Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: sluggish on September 20, 2008, 11:31:11 AM
-
What is so hard to understand about that? The ONLY people in this country that pay taxes are end users. If you tax an industry they pass it on to their customers and their employees through higher prices and lower wages. If you tax an industry to the point where they can no longer do business, they will move somewhere else. Any "windfall profit tax" is just a tax on the end user. Can anyone explain to me how a redistribution of wealth will help this country?
-
Can anyone explain to me how a redistribution of wealth will help this country?
No, because it will not help at all.
The only thing it accomplishes is it buys votes for the candidate promising such...and those stupid enough to fall for it end up looking for this kind of thing more often.
-
There are those who argue that you should take money from those who have more of it to give to those who have less. Personally, I believe in merit.
-
As Obama said in an interview some months back, it's not so much about income for the gov't as it is about fairness. I don't agree with that point of view, but a lot of folks on his side of the aisle do, apparently. (AND, it plays well to the uneducated masses :aok)
-
There are those who argue that you should take money from those who have more of it to give to those who have less. Personally, I believe in merit.
The fact of the matter is, if you take from the corps and they raise their prices, then the people who benefit give the money right back to the corps...
-
What do you mean, Corporations Don't Pay Taxes? That makes no sense.
Look at any major corporation's SEC filings, and you can see right on their balance sheet what their tax liability is. Every single company I profiled for my MBA had a nice fat tax liability every quarter they made a profit. Every single company, every single quarter and year. Profits to investors and retained profits were counted after taxes, not before.
Not only that, several companies that had been writing off assets in the past that are currently disallowed according to the latest standard accounting practices are having to pay back taxes. In some cases, they're coughing up an awful lot of money. When they originally filed making these loss claims, *everybody* including the IRS agreed that they were legit losses and expenses. But now they're going back and paying up after re-calculating their balance sheets using a new set of rules.
The average person would revolt if the govt released a new set of tax laws and made every private citizen re-file their taxes for the last 10 years, but that's what these companies had to do.
Stating that companies pay no taxes is utter nonsense.
For that matter, you have things exactly backwards. Corporate earnings are taxed at least 3 times. First, when the company makes the money. Second, through employee salaries. Third, through both employee and corporate profits on investments. You might say they're even taxed a fourth time through sales tax, which both individuals AND companies pay.
So companies pay taxes on earnings 4 times, not zero times like you say. And sales taxes are also taxes on EXPENSES (or cash flow), not EARNINGS. That's a bit like the govt taxing people extra for having a child instead of providing a credit like they really do...
-
It's been posted before, but here's a good analogy about taxes and "fairness"
Suppose that every night, ten men go to their favorite bar for beer. The tab for all ten
comes to $100 for ten pitchers. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like
this:
* The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
* The fifth would pay $1.
* The sixth would pay $3.
* The seventh $7.
* The eighth $12.
* The ninth $18.
* The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every night and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your nightly tab by $20.”
So, now drinks for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their tab the way we pay our taxes. So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six, the paying customers?
How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share’?
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being ‘PAID‘ to drink beer!
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
* The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
* The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
* The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
* The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
* The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
* The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once drunk and outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man “but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than me!”
“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up at the bar, so the nine sat down and drank without him. But when it came time to pay the tab, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for
even half of the tab!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up to pick up the tab anymore.
-
What do you mean, Corporations Don't Pay Taxes? That makes no sense.
Look at any major corporation's SEC filings, and you can see right on their balance sheet what their tax liability is. Every single company I profiled for my MBA had a nice fat tax liability every quarter they made a profit. Every single company, every single quarter and year. Profits to investors and retained profits were counted after taxes, not before.
Not only that, several companies that had been writing off assets in the past that are currently disallowed according to the latest standard accounting practices are having to pay back taxes. In some cases, they're coughing up an awful lot of money. When they originally filed making these loss claims, *everybody* including the IRS agreed that they were legit losses and expenses. But now they're going back and paying up after re-calculating their balance sheets using a new set of rules.
The average person would revolt if the govt released a new set of tax laws and made every private citizen re-file their taxes for the last 10 years, but that's what these companies had to do.
Stating that companies pay no taxes is utter nonsense.
For that matter, you have things exactly backwards. Corporate earnings are taxed at least 3 times. First, when the company makes the money. Second, through employee salaries. Third, through both employee and corporate profits on investments. You might say they're even taxed a fourth time through sales tax, which both individuals AND companies pay.
So companies pay taxes on earnings 4 times, not zero times like you say. And sales taxes are also taxes on EXPENSES (or cash flow), not EARNINGS. That's a bit like the govt taxing people extra for having a child instead of providing a credit like they really do...
