Or they will if Romney gets his way:
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20 … _rich.html
Man, don't you just hate it when your own source says that his policies will end up lowering the tax burden on everyone, including the poorest?
"Romney's would cut taxes for those with incomes under $20,000 by an average of less than 1 percent, those with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000 by 3.2 percent, and those with incomes of more than $1 million by 9.3 percent."
So, really, by the calculations, everyone becomes richer. It's just that the RELATIVE wealth gained is different.
"But taxes help the poor, and if there is less spending then the poor will starve to death", is the common reply.
Theft doesn't solve poverty.
When we stop allowing politicians to accept bribes, I mean contributions, from special interest groups we may have a fighting chance.
Reducing taxes helps the entire economy. It encourages spending and investment, encourages businesses to start and expand, and in the long term it raises governmental tax receipts.
Yeah, he's not going to lower taxes on those making $20,000 or less by much, but those people already don't pay any taxes at all, so it doesn't really make a difference.
As always. The Republicans are the party of the rich and the banks. What happened to real choice in American politics?
You make no sense whatsoever. Most of the people who vote Republican are not rich. The Republicans are the party of opportunity. Democrats are the party of business unfriendliness and pro government intrusion.
That's the reason he is running, IMO.
He will finish us off for good.
Man, I hate it when someone's tax policy makes the tax burden even lower on everyone!
I love it when people pay taxes!
If everyone would pay their fare share there would be no problem. My girlfriend works for a tax lawyer and it amazes me at how many people don't pay their taxes and how much some owe and then they need to pay a lawyer to get their tax burden reduced because now that they haven't paid the amount is really built up and IRS is coming after them. Greg
"Their fair share" should never be 40%.
Taxes are NOT charity.
Who ever said "40%"? At this point, Santorum, who makes billions of dollars a year pays at a rate of 13%. I, who earn a couple thousand dollars below the poverty level per year, do without health care, and am eligible for no assistance due to being self employed, pay at a rate of 20%.
Where's the 40% coming from? Evan, you are just full of nonsense, and the fact that I have half a dozen notifications of your blather on this board makes you a troll!
You've clearly been brainwashed by Faux News. Corporations and the military and our members of congress and the senate and other so-called representatives of We the People are getting a free ride at the expense of the poor and middle class. That's the reality of the situation.
Cuts surely do need to be made - in our bloated military budget, the massive pay and benefits we give our supposed representatives, and the handouts we give to corporations, big oil and big coal. The huge amount of payroll taxes paid by anyone who gets any kind of income (including wages, social security, welfare, and unemployment) needs to be put back into the system to benefit those paying in. We need universal health care for all and repair to our infrastructure as well as education and job creation.
The Faux News, Mad Tea Party, GOP/Republican Reich notion that the poor and the middle class are paying "no taxes" is just bullshit. The 1% is riding on our backs, and it's time for We the People to shake them off!
From a friend at FaceBook:
Let's look at the ways businesses socialize their costs while privatizing their profits:
1) They receive billions every year in direct federal subsidies, coming from taxpayer dollars.
2) The US government protects their overseas installations and resources through military bases and military intervention, at the cost of trillions to taxpayers.
3) The government picks up the tab for pollution spills, pollution management and monitoring and other environmental protection costs.
4) The government pays for the construction and maintenance of the infrastructure used by businesses to move around their products and make their sales.
5) The government subsidizes and supports the communications network that they use for advertising and sales.
6) The government pays for ecosystem restoration after businesses have depleted them, including expensive programs to rescue endangered species that have been decimated by business practices.
7) The government (along with the public in the form of private tuition payments) pays to educate all American children on behalf of private enterprise, so business doesn't have to train its workers and bear the cost of doing so.
8) The government picks up the tab as the payer of last resort for people who get sick or are injured by dangerous or toxic products, like tobacco and alcohol, or Vioxx.
9) The government ensures that workers who aren't paid a decent wage receive federal supplements in the form of food stamps and other programs, enabling businesses to earn higher profits at the expense of their workers.
10) The government, through Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, cares for the elderly and discarded workers who weren't paid high enough wages to ensure they could care for themselves in old age, and whose pensions were gutted by corporations in the name of "profitability."
Wow. When we look at these items, it becomes clear that we're one of the most socialistic nations out there...we're just socializing the wrong things!
If we really want government to run more like a business, the first question to ask is this: who's going to be the payer of last resort that will enable government to offload their costs so as to seem profitable? Because without that massive government safety net, our corporations would all be deep in the red.
This an excellent summary! The American people make it all happen for business, and they act like they are doing us all the favors!
It's the other way around. Only thing we are left out on is the profit.
Interesting article from a site whos headlines clearly says Liberal, so wonder what point of view it carries? Point of view is not facts. They can make the claims of reducing the deficit, but the CBO has scored the budget and it will add 1.3 trillion dollars to the national debt. Wonder how something that adds to the debt can lower the debt? I really would like an explanation on that please.
It's the truth View....we all know it, and it's obvious.
Business gets a good deal here....and a high quality of life.
They need to go back to the days when the realized that, and thought of their workers as valuable assets, not throw-away commodities.
"hey--let's go where the labor is cheap, and the working conditions suk....mo' money, mo'money!"
"Market economy doesn't exist (as doesn't communism), it's just a theory that has never been applied (as is communism)... exploitation exists, oligopolies or monopolies do too, corruption is abundant, and your “elite” is a sad collection of immature men (and women, when this happens) who need 5 different Porches, a yacht, half a dozen 2000-sqm villas they hardly use, fly a personal plane, pay insane money for relatively normal sex and spend 10,000 USD on a leather jacket to feel like men, possibly even with the illusion that this will preserve them from what awaits everybody. The real flat line."
I know what I posted was the truth. But you did not answer the question.
So I ask again, I Wonder how something that adds to the debt can lower the debt? I really would like an explanation on that please
WHO is adding to the debt AV???
