I just don't consider the 4 cars an ex-boss owned 'company expenses' since his household could only potentially use 2 of the four in the first place. And the computers put in his home, that weren't used for business, but were tax write offs, that's not right either. And the lunches that we all eat, that he could write off even though they were simply lunches, yeah, that's bad.
It goes on and on.
How about running your own business and paying yourself a 'salary' so your business loses money and thus doesn't have to pay taxes? You pay income tax on the salary, but the business gets off scott free. No, that's not right.
And why shouldn't a business pay tax on the $200? If I spend $10,000 on hot dogs, buns and mustard to feed me and my family every year, why can't I write that off like your hypothetical business does?
Why can't you? Hey you are preaching to the choir here bunge. You shouldn't have to pay income tax that comes out of your check before you even get to touch it. If there were a law passed tomorrow that people had to write quarterly income taxes and send them in to the government instead of having them withdrawn before they had even seen the cash, we would have the biggest tax revolt in history.
I would be more than happy to abolish the income tax. Of course I would be more than happy to write off about 75% of what the government does including Bush's prescription drug plan, and much of his governmental growth in spending.
I assure you I will gladly blast Bush in a second for the direction spending has taken under him.
Many large corporations get net tax rebates - they don't pay any taxes at all.
Check out this page. It shows 24 of the largest corporations that paid 0 taxes in recent years, and in fact received tax rebates. Look at number 4, CSX. That was the company run by our current Treasury Secretary. He was able to get $102 million of our money given to his business, despite the fact that they made a $387 million profit.
trumptman:
Quote:
Right now the bottom 50% pay 4% of all tax revenues.
I don't believe that number. That may be federal income taxes, but there are lots of other taxes, most of which are much less progressive than federal income taxes. The payroll taxes, for one. And sales taxes. In addition, even if one accepts that number, maybe the reason is that the upper 50% have so much of the wealth in the country. Maybe a good way to widen the tax base is to have less of a disparity between the upper and lower half, rather than taxing the lower half more?
Well I would say the problem should involve taxes, and spending. So who is willing to toss out what spending should actually be cut in addition to taxes being raised?
Do we honestly need PBS in the age of satellite and cable television? Couldn't the department of education get the heave ho? How about widening the tax base? Right now the bottom 50% pay 4% of all tax revenues. That is why part of why the revenues swing so broadly. When the top stops earning, the incoming taxes are just gone since the tax base is so narrow.
Toss out some spending cuts instead of just decrying tax cuts you wannabe politicos.
Nick
Tax the poor? Reduce spending? The U.S. already has a huge gap between the rich and the poor, and many Republicans apparently want to make it worse.
There was an interesting statistic in the newspapers over the holidays. The U.S. has often portrayed itself as the land of opportunity...a country without a real class system and where anyone can get rich. Recent studies on class mobility in the United States show differently. While there are a number of ways to measure class mobility statistically, no matter which way you choose to measure it, the U.S. comes in way behind Canada. The measures, on average show that U.S. class mobility is about half that of Canada's. Perhaps it is time for the U.S. to increase its very low taxes, increase social services, and offer the poor a better hand up.
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
I just don't consider the 4 cars an ex-boss owned 'company expenses' since his household could only potentially use 2 of the four in the first place. And the computers put in his home, that weren't used for business, but were tax write offs, that's not right either. And the lunches that we all eat, that he could write off even though they were simply lunches, yeah, that's bad.
It goes on and on.
How about running your own business and paying yourself a 'salary' so your business loses money and thus doesn't have to pay taxes? You pay income tax on the salary, but the business gets off scott free. No, that's not right.
And why shouldn't a business pay tax on the $200? If I spend $10,000 on hot dogs, buns and mustard to feed me and my family every year, why can't I write that off like your hypothetical business does?
Why can't you? Hey you are preaching to the choir here bunge. You shouldn't have to pay income tax that comes out of your check before you even get to touch it. If there were a law passed tomorrow that people had to write quarterly income taxes and send them in to the government instead of having them withdrawn before they had even seen the cash, we would have the biggest tax revolt in history.
I would be more than happy to abolish the income tax. Of course I would be more than happy to write off about 75% of what the government does including Bush's prescription drug plan, and much of his governmental growth in spending.
I assure you I will gladly blast Bush in a second for the direction spending has taken under him.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I assure you I will gladly blast Bush in a second for the direction spending has taken under him.
Does...not...compute....
Seriously though, I'm vehemently against breaks for business that individuals don't get first.
Check out this page. It shows 24 of the largest corporations that paid 0 taxes in recent years, and in fact received tax rebates. Look at number 4, CSX. That was the company run by our current Treasury Secretary. He was able to get $102 million of our money given to his business, despite the fact that they made a $387 million profit.
trumptman:
Right now the bottom 50% pay 4% of all tax revenues.
I don't believe that number. That may be federal income taxes, but there are lots of other taxes, most of which are much less progressive than federal income taxes. The payroll taxes, for one. And sales taxes. In addition, even if one accepts that number, maybe the reason is that the upper 50% have so much of the wealth in the country. Maybe a good way to widen the tax base is to have less of a disparity between the upper and lower half, rather than taxing the lower half more?
I found that info about the US taxes compared to other countries. Of the 30 largest industrialized countries, we are 27th. Mexico, S. Korea, and Japan have lower taxes.
Originally posted by BRussell
Many large corporations get net tax rebates - they don't pay any taxes at all.
Check out this page. It shows 24 of the largest corporations that paid 0 taxes in recent years, and in fact received tax rebates.
trumptman,
Feel free to look over those numbers and respond in context to my original post.
Originally posted by trumptman
Well I would say the problem should involve taxes, and spending. So who is willing to toss out what spending should actually be cut in addition to taxes being raised?
Do we honestly need PBS in the age of satellite and cable television? Couldn't the department of education get the heave ho? How about widening the tax base? Right now the bottom 50% pay 4% of all tax revenues. That is why part of why the revenues swing so broadly. When the top stops earning, the incoming taxes are just gone since the tax base is so narrow.
Toss out some spending cuts instead of just decrying tax cuts you wannabe politicos.
Nick
Tax the poor? Reduce spending? The U.S. already has a huge gap between the rich and the poor, and many Republicans apparently want to make it worse.
There was an interesting statistic in the newspapers over the holidays. The U.S. has often portrayed itself as the land of opportunity...a country without a real class system and where anyone can get rich. Recent studies on class mobility in the United States show differently. While there are a number of ways to measure class mobility statistically, no matter which way you choose to measure it, the U.S. comes in way behind Canada. The measures, on average show that U.S. class mobility is about half that of Canada's. Perhaps it is time for the U.S. to increase its very low taxes, increase social services, and offer the poor a better hand up.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Comical. Just utterly comical. That's what AO has become.
He, he, he, he, he!
Aw, cheer up SDW!
It'll all be over in a few months and you can sling mud at the new president!