Hes not saying they don't pay taxes. He's saying they effectively pass that burden on to the customer via higher prices. He is pretty much right however there is more depth to it than that.
-
Eagl
I think what he was getting at was the raising of the corporate tax rate, in that he said if you raise their taxes they will just pass along that tax to the consumer, which corps have done since the start.
-
The current corporate tax rate maxes out at 35%. Under Obama's tax proposal it would remain at 35%...under McCain's tax proposal it (the maximum rate) would drop to 25%.
The statement "Corporations Don't Pay Taxes" is untrue...some of you need to educate yourselves before you make statements like that. Then again, because some of you DO make statements like that I always get a chuckle when I visit here.
:aok
-
Eagl
I think what he was getting at was the raising of the corporate tax rate, in that he said if you raise their taxes they will just pass along that tax to the consumer, which corps have done since the start.
Ah. I didn't get that from his post... Maybe the thread title led me to read his post from a different point of view.
The problem with not taxing corporations is that even in the absence of corporate taxes, companies will still charge as much as the customer will pay. In the end, the entire market will charge just a tad more for basic necessities than the very lowest income people can pay. That maximizes profit. The poorest people declare bankruptcy or suffer degrading quality of life (or step up to the challenge and change their lives to earn more money), but the extra profit earned by selling stuff to the remaining 95% of the populace more than makes up for losing profit from that 5% who really can't make ends meet.
Increasing corporate taxes does result in shifting the tax burden right back to the population, however it gives the govt some cash to toss back to that 5% who couldn't afford to buy necessities no matter what the corporate tax burden is.
The problem in the US of course, is that not only are the bottom 5% (or whatever the poverty line is) getting welfare, about 20% of people ABOVE the true poverty line feel entitled to redistributed wealth so the tax rates creep upwards so the govt has enough money to throw to the entire bottom 25%. Then special interests weigh in, with more than half of the country claiming some right to free money or services paid for by *someone else* (they don't really care who pays, as long as they get their free schwag). What they don't realize is that they're paying for it themselves and dragging down the country, because the companies are still transferring the cost to, you guessed it, every single person above the true poverty line.
But in a capitalist society, there still must be some way to take care of the poorest people in the country, since product pricing schemes will always see maximized profit if they charge more than the poorest customers can pay. Taxing the corporations theoretically passes the burden to people above the poverty line, but in practice we see people who have plenty of money to live on who claim a right to other people's money. And the politicians get into, and stay in, office by promising to get everyone the slice of other people's money that they claim they deserve.
-
How fun would it be, If everyone had to write their own check each week for federal and state income tax?
-
The current corporate tax rate maxes out at 35%. Under Obama's tax proposal it would remain at 35%...under McCain's tax proposal it (the maximum rate) would drop to 25%.
The statement "Corporations Don't Pay Taxes" is untrue...some of you need to educate yourselves before you make statements like that. Then again, because some of you DO make statements like that I always get a chuckle when I visit here.
:aok
You're not grasping the point that in the end, taxes to a corporation which creates things to sell to US, are an expense like labor, oil, delivery, etc to be figured in to the final cost of the product. SURE, they pay quarterly taxes, but only after WE give that money TO them by buying their product. Raise taxes on evil Exxon/Shell/Citgo...and gas will go up enough to cover that hit on their net
-
How fun would it be, If everyone had to write their own check each week for federal and state income tax?
It would be great. People would actually feel the hit.
-
You're not grasping the point that in the end, taxes to a corporation which creates things to sell to US, are an expense like labor, oil, delivery, etc to be figured in to the final cost of the product. SURE, they pay quarterly taxes, but only after WE give that money TO them by buying their product. Raise taxes on evil Exxon/Shell/Citgo...and gas will go up enough to cover that hit on their net
No, that is not true- business taxes are a tax on the profit a business makes, not the costs of doing business. Among those costs are labor, oil, and delivery but also stock dividends and bonuses- none which are currently taxed at the business level. Look at a balance sheet of most corporations and you will see a zero balance between credits and debits- it would be double taxation for a business to pay taxes before it pays a stock dividend as the stock dividend is the profit, and is taxed at the individual level. Profit is what's left after all expenses have been paid, including dividends, and most corporations make every effort to have a zero balance between credits and debits to limit their tax liability.
For a corporation like Standard Oil or Exxon the problem seems to be business has been too good, so much so they can't balance out at zero, so they pay taxes at a 35% rate (that's the maximum BTW) on what they can't write off- Obama's proposal is to keep the maximum corporate rate at 35%, McCain wants to drop it to 25%.
