COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Tax the Rich?

Oh, look at that, Marco Rubio admits the Tax Bill will NOT create "economic growth."
"If I were king for a day, this tax bill would have looked different. I thought we probably went too far on (helping) corporations," Rubio said. "By and large, you're going to see a lot of these multinationals buy back shares to drive up the price. Some of them will be forced, because they're sitting on historic levels of cash, to pay out dividends to shareholders. That isn't going to create dramatic economic growth."
Click to expand...

Of course, Rubio comes out with these things once in a while only to pretend he cares, because he wants to run for Pres some day.
 
DawnODay said:
The more complex a tax code is, the more it benefits the rich and powerful to the detriment of the poor and middle class. The rich can afford the lawyers and CPAs necessary to come up with strategies that allow tax avoidance (e.g., right now, those with sufficient disposable income to do so [i.e., the wealthy] are trying to avoid the coming years' $10,000 limit on SALT deductions by prepaying future property taxes this year). The goal of the President and the House conservatives was to simplify the tax code to make it more fair. The Senate frustrated much of that. (Why did no Democrats support the more fair House version, so at least that could have passed over the less fair Senate Republicans' version?)
Click to expand...

So, in this new context, I repeat:

PrincepsCyberius said:
This last fact is one of the main arguments for proponents of a "flat tax." With 50% of the population not contributing to federal revenues, they have no "skin in the game" when it comes to federal spending, waste, or deficits. I'm not sure having them pay the tiny amount they would pay under most viable flat tax schemes would make much difference in that regard, but it certainly would be much fairer if more of the USA's working population paid into the federal treasury.

A flat tax remains progressive and fair. Think of a 20% flat tax with a $10,000.00 personal exemption. If a person is making $20,000.00 per year, he or she would pay $2,000.00 in tax. A person making $200,000.00 per year would pay $38,000.00 in tax. Thus the person making only ten times as much in income pays nineteen times as much as tax (this is because the more you make, the less tax savings you get from the exemption). That is very progressive and far more equitable than the current system.
Click to expand...
 
Because a complex tax code does not benefit the rich. We have to start with that.
 
Sean Renaud said:
Because a complex tax code does not benefit the rich. We have to start with that.
Click to expand...

Seems to be working REALLY well for them.


Maybe the level of complexity doesn't have anything to do with who's benefiting and who's getting fucked....maybe it's the content of the tax code???

Nah that would make too much sense, like politicians being responsible for their acts as politicians.
 
BotanyBoy said:
Maybe the level of complexity doesn't have anything to do with who's benefiting and who's getting fucked....maybe it's the content of the tax code???
Click to expand...

Sounds very much like you think that chess is a better game than quarters, you're real issue is that the people who play chess hire people. And even then the rich pay most of the taxes. Oh and the FANS get a say in what the REFS call. Actually they get all the say you make the wrong calls you get booted.

Tell me who in Congress (aside from arguably the VP) is appointed not voted in by by the fans.
 
Sean Renaud said:
Because a complex tax code does not benefit the rich. We have to start with that.
Click to expand...

That's just backwards. As I wrote earlier:

DawnODay said:
The more complex a tax code is, the more it benefits the rich and powerful to the detriment of the poor and middle class. The rich can afford the lawyers and CPAs necessary to come up with strategies that allow tax avoidance (e.g., right now, those with sufficient disposable income to do so [i.e., the wealthy] are trying to avoid the coming years' $10,000 limit on SALT deductions by prepaying future property taxes this year). The goal of the President and the House conservatives was to simplify the tax code to make it more fair. The Senate frustrated much of that. (Why did no Democrats support the more fair House version, so at least that could have passed over the less fair Senate Republicans' version?)
Click to expand...


BotanyBoy said:
Seems to be working REALLY well for them.


Maybe the level of complexity doesn't have anything to do with who's benefiting and who's getting fucked....maybe it's the content of the tax code???
Click to expand...

Right. It is the special content that benefits the politically connected -- tax credits, deductions, and loopholes to benefit particular industries (or, in practice, even just one company) -- that makes the tax code so complex. A simplified tax code without all those tax credits, deductions, and loopholes is what we need.
 
You wrote that but it doesn't make it true. Most of that complexity never touches the poor or middle class save in that the rich must hire us to navigate it for them. But a flat tax does hurt the middle class because it elimiates stuff that would never touch us in the first place.
 