Obama has ended 1 war, on the way to 2....can't he spend that money on us?
MUST it go to tax cuts for the ubers?
Adding to the debt to get us on our feet is something I support.
Having the Ubers pay back what they stole (by gvt policy) is another.
Change the policy...the debt goes down. Rich pay more....economy thrives.
Obama is!!!! Do you not understand anything about a budget? You cannot spend money you do not have. Are you not the one having a caniption that bush spent money on wars we did not have and put us in debt??? So it is OK for Obama to spend the money we did not have in the first place. That money does not need to go to tax breaks, it needs to just not be spent. That is money we are borrowing form China. What part of a 3.9 trillion dollar proposal and only having 2.4 trillion revenues coming in. There is not enough money, period. The CBO scored the new budget with Obamas new spending and including all the tax hikes he want and the deficit grows another 1.3 trillion dollars. What happened to cutting the deficit in half? His budget will be the largest in history. SPEND SPEND SPEND TAX TAX TAX it just does not work. Balance the budget is what is needed
Do you have any idea what kind of profit margin some of these companies run off of? At 1-4% profit, you can't always afford to employ people or base your business in the second-highest-corporate-tax-rate-country-among-developed-countries country.
Can you tell me when...or WHY a CEO needs to make 53 million dollars a year?
Adelson is worth 21.5 BILLION dollars............
And those "nasty" American who earn so little they don't make enough to even PAY income tax.....THEY are the greedy b*st*rds, suckin off Americas teat.
well, those people pay FICA on all their income.....Adelson pays FICA on $106,000 of his.....imagine.
My kids school teacher pays FICA on all her income too. But my police chief doesn't.
Inequality? Discrimination? Nahhhhhhhh. It's fuzzy math!
Because he can, that's the beauty of freedom. The government doesn't decide when enough is enough. I'm assuming the $53 million is what Adelson made last year, well let's look at that.
Las Vegas Sands Corp:
732 million shares
$51.27 per share
CEO SALARY - $53 million
So, let's say Adelson doesn't take a salary at all, and GENEROUSLY donates all of that money to all of the shareholders.
LVS would have SKYROCKETED to $51.34 per share!
CEO salaries are such a tremendously small percentage of total income, that it would make almost 0% difference to the company and the rest of the world if they didn't take a salary at all. Adelson's salary was 1/2 of 1% of the company's revenue. Is that unfair?
Let's say you start a business. It is fairly successful, and last year your business had $500,000 of revenue. Taking the same percentage, you could draw a salary of $2816! But... that wouldn't be fair, would it?
No, there is nothing wrong with a CEO taking 0.5% of a company's revenue as a salary.
Who's calling them nasty? I'm just saying, if you get mad at Romney for 'taking advantage' of the tax code, why not get mad at every American who 'takes advantage' of the tax code?
And yet, they will get the same benefit as what they pay into it... what's the problem? Do you understand what FICA is for?
It's not a problem. You get back what you put in, so fair is fair.
Radical thought! What if instead of donating $53 million to the shareholders he donated $53 million to the lower paid workers who actually earn that wealth for him?
Yeah, he could do that, and I'm sure everyone would appreciate their extra $1000. But, it's not the government's job to tell CEO's what to do with their salary.
Then again, if Adelson didn't have his money, then that would be that many less car/plane/jet/boat/house sales. It would be that much less money in mutual funds, being used by other companies to grow and expand.
You have to understand, that moving money around doesn't create new money... in fact, it can have the opposite effect. Every dollar the government takes from a person is a dollar that person can't use elsewhere in the economy.
And what does the government do with the money? Hoard it or spend it in the economy?
How much do you think goes into our economy?
52% of it goes into the failing programs of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Our government, that you seem to think is so responsible with money, is going to be $45.8 trillion dollars short in being able to pay these entitlements through 2084.
20% goes into Defense, but that area of the budget has grown by 9% per year since 2000, which is an unsustainable rate.
5% goes to interest on our debt, and that figure will continue to rise until we can no longer pay the base interest on our debt unless the government stops growing the deficit like it has.
There are the billions upon billions that we spend on foreign aid and foreign programs. If you want to go into more detail you have to dig into all the discretionary spending programs to see how much is being wasted.
So yeah, let's increase the tax to try and help the economy, which takes money directly out of the economy, and only puts a small portion of it back.
OK, so 52% goes into Social Security and Medicare. And what happens to that money? It's spent on food and other necessities in the economy. Medicare is spent on keeping the workforce healthy, paying wages (which are taxed) and buying medical supplies.
20% goes on defence, what like paying taxable wages, buying supplies and buying weapons!
5% interest on debt, well not so long ago you were trying to convince me that debt was a good thing when it involved shareholders and their right to make money. Why shouldn't they invest in government?
Foreign aid and foreign programs are usually tied up with spending the money at home, you know, we'll lend you $x and you spend $x on aircraft thus giving a big boost to the aircraft industry.
I'd say none of the money is wasted, it all eventually makes its way back in taxes.
The point is that 52% goes into programs that are failing. Programs that could put the US into bankruptcy. The reason? The government can't be trusted with money. It can't save it, it can't manage it.
Paying for wars we don't need, paying for overpriced contracts we don't need, buying weapons we later sell to other countries who we might start a war with in the futures...
You don't seem to understand. Taking money out of the economy and putting a portion back into it doesn't help, it hurts.
What are you talking about? Debt is basically bad. Anyone who lives debt-free can tell you that. Debt is nothing more than a waste of money to have something now rather than later.
With the way our debt is going, it will become unserviceable.
Ok, sure. If you really think the government is so good at handling tax revenue, why is Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security $45 TRILLION DOLLARS in debt?
The more the government gets in the way of the economy, the more it hurts.
Take taxes from corporations, and the little guys suffer.
Take taxes from the rich, and the economy suffers.
Sustain reasonable tax rates, and we have solid growth.
Why is social security lumped in with Medicaid?