-
As Obama said in an interview some months back, it's not so much about income for the gov't as it is about fairness. I don't agree with that point of view, but a lot of folks on his side of the aisle do, apparently. (AND, it plays well to the uneducated masses :aok)
If it were about "Fairness" then there should be one flat tax. No deductions. no exemptions.
then EVERYONE pays their fair share.
Sluggish,
I dissaggree that corporations do not pay taxes.
What you say holds true for large corporations. Because they can pass it on along to the consumer.
Small and moderate sized corporations such as independent tradesmen cant always do that.
They have to respond by either doing business illegally (Cash, illegal workforce) Or cut jobs.
They cant always pass it on. Because even if they do operate legally. They cant compete with those that do not without taking the hit themselves.
Obamas plan will increase Corperate taxes on businesses making over $250K
$250K is NOT alot of money even for a small corporation
A company with a 6-10 man crew making $10 an hour would have to make at least that much just to stay afloat by the time all is said and done and all expenses are taken into account.
-
Obamas plan will increase Corperate taxes on businesses making over $250K
$250K is NOT alot of money even for a small corporation
A company with a 6-10 man crew making $10 an hour would have to make at least that much just to stay afloat by the time all is said and done and all expenses are taken into account.
No, it will not- it will increase taxes on those individuals making over 250k a year. Remember, taxable income and gross income are two different things- my small mom and pop business will do close to 200k this year, which is my gross, yet my taxable income will be about 48k after writing off business expenses. From my personal position on the tax ladder I'd benefit financially under Obama's proposal more than McCain's, and I'm betting that's true for 98% of everyone who posts here.
-
No, it will not- it will increase taxes on those individuals making over 250k a year. Remember, taxable income and gross income are two different things- my small mom and pop business will do close to 200k this year, which is my gross, yet my taxable income will be about 48k after writing off business expenses. From my personal position on the tax ladder I'd benefit financially under Obama's proposal more than McCain's, and I'm betting that's true for 98% of everyone who posts here.
ummm no....Well yes and no.
according to Factcheck.
"The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.
Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.
He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise."
-
How fun would it be, If everyone had to write their own check each week for federal and state income tax?
I have to do this. My wife is self-employed. It's not every week, but close enough. Not only that, even if my wife will work only (for example) the last month of the year, I am supposed to use a crystal ball way back in January to divine how much she'll make, and start cutting checks at the beginning of the year to cover income she may or may not make at the end of the year. Failing to do so results in a fine and having to pay interest on taxes not paid in January for income she didn't earn until December. Multiply that by the number of states she gets contracts in...
Basically the tax code is so fubar, self-employed people who have "seasonal" or non-constant income must be psychic in order to avoid penalties. Tell me how that's reasonable. And it's doubly unfair to spouses of military members since their income is made even more variable by the military member's deployments, TDYs, and permanent change of station moves.
This last year I got whacked over $700 in fines for failing to correctly anticipate that my wife would lose her permanent job and would have to do self-employed contract work for the last 3 months of the year, because we did not pay self-employment taxes back in January. And a lot of people wonder how a military officer can have such a poor opinion of his government...
-
"Obama would leave the top corporate tax rate at 35 percent. McCain would cut it to 25 percent."
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1031268,CST-NWS-tax30.article
Dred, in no way is this an endorsement of Obama...it's an attempt to find the facts.
-
I think the point is that if you tell people 'I am going to raise YOUR taxes' they will hate you but if you say 'I will raise taxes on corporations' they dont get the connection and love you. This is why I am convinced the general public is dumber then stone.
-
What is so hard to understand about that? The ONLY people in this country that pay taxes are end users. If you tax an industry they pass it on to their customers and their employees through higher prices and lower wages. If you tax an industry to the point where they can no longer do business, they will move somewhere else. Any "windfall profit tax" is just a tax on the end user. Can anyone explain to me how a redistribution of wealth will help this country?
Wealth redistribution has been policy in this country for the past 30 years. It isn't an accident that the top 1% of earners have seen their incomes almost triple since the 70s.
-
Wealth redistribution has been policy in this country for the past 30 years. It isn't an accident that the top 1% of earners have seen their incomes almost triple since the 70s.
:huh
No following you here....what are you saying?
-
No, it will not- it will increase taxes on those individuals making over 250k a year. Remember, taxable income and gross income are two different things- my small mom and pop business will do close to 200k this year, which is my gross, yet my taxable income will be about 48k after writing off business expenses. From my personal position on the tax ladder I'd benefit financially under Obama's proposal more than McCain's, and I'm betting that's true for 98% of everyone who posts here.