Sean Renaud said:
You wrote that but it doesn't make it true. Most of that complexity never touches the poor or middle class save in that the rich must hire us to navigate it for them. But a flat tax does hurt the middle class because it elimiates stuff that would never touch us in the first place.
Click to expand...

I agree, just because I wrote it does not mean it's true. Your own words, however, support my conclusion.

As you wrote, the most complex part of the tax code "never touches the poor or middle class." Those complexities, of course, are the deductions, credits, and other loopholes that allow the rich to achieve significant tax avoidance. In other words, the "stuff that would never touch" middle class tax payers are exactly those beneficial deductions, credits, and other loopholes. (Do you really think the people who the wealthy "hire... to navigate" the tax code for them are "poor or middle class"? You obviously don't know many tax lawyers or CPAs!)

Lastly, the idea that complexity in the tax code favors the wealthy is not something I made up. It is generally accepted as the case. See, e.g., A. Kazda, The more complex the tax code, the more the wealthy benefit, The Hill (Jul. 25, 2017).
 
DawnODay said:


"The Trump administration's tax overhaul is the latest piece of good news for the global economy." I. Kottasová, IMF: Trump tax cuts will boost global economy, CNN Money (Jan. 22, 2018).
Click to expand...
From the item:

But the fund cautioned that the positive effects of the U.S. tax changes, which include a lower rate for corporations, would be fleeting. It said that expiring tax provisions and larger fiscal deficits brought on by the tax cuts would drag growth lower, starting in 2022.
Click to expand...
Also, there's no mention of the new tariffs Trump just shat out.
 
phrodeau said:
From the item:

But the fund cautioned that the positive effects of the U.S. tax changes, which include a lower rate for corporations, would be fleeting. It said that expiring tax provisions and larger fiscal deficits brought on by the tax cuts would drag growth lower, starting in 2022.
Click to expand...

Also, there's no mention of the new tariffs Trump just shat out.
Click to expand...

I was wondering who would mention that point in the article.

1. The tax reform will lead to smaller deficits, for the reasons set forth throughout this thread.

2. I agree it's bad that the personal income tax cuts expire in 2022. They should be made permanent to solve the problem set forth in your reply.​

As for the tariffs, I'm not sure a slight rise in the price of solar panels and big laundry appliances will have that much effect on the economy. (I'm wondering: were you critical of Pres. Obama when he imposed similar tariffs in 2012?)
 
Speaking of Tax the Rich, here is how they do it in Saudi Arabia!

Saudi Prince released from detention in Ritz Carlton

A prominent Saudi billionaire, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, has been released from a two-month detention after paying a settlement in an anti-corruption bust. Alwaleed was being detained at the Ritz Carlton hotel in Riyadh.

Alwaleed, a member of the royal family of Saudi Arabia, was freed from the “ world’s most expensive prison” on Saturday. He was one of 17 princes and top officials who were arrested in November in the government crackdown. Alwaleed is one of the richest men in the world, with an estimated net worth of about $17 billion, and some reports estimated that he may be forced to pay around $6 billion for his freedom. He does not hold a position in the Saudi government.

More than 200 members of the Saudi elite, like royalty, businessmen and politicians have been held in an attempt to recover around $100 billion that officials say was misused over the course of decades in embezzlement schemes and corrupt business dealings. Prince Miteb bin Abdullah paid more than $1 billion for his release at the end of November, according to the BBC. The crackdown has officially been characterized as part of a campaign to reform the government but it was also seen by some as a power play by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
Click to expand...

"The royal order was clear," said Attorney General Sheikh Saud al-Mojeb last week, according to Bloomberg News. "Those who express remorse and agree to settle will have any criminal proceedings against them dropped."

Remaining detainees who do not reach settlements before the hotel reopens are expected to be sent to prison to await trial.
Click to expand...

Pay up or Rot in Hell!:devil:
 
JackLuis said:
Speaking of Tax the Rich, here is how they do it in Saudi Arabia!

Saudi Prince released from detention in Ritz Carlton

Pay up or Rot in Hell!:devil:
Click to expand...

I'm trying to understand how this relates to taxation. These are fines based on corruption charges.

I certainly support the full force of law being applied to officials in proven cases of corruption, but that has nothing to do directly with the point of this thread.
 
DawnODay said:
I'm trying to understand how this relates to taxation. These are fines based on corruption charges.

I certainly support the full force of law being applied to officials in proven cases of corruption, but that has nothing to do directly with the point of this thread.
Click to expand...