Social security is actually in credit, taking in more each year than it spends!
We're talking about the US here. Currently and for the foreseeable future there is more going out in SS benefits than will ever come in. In our system, the babyboomers getting ready to retire and those already collecting benefits far exceed the funds being put into SS.
Also, our SS covers a retirement income, a supplemental income, and also a disability income which can also be collected by dependents before they reach the age of retirement.
So am I - " In 2010, total income was $781.1 billion and expenditures were $712.5 billion, which meant a total net increase in assets of $68.6 billion. Assets in 2010 were $2.6 trillion, an amount that is expected to be adequate to cover the next 10 years."
Yup, for 10 years. And then what?
Over the time period I mentioned, SS will be $14 trillion under what it needs to be. Medicare/Medicaid account for the other $31 trillion.
£2.6 trillion adequate to cover the next ten years! I take that to mean that if no more money came in there would be enough to cover SS for the next ten years.
Either way, it doesn't equate to your claim of $trillions of deficit.
You don't understand. In 10 years, there will be no excess, there will be a deficit. At that point, there won't be enough money coming into SS to pay the benefits, and benefits would have to be cut by 25%. By 2084 SS will have been lacking by $14 trillion dollars.
So rather than being $trillions short already you are now saying that will come about in 2084?
Can you read? Go back and look at what I have said.
I said, through 2084, our government will be $45 trillion short in those programs.
That's your governmental money-management.
No, you said that it was already $trillions in debt.
"52% of it goes into the failing programs of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Our government, that you seem to think is so responsible with money, is going to be $45.8 trillion dollars short in being able to pay these entitlements through 2084."
"The government has already ruined SS and Medicare/Medicaid. Through 2084, we're going to be $45 TRILLION DOLLARS short in paying out those benefits."
Obviously not there.
Are you referring to this?
"Ok, sure. If you really think the government is so good at handling tax revenue, why is Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security $45 TRILLION DOLLARS in debt?"
It's clear that I am speaking about the debt incurred over the time period I have already clarified twice.
If you have $100,000 of debt that you don't have to start paying for 20 years, it's still debt.
That's the baby. It isn't at all clear that you are speaking of future debt,mostly from the word "is" and not will be or might be.
I already said. If you have $100,000 in debt that you don't have to pay for 20 years, it's still debt.
You're just trying to take one little thing I said out of context to avoid the issue at hand. It's classic.
In case you forgot, the issue is that the government doesn't do very well in handling our money for us. The more they take out, the more poorly we are going to do as a whole.
The same right wing nonsense we've been hearing for years.
Truth: http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/heal … eally.html
Medicare funding is the problem, not Social Security. With a couple of small tweaks, Social Security will be on a sound financial footing for the forseeable future. Medicare is another story because health care costs are increasing at a much faster rate than the overall rate of inflation for many reasons--parasitic insurance companies, for profit medicine in which doctors own the hospitals and testing facilities, piece rate payment systems (doctors and hospitals are reimbursed for each procedure they perform or test they order with the predictable result that they perform unnecessary and sometimes harmful procedures and they order costly, unnecessary tests which also can be harmful, e.g., CAT Scans, fraud and so forth.) Massachusetts is currently experimenting with per capita reimbursement rather than payment for each procedure or test.
Because the SS trust will be completely empty by 2036. At that point, benefits will go down by a quarter, then a third, and we have no projections past that point.
SS is failing just like Medicare/Medicaid. It is contributing $14 trillion to the $45 trillion I mentioned.
"Santorum, who makes billions of dollars a year pays at a rate of 13%"
Please cite your source showing this to be true. Please stop sputtering utter nonsense then accuse someone else of doing so.
I doubt that Evan needs Faux News to come up with his, umm, views. I think he does it all by himself.
The Federal government spends just under $4 trillion a year.
Each year the US economy, spends about $10 trillion.
In order to pay for everything our FEDERAL government did, we'd have to have a 40% tax rate.
We'd probably need a 50% rate to pay for local and state.
For once, you are correct.
Of course you are still wrong in thinking that is a horrible thing.
Low income people cannot bear that burden, which is why the wealthy must bear more of it.
Haha, you can't be serious. Yes, that is a very bad thing.
Do you know what would happen to the markets if tax on investments was raised to 40 or 50 percent?
Do you know what would happen to the economy if businesses had to pay 40 or 50 percent?
Yes, it would.
2-1 risk-reward ratio as a minimum on any trade.
Buy 100 at 10, sell at 12, stop at 9. If you're right 50% of the time then you will earn 200 and lose 100 every 2 trades.
If you tax that at 50%, you're effectively doubling the difficulty of making any money from investments. In other words, you are removing the strongest, most common, staple investment in the market.
So, you have to go for 3-1 risk-reward. Buy 100 at 10, sell at 13, stop at 9. If you're right 50% of the time(not likely with a 3-1 shot), then you make 300 and lose 100, or make 200 every 2 trades. With 50% tax, you're back to your 2-1 ratio.
2-1 is easy to find(if you are experienced). 3-1 is much less common. The markets would take a huge hit from that alone.
What about the other side of investing? Take Hershey for example. 2011, they paid 65 million in tax on 207 million in income. Increase it to 50% and they would owe an additional 40 million in taxes.
Hmm... I wonder where they would take that money from? Maybe from the 80 million dollar dividend they just issued? So, the extra taxes aren't coming from Hershey... they're coming from Hershey's investors. They're coming from private investors, investor groups, mutual funds, etc.
On top of that, if a company lowers the amount they issue in dividends, what happens to the stock price? It's not worth as much to investors, so the price goes down... that's more money that investors and mutual funds start losing.
... It's just not a good idea.
And where do you think the money comes from now?
What are you going on about?
The money comes from where it comes from, and the market reflects that. If taxes were lowered substantially, the markets would reflect that by rising.