The truly amusing thing is its true for at least 99% of the population. This is a more affluent crowd than an average sampling would be, but I really doubt there is more than a couple of people here bringing in more than 250k a year. But they hear "OSAMABAMAMOMMA GONNA RAISE YO TAXES!!!!" so like little sheep-parrots they sit around and chirp that every chance they get.
-
How fun would it be, If everyone had to write their own check each week for federal and state income tax?
Think how much more fun it would be if you changed election day to April 16th.
-
Think how much more fun it would be if you changed election day to April 16th.
:aok
-
No, it will not- it will increase taxes on those individuals making over 250k a year. Remember, taxable income and gross income are two different things- my small mom and pop business will do close to 200k this year, which is my gross, yet my taxable income will be about 48k after writing off business expenses. From my personal position on the tax ladder I'd benefit financially under Obama's proposal more than McCain's, and I'm betting that's true for 98% of everyone who posts here.
Most small businesses pay taxes at the individual rate, and beyond that, it's fundamentally WRONG for the voting majority to vote to confiscate a larger % of 'rich' people's money than anyone elses money. Mr Hitech has a small company, (a corp. I think) and I bet that bastid makes a LOT more than me after taxes---I believe we should vote to take it, that'll teach him :D
-
But they hear "OSAMABAMAMOMMA GONNA RAISE YO TAXES!!!!" so like little sheep-parrots they sit around and chirp that every chance they get.
How about 'OBAMA IS AN UNTRUSTWORTHY LIBERAL SOCIALIST FORMER COMMUNITY ORGANIZER FROM THE CHICAGO SOUTH SIDE WITH A RACIST WIFE AND PREACHER AND AN EX BLACK PANTHER FOR A PAL THAT HAS NO EXECUTIVE OR BUSINESS EXPERIENCE, THAT BREAKS CAMPAIGN PROMISES ABOUT CAMPAIGN FUNDING, BUYS REAL ESTATE AND GETS CAMPAIGN FUNDING FROM CROOKED DEVELOPERS AND TYCOONS AND THEN EXPECTS US TO BELIEVE THE LYING CREEP IS HONEST'.
That ok, Urch?
;)
-
LOL, Hang.. I didn't say I was voting for him.. I was pointing out the behaviour of the Republican sheeple here on the BBS.
-
Oh.. well, in that case, by all means; carry on!
<S!>
-
The taxes are just one of the bad things about the messiah but with the system already depressed and reeling the messiahs plans will destroy all chance of recovery.
-
Baaaaaaaa! Baaaaaaaaaa!
-
LOL, Hang.. I didn't say I was voting for him.. I was pointing out the behaviour of the Republican sheeple here on the BBS.
I'm not sure what the other sheeples think, but the fact that I MAY not be getting a tax increase doesn't make ME think it's any less wrong. Class envy/jealousy isn't the way to base an economic model
-
Your group identity has firmly been established and its not 'shepard.' ;)
-
Wealth redistribution has been policy in this country for the past 30 years. It isn't an accident that the top 1% of earners have seen their incomes almost triple since the 70s.
140 years. Ever since Abraham Lincoln has a stratafied income tax system been in place. Hell, they even changed the constitution to make it EASIER for them to spend it on what they want.
-
No, it will not- it will increase taxes on those individuals making over 250k a year. Remember, taxable income and gross income are two different things- my small mom and pop business will do close to 200k this year, which is my gross, yet my taxable income will be about 48k after writing off business expenses. From my personal position on the tax ladder I'd benefit financially under Obama's proposal more than McCain's, and I'm betting that's true for 98% of everyone who posts here.
Do't bother Carrel
This has been pointed out in several threads already--take away this and all you have left is Obama is a terrorist threads
-
take away this and all you have left is Obama is a terrorist threads
Psst... no he's friendly with a known terrorist. Nice spin though. :aok
-
Psst... no he's friendly with a known terrorist. Nice spin though. :aok
For the liberals and demodorks, spin is all they have, they can't risk the truth being exposed. Destroys all the really cool soundbites they count on to sway peoples emotions. Can't do it with rational arguments.
-
For the liberals and demodorks, spin is all they have, they can't risk the truth being exposed. Destroys all the really cool soundbites they count on to sway peoples emotions. Can't do it with rational arguments.