Well that is true. However at some point there have to be limits and The King seems to have his.

After being ripped off by the Corp's led by the Tax Cutter 'W', and the Corps under Obama's lax DOJ/IRS, during the great melt down I resent having the pay off for Corporate Manipulations of the Economy!

:rose:
 
DawnODay said:


Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more?

- Alvin Lee, I'd Love to Change the World, (1971).
​


In other words:

“The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”


I had a recent PM exchange here that I thought apropos to share in light of the current D.C. debate on tax reform. Because I have not consulted with my correspondent before sharing, I have redacted his name.



Comments?
Click to expand...

I don't think that this would help society or our government in any way.
 
JackLuis said:
Well that is true. However at some point there have to be limits and The King seems to have his.

After being ripped off by the Corp's led by the Tax Cutter 'W', and the Corps under Obama's lax DOJ/IRS, during the great melt down I resent having the pay off for Corporate Manipulations of the Economy!

:rose:
Click to expand...

I could point out that W's tax cuts were simply a continuation of trends and policies of the Bill Clinton administration (Ol' Bubba endorsed Obama's extension of the cuts in 2012), just as W continued the Clinton era "affordable home ownership" practices at HUD and Fannie Mae (putting all kinds of people into houses they couldn't afford) that led to "the great melt down"...

...but, instead, I'll just thank you for the rose.

:)
 
Crime rates and tax rates are similar because 'crime' and 'tax' are ambiguous, distracting terms.

Crime is everything from a speeding ticket to high treason. We must distinguish the types of crimes for any numbers to be meaningful.

Taxes are applied to property, income (personal and business), sales, etc as distinct from imposts, excises, duties, fees, etc which comprise the total tax load. How do varying any individual component affect the national economy?

Show that reducing corporate income tax boosts the economy. C'mon, whip it out.
 
DawnODay said:
I could point out that W's tax cuts were simply a continuation of trends and policies of the Bill Clinton administration
Click to expand...

Even though Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy to 39.6% and Bush lowered that to 35%? Do you even live in reality. You're getting fucking ruined on basic facts. Absolutely fucking ruined.
 
Hypoxia said:
Taxes are applied to property, income (personal and business), sales, etc as distinct from imposts, excises, duties, fees, etc which comprise the total tax load. How do varying any individual component affect the national economy?

Show that reducing corporate income tax boosts the economy.
Click to expand...

First, as you point out, there are more than one kind of tax. With the exception of a few tariffs on esoteric items like solar panels, taxes are only being lowered in Washington D.C. these days.

As for the effect of lowering corporate taxes, when, as we have now, a tight labor market, the law of supply and demand means competition for workers will naturally raise wages.

E.g., J. Manchester, FedEx announces wage increases, bonuses amid tax reform, The Hill (Jan. 26, 2018) ("FedEx announced wage increases, employee bonuses and pension funding on Friday, citing the new Republican-backed tax-reform plan"); A. Shell, List of companies that paid bonuses or boosted pay since tax bill passed, USA Today (Jan. 11, 2018) ("growing number of companies benefiting from tax cuts are showing their employees the money"); R. del Guidice, More Businesses Raise Wages, Give Bonuses in Wake of Tax Cuts, Daily Signal (Jan. 3, 2018) ("businesses are announcing bonuses, higher minimum wages, and new benefits for employees after passage by Congress of Republicans’ tax reform bill").

dan_c00000 said:
Even though Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy to 39.6% and Bush lowered that to 35%?
Click to expand...

C'mon dan_c00000... Check you facts. Learn some history.

Clinton did raise taxes in 1993. The effects on the economy were "disappointing" because it resulted in economic growth "slower than under Reagan," causing "in the 1994 elections, the Democratic Party suffered historic losses."

So, Clinton lowered taxes in 1997. This led to the historic boom of the last few years of the 20th Century. C. Kadlec, The Dangerous Myth About The Bill Clinton Tax Increase, Forbes (Jul. 16, 2012).
 
DawnODay said:
C'mon dan_c00000... Check you facts. Learn some history.
Click to expand...

Sure thing. From you article,

"The 1993 Clinton tax increase raised the top two income tax rates to 36% and 39.6%,"

You got fucking owned, hard.

you-got-owned.jpg
 
More ownage because it's so easy and fun. You're getting wrecked dawn. Between this and you're pretending to be a girl on the internet you're having rough week.