I'm just trying to help you understand that raising taxes on corporations doesn't just take money from imaginary stockpiles of cash these corporations are sitting on. It takes it out of, and hurts, the economy as a whole.
Do you understand that less profit for a company = less dividends(among other things) = less gain from the stock = less value of the stock = lower prices = lost money in investments = damage to the economy?
Some taxes, yes. But there is obviously a limit, unless you believe in the government controlling all wealth... if that's the case, then get out of America.
If not, then you have to decide if our tax rates would be better or worse higher than they are.
They would be worse.
Of course, you could always try to make an actual argument as to why higher taxes would be better, even considering the damage they would do to the economy.
Oh, of course "get out of America" if I don't agree with Right wing greed.
Get out of America if you believe in communism or socialism. Get out of America if you think our tax rate should be 100%.
You are blatantly misrepresenting my words.
I DO believe in social programs, for the benefit of society. I don't believe in Libertarian quackery. I believe in public roads, public utilities when needed, public health care and many other things. I also believe in capitalism - I've been a small business owner most of my life, but I think unrestrained capitalism is worse than socialism.
Does that make me a socialist? Do I have to "get out?"
It's funny - you said I'm correct AFTER you made fun of me for using these stats.
I know what you mean, the last two years I ran my business I showed a loss at the end of the year, yet somehow owed Uncle Sam over 5,000 dollars while multi-billion dollar corporations don't pay that much after all their loop holes and tax breaks. I've had this discussion more than once with people who claim that the poor and middle class pay little or no taxes. It makes me sick to see how easily many people are blinded by smooth talking politicians and news reporters.
Is it your business that owed or was it your personal income? Do you have employees? Are those taxes employees SS or Medicare tax? If you are not drawing a salary and your business really is posting a loss but the business still paid taxes, you need a new accountant. Business only pay taxes on the net profits.
It is my personal income, and I have no employees. Sole proprietorship.
Ok, so you claimed you make a few thousand less than the poverty level.Poverty level for 2011 was $22, 250 per year. Tax rate for $8,500 to $34,500 is 15% (SOURCE irs.gov). So based on your information you should have paid 15% before deductions. If you paid more, you need a new tax preparer.
American View, the figure you quote is for a 4-person family, but the poverty threshold for one person is $10,890 annually (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/figures-fed-reg.shtml). People who make less than that, as I do, cannot afford tax preparers. Nor can they afford to itemize. The amount of itemized deductions turns out to be less than the standard deduction and the huge amount of tax paid is a non-negotiable "self-employment tax" that is so exorbitant as to never be payable in one lump sum, meaning interest and penalties continue to accrue month to month and year to year on an amount that will never be paid in full.
This is how I got hooked as well, I did itemize as I spent 100,000 plus on supplies, labor, gas, and so on. The self-employment tax is what killed me and I have heard the same story from many of my friends and colleagues who have been in similar situations. Luckily I had plenty of funds put away from the years that were quite lucrative so I just paid, but never understood how I made no profit for the year, but still payed so much, that is why I got out while I could.
Read my reply to Justme. You too can read up on it. You only pay self employment tax on Net Profit. Hope this helps for this tax season
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/art … ,00.html#2
Its a good thing there are so many free tax services online.
Ok Just, so if you made less than the 10,000 than you only paid 10%, still not 20%.
Now that you have said self employment tax, that is a new ball game. Do you know or understand what self employment tax is? That tax is based on your net income and it is your SS and Medicare tax. But again, you only pay this tax on Net Profit. If you are posting a loss you do not pay. Besides being a firefighter, I owned a construction company. I took it form a small me only company to one that had 50 employees. I understand completely what it takes being a small business owner. You can read up on it here so you can be ready for this tax season. I hope this helps. http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/art … ,00.html#2
1. Yes, I know what self-employment tax is. The fact that it is intended to pay for Medicare and Social Security is of no consolation since I am eligible for neither and by the time I am eligible, we probably won't have those programs any more, so my money is just being given away.
2. As I said, my business expenses are less than the standard deduction, so I take the standard deduction. My business is not at a loss. I just don't make much money.
3. Regardless of what type of taxes are being discussed (self-employment, payroll or income) the fact remains that after all is said and done, 20% or more of my meager income goes to the IRS, and this is an ongoing hardship.
4. If the 1% and corporations paid 20% in taxes, it would be no hardship to them, and it would go far toward solving our debt problems.
5. Yes, I have looked into "free" online tax programs and found them unnecessarily complex, time consuming and not worth bothering with. I am capable of doing my taxes, thank you very much.
It is funny how so many people keep posting about how self employed individuals are taxed, when they apparently don't have all the facts. I know your situation I was there for many years, and have many friends and colleagues in the same situation. Apparently we just didn't have a slick tax attorney to show us all the loopholes that could have helped us avoid paying taxes like larger corporations have. They can post all of the government and news sites they want, but the fact still remains that in reality the poor wind up paying more than the rich, and the super rich don't pay at all. I have too many friends in all of the different tax brackets to ever be fooled into believing otherwise. I personally know two millionaires who routinely brag about how they don't pay taxes and neither do any of their rich friends.
You are making an error.
Your business expenses are reported against business income and reduce the amount subject to self employment tax.
The standard deduction does not reduce business income.
Also, after deducting your business expenses, you can still take the standard deduction.
Sounds like you should have paid for decent tax software as you apparently do NOT know how to do your own taxes.
You can file amended returns and will probably get a good amount back. Given the screwup, it might be worth paying someone to fix it this once. Then buy and use something like TurboTax.
I did actually consult 2 "experts" last year, and the "itemized deductions are less than standard deduction; therefore, just take the standard deduction" is the answer I got from both. What you say certainly would seem to make sense, but I don't think it's true.
" you should have paid for decent tax software"
" pay... someone to fix it"
"buy and use something like TurboTax"
These are not things that are possible for me - at all.
The standard/itemized deduction is a deduction that lowers your personal taxable income. You should always take the larger one.