I thought this was a rational argument, Dago- we were talking about the Obama vs. McCain tax plan, and which one actually lowers taxes, by how much and for whom. It can continue to be rational or people can throw out phrases like "demodork" and make the thread just one more exercise in name calling and insult trading...the only reason I could imagine someone doing that is because that's all they have in their arsenal.
-
I thought this was a rational argument, Dago- we were talking about the Obama vs. McCain tax plan, and which one actually lowers taxes, by how much and for whom. It can continue to be rational or people can throw out phrases like "demodork" and make the thread just one more exercise in name calling and insult trading...the only reason I could imagine someone doing that is because that's all they have in their arsenal.
And yet you ignore Nwbie's post. Convenient?
-
Jealosy? Coveting what the rich have? Its not a hard concept to grasp. They give a tax cut to the people that pay the most taxes (the upper income earners) so that they can in turn use more of that money to hire more people or spend it otherwise and push the economy up. Yes they will make more money that way. They are not the lower income class that spends money foolishly or they wouldnt make so much and therefore pay so much in taxes. With the last round of tax cuts no one rushed out to buy a Lamberti I can tell you that!
-
Ya and all those big bonus' are taxfree too.
-
The giant mega-corps are just stupid offering those bonuses and retirement packages to CEOs I agree there. The majority of millionares in this country are developers and independant contractors though and lumping them with 'windfall executives' is just wrong. Most of them get there through hard work and much sweat and the vast majority drive Ford F150s not hummers or limos.
-
The giant mega-corps are just stupid offering those bonuses and retirement packages to CEOs I agree there. The majority of millionares in this country are developers and independant contractors though and lumping them with 'windfall executives' is just wrong. Most of them get there through hard work and much sweat and the vast majority drive Ford F150s not hummers or limos.
Yup an most of them get there dealing face to face w/ thier customers building good rep's, working hard and doing it w/ethics
-
Do't bother Carrel
This has been pointed out in several threads already--take away this and all you have left is Obama is a terrorist threads
I've repeatedly said I'm not for either candidate.
UNLIKE most here Im not taking either at their word.
But..
Lets see,
To back up his point he points to a for profit Newspaper.
To back myself up I point to a study done by the Brookings Institution
"The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, DC. Our mission is to conduct high-quality, independent research and, based on that research, to provide innovative, practical recommendations that advance three broad goals:
* Strengthen American democracy;
* Foster the economic and social welfare, security and opportunity of all Americans and
* Secure a more open, safe, prosperous and cooperative international system
Research at the Brookings Institution is conducted to inform the public debate, not advance a political agenda. Our scholars are drawn from the United States and abroad—with experience in government and academia—and hold diverse points of view. Brookings's goal is to provide high-quality analysis and recommendations for decision-makers in the U.S. and abroad on the full range of challenges facing an increasingly interdependent world."
Sorry but I'll trust the word of The tax policy center & The Brookings Institution over that of either candidate or a second rate newspaper.
-
For the liberals and demodorks, spin is all they have, they can't risk the truth being exposed. Destroys all the really cool soundbites they count on to sway peoples emotions. Can't do it with rational arguments.
Spin is all either bleeding heart liberal Dumbocrats or nutjob conservative Republicants have.
Every word you wrote can equally be applied to either party...AND their supporters
-
So with Obama's plan will it invigorate small businesses to create more jobs or make them calculate their write offs more vigorasly and pocket whats left over after taxes by hiding it legaly against the future? Ie...not expand and create jobs so other citizens can make money.
Carrel do you employ anyone? Are you looking to grow more jobs to expand your market and help your community? Do you just pocket your after tax income and look for ways to make your retirement egg bigger and less government touchable?
How does Obama's tax plan effect any of you business owners who want to hire more workers and grow your business into the next tax bracket?
-
Psst... no he's friendly with a known terrorist. Nice spin though. :aok
McCain's Small-Business Bunk
July 14, 2008
He claims 23 million small-business owners would pay higher tax rates under Obama. He's wrong. The vast majority would see no change, and many would get a cut.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccains_small-business_bunk.html
-
McCain's Small-Business Bunk
July 14, 2008
He claims 23 million small-business owners would pay higher tax rates under Obama. He's wrong. The vast majority would see no change, and many would get a cut.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccains_small-business_bunk.html
Conflict of intrest using factcheck.org:
Senator Obama was the first Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a Division, or Project, of the Annenberg Foundation.
(FACTCHECK.ORG owned by Annenberg )
-
Conflict of intrest using factcheck.org:
Senator Obama was the first Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a Division, or Project, of the Annenberg Foundation.
(FACTCHECK.ORG owned by Annenberg )
lol