4-11-17trumptax-f3.png


5-2-17tax-f1.png


2300-taxes0929-2-800x598.jpg


housetaxplan-slide-2.jpg


Slide3v2.jpg


161005125340-jobs-added-under-presidents-780x439.png


pbox.php
 
DawnODay said:
First, as you point out, there are more than one kind of tax. With the exception of a few tariffs on esoteric items like solar panels, taxes are only being lowered in Washington D.C. these days.

As for the effect of lowering corporate taxes, when, as we have now, a tight labor market, the law of supply and demand means competition for workers will naturally raise wages.

E.g., J. Manchester, FedEx announces wage increases, bonuses amid tax reform, The Hill (Jan. 26, 2018) ("FedEx announced wage increases, employee bonuses and pension funding on Friday, citing the new Republican-backed tax-reform plan"); A. Shell, List of companies that paid bonuses or boosted pay since tax bill passed, USA Today (Jan. 11, 2018) ("growing number of companies benefiting from tax cuts are showing their employees the money"); R. del Guidice, More Businesses Raise Wages, Give Bonuses in Wake of Tax Cuts, Daily Signal (Jan. 3, 2018) ("businesses are announcing bonuses, higher minimum wages, and new benefits for employees after passage by Congress of Republicans’ tax reform bill").



C'mon dan_c00000... Check you facts. Learn some history.

Clinton did raise taxes in 1993. The effects on the economy were "disappointing" because it resulted in economic growth "slower than under Reagan," causing "in the 1994 elections, the Democratic Party suffered historic losses."

So, Clinton lowered taxes in 1997. This led to the historic boom of the last few years of the 20th Century. C. Kadlec, The Dangerous Myth About The Bill Clinton Tax Increase, Forbes (Jul. 16, 2012).
Click to expand...

dan_c00000 said:
Sure thing. From you article,

"The 1993 Clinton tax increase raised the top two income tax rates to 36% and 39.6%,"
Click to expand...

That was in 1993.

That's exactly my point. As the article makes clear, Clinton raised taxed in 1993, did not like the results, so he lowered taxes in 1997. (Try reading the entire article next time, you won't look so foolish.) That is what I meant by "W's tax cuts were simply a continuation of trends and policies of the Bill Clinton administration."

As so often happens with you, by the time you're done, your entire argument ends up further proving my point.

Thank you.
 
DawnODay said:
so he lowered taxes in 1997
Click to expand...

You can move the goal posts all you want you're still getting fucking destroyed.

Capital gains tax cut in 1997 had little noticeable effect on the U.S. economy

But since you've moved the goalposts let me destroy them for you. The tax brackets for 1993 and 1997 were the same. In fact, in 1997 there were MORE tax brackets. And as those of us with brains know having more tax brackets is more progressive and therefore better.

Even when you move the goal posts you get fucking destroyed. How sad. Another rough day ending a very rough week for dawn.
 
dan_c00000 said:
You can move the goal posts all you want you're still getting fucking destroyed.

Capital gains tax cut in 1997 had little noticeable effect on the U.S. economy

But since you've moved the goalposts let me destroy them for you. The tax brackets for 1993 and 1997 were the same. In fact, in 1997 there were MORE tax brackets. And as those of us with brains know having more tax brackets is more progressive and therefore better.

Even when you move the goal posts you get fucking destroyed. How sad. Another rough day ending a very rough week for dawn.
Click to expand...

Except that I cite Forbes, a highly respected and broadly based publication.

You have to resort to partisan sites like Slate and CFAP.

Similarly, because the actual facts speak for me, I do not have to resort to huge type, over-sized graphics (which violate forum policy), or immature memes. The most I'll do is put some points in bold to make them clear among the quotes.

And, just because you misunderstood my original post doesn't mean I moved the goalposts.

You know, you occasionally actually argue like an adult. Try it more often and you'll do better.

I sincerely hope you have a great weekend!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Americans spend $104 billion on tax preparation services
2 3 4
Replies
82
Views
345
MajorRewrite
M
BabyBoomer50s
Save Prop 13, Stop Voter Suppression in California
Replies
15
Views
142
BabyBoomer50s
BabyBoomer50s
SugarDaddy1
Joe Biden’s signature achievement is his list of broken promises
Replies
1
Views
15
KeithD
KeithD
butters
popular, 71-year-old real estate developer found guilty of $1.4B fraud
Replies
1
Views
69
Bn2f
Bn2f
V
DemetiaJoe will impse wage and price controls
Replies
13
Views
54
ll74
ll74
Back
Top