Business expenses should all be deducted on a schedule C to make sure you are only paying taxes on net business income, not gross.
That's what Pcunix meant by taking both.
I don't know if you can do this with previous years with TurboTax, but I would imagine you could. You can file a return and have the cost taken out of your refund, so no out-of-pocket expenses.
You can also take your information to a tax-prep place, have them look for those kinds of errors, and if they can get you a big refund, they can take their fee out of that refund as well.
Yes, what I say is true.
What they said is true, but it has nothing to do with your business. You can't even deduct business expenses in that section.
Business income and expenses are reported on Schedule C: look, right here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040sc.pdf
If you had itemized deductions (which have absolutely NOTHING to do with business income), you'd report them on Schedule A : http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040sa.pdf
Whoever has been advising you is a fool, sorry.
I had a free consultation with Liberty Tax, who ran all my info through their software, and I went to a workshop at the library conducted by accountants working pro-bono, who ran all my info through the IRS software. Both came up with exactly what I had come up with on my own.
To deduct an expense, you have to be able to pay for the expense to begin with.
It was personal as I had no tax id number, though they call it a self-employment tax. I had employees, who all signed a waiver for unemployment and were all issued a 1099 at the end of the year. I did not have an accountant for those years as I said I showed a loss, how would I have afforded one. I took a few tax classes so I was doing them myself, I probably didn't know all that I needed to, just saying that was my situation.
Don't you know 47% of Americans pay no taxes? That's the canard they use.
How did you run a loss on your business and still owe taxes on it?
New accountant maybe?
The tax they were talking about was the self employment tax. This is the SS and Medicare tax. I am not sure but I do not think they realized you only pay this tax on your Net income. I think they paid it based on their Gross income and that is where the error occurred for them. At least that is what the information they provided shows
SE tax does need fixing... it should come before deductions just like regular income... it's disastrous to new companies. I understand the situation they were in, too bad they apparently didn't get them filed correctly...
They might be able to amend the returns and get their money back though, I think. I'm kind of rusty on tax law.
I've only posted a net profit the last few years... it's a good feeling even though I hate paying the taxes
You would be surprised how many businesses find themselves in the same boat, you pay self-employment taxes whether you make a profit or not, the privilege of being self-employed.
No you do not. I did not pay it until my company became profitable. Go read the link I left you in a prior post. It is from the IRS site. It will tell you the same thing I am telling you, it is a tax based on Net Profits. If your Net is zero or a loss, you do not pay it. You can pay it if you want to. I was just trying to help. I do not want to see people pay more than they should.
SE tax is only tax on profit.
Non federal GDP = $10T
Federal Spending = $4T
His income tax is probably 13%.
What about the other taxes he has to pay?
It's just that if people would pay what they are supposed to every year, that would be more fair than not paying. What about the people that do pay their taxes every year and then the people that don't. There are billions in unpaid taxes that should have been paid. Then they are forgiven a certain amount if they agree to pay a certain amount. I have always paid my taxes whenthey were due.
Romney doesn't need his taxes lowered, he needs them raised.
He got all the Bennies for the past 30 years. Times up.
Time to give back what was taken from all the rest of the country who have suffered for his, and people like him, greed.
"The top 1 percent of households by wealth had a net worth 225 times greater than the median household in 2009 http://mojo.ly/AlTlnI
That's why a flat tax should be used. Everyone pay the same percentage of what the make. No write-offs, no tax-breaks for spending more money. Greg
And how are the poor supposed to afford that?
PC, if they are poor, they wouldn't pay tax with a flat tax. The more someone makes, the more they pay for taxes, likewise, the less they make the less they pay for taxes. A flat tax is the same percentage of tax for everyone.
Yeah, exactly as it is now. The poor pay nothing and the rich pay a lot.
The rich should pay a lot, which they don't now because they have so many deductions and loopholes, and chances are they have had a lot more oppertunities to get them where they are than the poor.
A flat tax is still not a fair tax. The only truly fair tax would be a national sales tax... Eliminate all income taxes, corporate and individual and add a federal sales tax. Neal Boortz introduced the Fair Tax which I see as the only tax system that is completely favorable to those living below the poverty line. It's also the only tax system that is completely fair to everyone regardless of the amount of money they earn. This system eliminates the IRS, or at the very least changes their mission from income based accounting to sales tax based accounting.
I don't know how you figure that would be fair. The only way you would be able to buy anything is if you are rich. Also, that would discourage people from buying anything. That would hurt business. Greg
The only fair tax is 0. The founders pretty much knew this - the main stream of revenue for the Federal Government was through tariffs.
A Federal sales tax is not a good idea. You think there is fraud now? Not to mention the size of government needed to keep track of accuracy. The only fair system is one that eliminates all deductions for business and personal. Then establish a tax rate based on income. under 15,000 pays 0% 15,000 to 30,000 pays 5% 30,000 to 50,000 pays 10% 50,000 to 75,000 18% 75,000 to 100,000 22% 100,000 to 150,000 26% 150,000 to 200,000 pays 30% 200,000 to 300,000 pays 35% above 300,000 pays 40% That way everyone pays except the very low income earners. The 50% that do not pay will now be paying.
A flat percentage rate for everybody, no matter what the income, with no deductions. The more you make, the more you pay. The less you make, the less you pay. That way everyone pays according to what they make.
If the flat fee is say 26% as most who are for this say the rate needs to be, why should a person making $10,000 pay the same percetage as the guy making $100,000? It is tough enough to get by on 10 thousand think how tough it will be on $7,400. At least the 100 thousand guy still has $74,000 to live on. That is why I stagger the percent paid starting small and working the way up with the more you make. We do agree on eliminating all deductions. I have written about overhauling the tax system
I disagree. Income shouldn't be taxed at all, the government shouldn't get one red cent from what I earn. If anything, they should collect off of what I consume. Having no income tax or FICA would make the take home pay exactly what it is supposed to be. Sure, every tax system is open to fraud but with a sales tax instead of an income tax, we wouldn't have to worry about off shore tax shelters or where people are hiding their income from Uncle Sam because Uncle Sam would get paid from every stick of chewing gum to every ounce of fuel put into Romney's Lear Jet. Plus, the Fair Tax has safeguards in it for the working poor called prebates. Effectively, consumers would receive sales tax returns based on how much they consumed compared to how much they earned.
