my own mind).
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
CB:
You may have answered this already in your Tax thread…
But what do you think about some combination of a Flat plus/minus Consumption Tax for most Americans?
(I’m still trying to formulate the pluses and minuses in my own mind).
Mufasa[/quote]
The only problem with a flat tax is it becomes more of a burden on lower wage earners, compared to now. It ends up putting more pressure on low and middle income earners. Someone making 50k and paying 20% tax is hurt more than someone making 500k and paying 20% tax.
As it is now, the 50k (as single) would pay like $8,500 and the person making 500k is going to be around $110k tax bill. The current system, is actually more fair than a flat tax.
As for consumption taxes, it depends on what the government calls a taxable transaction. I can give a more detailed answer later but it sounds like an administrative nightmare. I will go into more detail later.
But understand I argue for the anti-consumption tax from someone who would lose 60%+ of his billable time a year if the income tax went away, lol.