Actually you have to worry about off shore accounts more with the sales tax system. There are so many ways to discount and not count tax collected. If you use an international bank or off shore bank, you can deposit those funds and only pay a fraction back making it easy to hide. There are also 3 ways to not pay a sales tax. It is way to easy to not pay a sales tax.
I'm sure it is easy to hide sales tax but a sales tax will also account for the 100k + of illegals working here under false id's. No longer would we have to worry about those funds not being collected or reported. They consume, they pay, just like every other person in this country.
Is it a perfect system? No. Is it more fair than an income tax? Yes. Will an income tax completely fund social security forever? No but the Fair Tax will.
Explain why off shore accounts would cause more worry when income is taken off the record completely. An individuals income would become immaterial. The income of publicly traded corporations would still need to be reported so that shareholders are protected. Privately held corporations would benefit just as individuals.
Government would no longer be able to legislate through the tax code, such as deciding to levy heavy taxes on bonuses paid to brokers, or wielding moral legislation by increasing taxes on cigarettes or alcohol consumption. The size of government wouldn't change by replacing the current tax code with a sales tax since the 90k+ IRS employees would only need be reassigned by their mission.
The fact is, a sales tax system would make the US the ultimate tax haven and create growth in every industry and also reduce unemployment. People working, people consuming. It's a self sustaining model that the current system could never achieve.
I do not know how many IRS agent there currently are processing tax returns.let's just say there are 60 million returns to check each year, I am sure it is more. They go over the average tax return, some are 1 page, some are 4 pages, some are more. In comparison, how many point of sales transactions are there in a day? I bet more than 60 million in a day. Think about everything purchased everyday form supermarkets, to clothes, shoes, gas for the car, furniture, a new car and so much more. Well the IRS will now be tracing, tracking, and accounting for ALL of it. Let's face it, they are not going to take WalMart at their word if they send in a check for the sales revenue, the IRS will want to make sure they reported it properly. So just like how they check your current tax return, they will check every transaction every register made. I have a friend who heads a department for JC Penny and that is what that department does everyday. They track every purchase of every register in every store. there are over 100 employees that do that task everyday. And this is just one company. Think of how many IRS agent it would take to do that for every company? Remember, tax returns are only once per year, sales tax occurs everyday.
Have you considered the cost added to everything made? Under a sales tax system everything gets taxed. So if one needs say 30 parts to build his product then send it to market, he will now be paying a sales tax on those parts they are not paying now. Imagine that on a car with thousands of parts. Oh, you may say "well a business can continue the practice of a resale tax certificate. That of course means a business does not have to pay sales tax on those parts. But for companies that do that, they need to keep a set of records for that, more for the IRS to have to check for accuracy.
Will you take away the resales tax certificates from Non-profits, from businesses? For if you do not, this is just one of the ways to get around paying sales tax, one way to beat the system. Can you imagine how many people will create a family trust, which is a non-profit people do now to avoid paying taxes, and get resales tax certificates so as to not pay sales tax? Or how many will file new business names to get them and not pay sales tax? This is only one of the three way I mentioned getting around paying sales tax.
The fact is a sales tax will not be a fair system. If one existed, I can guarantee, Warren, I should pay more, Buffet will be the first in line to get a resale certificate or create a family trust which I bet he already has to hide investment money in, and not pay taxes on his purchases. You are right, no system is perfect, a sales tax system has more ways for people and business to not pay sales tax than the current tax system with all its loopholes.
I'm sorry but you are delusional if you believe that the IRS looks at every single tax return. They look for things that stand out as not being in keeping with past returns. You know, those things they call 'red flags.'
So, in a sales tax based system the merchant would be responsible for keeping his/her records as they do now, and paying their taxes quarterly, as is required now, and not as you suggest as an annual obligation. Income is reported annually for individuals and quarterly for businesses.
It would not be the responsibility of the IRS to track every single transaction only to track those companies that are arrogant enough to try and hide transactions. Your friend at JC Penny does not do this for the IRS he does it for the company so that they can track trends and losses within the company.
Yes there is an elevated cost to everything consumed but then again you have no income tax or FICA being taken from you paycheck so you will have more income to consume. A tax based on consumption is far more fair than a tax based on earnings.
I don't think that a CEO that earns $53 million, that has obviously worked the right angles to get to his position, should carry more of a tax burden than the the local mail man. The CEO is obviously going to consume way more than the mail man thus paying a greater sales tax, so in the end, it will equal out only now the burden is spread equally among all consumers not just income earners.
Sorry you think I am delusional when I understand the problem and you are not grasping it. I 4 friends working for the IRS, 2 here ion Texas, 2 in Florida. I know exactly what they look for, their triggers and how they check or scan over all returns sent in.They may not audit you but do you think you return is not perused every year? how else do you think you get your returns or adjustments are made on small errors.
What do you think will happen when you eliminate SS and Medicare withholding? Can you say a super large welfare entitlement system that will increase the sales tax to cover it?
You having friends that work for the IRS somehow makes you an expert. I'm afraid you are not grasping it. SS and Medicare are not being eliminated they are being funded through the sales tax which is unlimited and perpetual unlike an income tax. This means that my grandchildren will be able to collect without fear of the funds running out by the time they are old enough.
Let me see, on small errors you think that the IRS is looking for them so they can pay you back Maybe you should talk to your friends a little more.
Super large welfare entitlement.... Hmmm how does that work exactly? The tax burden is spread equally among all consumers and that is somehow going to cause more people to become dependent on welfare? I think you need to examine your assumptions on cause and effect a little more closely. Seems to me that if the tax burden were more equally spread among consumers then the middle class will be favored the most as they will no longer have to brunt the majority of the load. The heavy consumers (the wealthy) will brunt a more fair share.
It also seems to me that those under the poverty level will consume the items they need instead of trading their welfare for LCD flat screen tv's, Xbox 360's, 20 inch rims for their $500 cars, no instead they might just find it more beneficial to get one of those things called jobs that the sales tax system would provide an abundance of since the US would become a Super Tax Haven attracting lost business and new businesses in droves. Certainly its not going to eliminate welfare all together since there will always be those that either can't work or won't work and will need assistance.
A sales tax system would also eliminate the idea of redistribution of wealth because eventually the tax will be so entwined with the product that it will not even be noticed by most consumers just as most consumers don't notice that nearly 50% of the cost of fuel goes towards some tax or another.
I grasp perfectly, you are just understand how the system really works. Well, believe what you want, think you know more than the experts who wrote on the subject, ignore the reports from the government GAO, IRS and others who issued reports on all the shortfalls of what you propose. I hope you get what you want just like all those how scoffed at me when I told them everything in Obamacare when it came out since I read it, and now cannot believe I was right. Wonder what you will say then.
First, I never scoffed at you, I only disagree with you. Second, I didn't propose anything, I support the idea that government be supported through consumption not earnings. And I am certain I haven't even touched the surface of all the Government naysayers that enjoy pitting the rich against the poor, more than enjoy, they make a lucrative living at it.
You wonder what I would say to you... well I wouldn't say anything to you since you haven't provided any concrete evidence that would support the continuance of a limited taxation scheme such as we now have. What is it that frightens you so much to examine the idea of a consumption based taxation model? The way it is now, there is a limit for everything the government provides and sooner or later the bandaides are not going to stick any longer. We need to move to a system that is perpetual, one that will provide for all government programs, one that builds our economy instead of tearing it down, one that bridges the gap between wealth and poverty, one that does not cause severe hatred of the rich and class warfare.
A consumption based tax system will perpetually provide for SS and Medicare, it will perpetually provide for all welfare programs. It will not overly burden the middle class, it will provide rebates for those below the poverty level, and the wealthy will only pay on what they consume which is far greater than the 99%.
The biggest argument is "we're going to have to pay more for everything" Well, yes. You will also have all of your paycheck to do so instead of the roughly 63% you get to keep now, plus depending on your income you will qualify for rebates (prebates)towards your sales tax.
So, roughly 37% of your income goes to pay taxes to support programs that are flat broke and are bankrupting us, or 23% of your income (the fairtax cap) goes towards those same programs that will be perpetually taken care of. That 14% gap will be accounted for in the increase of products that you will eventually never even recognize as I mentioned earlier in the fuel tax scenario.
Plus, the fairtax would foster a business friendly environment, reduce unemployment, and expand our GDP. It would reduce our fear of illegal aliens. It would also reduce the size of government by combining overlapping bureaucracies such as the IRS, Treasury Dept, Customs, Border Patrol, the ATF, etc... Instead of calling it Homeland Security they can call it Homeland Prosperity.
Unless there are exemptions from the tax, a sales tax still unfairly burdens the poor.
Exemptions get complicated and abused (most often by those responsible for collecting the tax, of course).
They are called prebates and the poor will effectively be making purchases tax free. All the welfare programs that are safeguards now will still be in place and funded through a sales tax which would place an equal burden on every consumer and not just on those that are working or have an income.
How does that work then, the poor making tax free purchases?
Well not exactly tax free but they will be given an monthly rebate based on their consumption... http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer? … _answers#3
The 50% pay FICA...where does that chime in?
You are talking about income tax...and it's a crying shame that 50% of Americans don't make enough to afford it!
Why are we allowing such a small wage? Profits have soared, yet workers are in poverty.....
Business needs to pay a livable wage...THAT'S where the problem is!
Hey fellas.....a little less vacation an luxury homes...more equity from making your business a success.
Mother Jones? could you not cite a more unreliable source.
Well, I asked and you did, Just another opinion piece more unreliable than the last one. Just because this person disagrees with the Wall Street Journal does not make him right. In fact if you check on some of his numbers and facts as I did, you will find he was inaccurate.
Are you seriously questioning whether the bulk of the wealth of this country went to the top 0.01% of "Americans" these past 30 or so years....
Then you are not half as smart as I thought you were!
How bout the Economist? Sufficiently right leaning to be true? and this could go on all day...no matter how you spin it, the truth is obvious.
"Yeah, there's a class war, and my class won!" Warren Buffet
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailycha … ty-america
"Are you seriously questioning whether the bulk of the wealth of this country went to the top 0.01% of "Americans" these past 30 or so years...."
What I question are the opinion one side sources you use. Of course when you look just at numbers on the income level I can make it look like the 1% are ripping us off. But as I showed you in an article I wrote, by percentages they did not. if over the last 30 years income levels went up 50% then a person making $10,000 30 years ago is making $15,000 today. Someone making a million is now making 1.5 million. while one went up 5,000 the other went up 500,000 dollars. Yet the percentages are the same. And just the same is the cost of living. Just like the cost of your purchases, went up 200 percent, so did theirs. Everything is relevant. If you turn back the hands of time, people were complaining then as well about the top earners. But the proportions then are the same today.
And just a note, while you say about the bulk of the wealth, I do not hear anything about who pays the bulk of the taxes?
They have to pay the bulk of the taxes....they have all of the INCOME!!!
AND the amount of taxes they pay, >percentage-wise< is LESS than my kids school teacher!
Percentage of income taxed is less for very rich peeps.
NO NO NO NO NO!
The rich pay a MUCH HIGHER TAX RATE on income than everyone else.
What you are trying to do is compare Mr. Rich's tax rate on investment income to Mr. Poor's tax rate on regular income. Mr. Rich's tax rate on regular income is between 4 and 13 times higher than Mr. Poor's tax rate on regular income, and their tax rates on investment income are the same.
Thank you Jaxson, I cannot figure out why some cannot see it. It is there in black and white for all to read.
I know... it really is amazing.
I especially love when people claim that corporations pay so little in America, usually by citing that NYTimes article about GE that was shown to be so unbelievably wrong and ignorant...
Let me tell you, I've taken advantage of the EIC a few times in my life, and I was glad that it was there, but I never felt like I could complain when rich people pay 20%, and I was making 25% of my total income in tax refunds.
If the top 1% paid taxes in proportion like the rest of us our deficit wouldn't be where it is today. It amazes me how easily the average person is fooled by a few false numbers.
The top 1% pay a percentage 13 times greater than the bottom 50%. How is that not in proportion?
But I constantly see the claim that the bottom 50% pay no tax at all.
When I was at school, 13 x 0 = 0!
Are you trying to be difficult just to be difficult?
The number usually put forth is 47% that pay no taxes. It's different every year.
My figures are coming from 2008, where the bottom 50% averaged a WHOPPING 1.85%, and the top 1% got away with paying a measly 24%. How dare they only pay that much.
Then there are lies, damned lies and statistics!
If 47% paid no taxes and the bottom 50% paid 1.85% then your figures are absolutely meaningless!
Why are they meaningless?
The bottom 50% of Americans averaged 1.85% taxes... what is meaningless about that?
People say that the rich don't pay their fair share, but they pay 24%. How is that meaningless?
Or, how about the top 1% making 20% of all the income, but paying 38% of all the taxes?
Any way you slice it, the rich pay more than the poor. Anyone who claims that that isn't fair and they should pay more... is just living in delusion.
What is meaningless is that the majority of the 50% do not earn enough to pay any tax at all.
Meanwhile the top 1% have 25% of all the income but control 40% of the wealth, their share growing year on year whilst the share of the rest shrinks.
Meanwhile the top 1% benefit from more and more tax cuts, whilst the rest pay more.
Anybody who thinks it fair that the richest should not pay more than the poor is living in delusion.
And why is it so unfair that the poor don't pay taxes and the rich do?
20%, but they pay 38% of all the taxes... so they pay double their share... they carry double the workload of the rest of the 99% combined.
Really? The top 1% paid 24% in 2008. They have been between 24% and 28% since 1987. Where is the 'more and more tax cuts' they are benefiting from? They've basically paid the same effective rate for the last 25 years.
On the other hand, the bottom 50% has dropped from an average of 5% to 1.85% over that same time period.
So, I'm afraid you are wrong. It's the poor who have been paying less and less, not more and more.
The rich do pay more than the poor. 24% is more than 1.85%. 13 times more.
America is NOT a country where anybody decides 'That person has done well, so we should take his stuff.'
America is a land of freedom and opportunity. Romney paid a higher tax rate on his income than you probably ever will, so if anyone should complain, it's him.
Oh yes it is!
From 2000-2008, gvt decided that the Rich get it all.
It's no longer the land of opportunity. It's the land of opportunity for those who can afford it to begin with.
Romney hides his income, uses tax favors, outsources jobs, takes complete advantage of the advantages afforded him.
Meanwhile, those employees of his can make $8.oo an hour and no bennies....gee, what a guy!
The rich get it all? How so?
The top 1% payed a tax rate 13 times higher than the bottom 50% in 2008. You don't think 13 times more is fair?
People outsource jobs because America is a difficult place to run a business with employees. The second highest corporate tax rate, cost of benefits, etc... Many companies would go bankrupt if they didn't outsource jobs.
As far as taking advantage of the tax code... what about the family of 4 that makes $21,000 and gets a $6,000 tax REFUND(even with no taxes withheld all year), by 'taking advantage' of the tax code... the door swings both ways.
That is what it is like living in Britain at the moment Cameron helping the rich to get richer and the poor to starve to death :*(
Britain is a welfare state. The simple fact that people think that Britain isn't doing enough for the poor has got to be the biggest irony this planet has ever seen.
Next you're going to tell me that Greece needs to tax more and spend the money on the poor (psst, no one has money in Greece, that's why they're begging the rest of the world to give them money).
On the contrary Evan, Britain is doing loads for the poor, it's on a massive recruitment drive to increase the numbers.
Where on earth do you get your facts from, Evan? Are you aware that those families in this country who are underemployed (not because of choice but because of lack of opportunity) are about to have whatever government aid they had previously received, you know, for the essentials like food and clothes, terminated. They are being forced into unemployment, period. Why? because we are a welfare state, Please. It is because our shameful government wants to return to the post world war 11 period. Take jobs from women and give them to men. Lots of women receiving income support do not count as unemployed. It's a political ploy to bring down the unemployment figures. By the way, where are your "facts" in this respect?
Here's America's. It's enough to make you cry when you realize that they are blamed for all our troubles! And the perps walk!
"We spend about 5% of the federal budget on the nonworking poor." http://tmblr.co/Z0-QTyGM-Yms
Thanks LMC for this link. Some people just don't even bother before spouting off nonsense. It's shameful, the poorest in society are demonized for every woe. Same here. What gets me, is why people aren't shouting about the billions we spend on war, foreign aid and tax evasion. Are people nuts, can they not see who really benefits from their tax dollars. It certainly isn't the homeless, or those in trailer parks or the working poor.
It always amuse me(wryly) when people go on about the working poor scrounging off the state but never bat an eyelid at the rich scrounging off the working poor!
Well of course not, John. All things considered they are the wealth creators. *grins*
Wait, I'm confused here, you do mean that the poor are the wealth creators don't you?
Do they buy Mcdonalds, shop in pound stores, obtain their groceries from supermarkets, tax their cars, buy Christmas presents for their kids... and wait for it...pay their taxes? No the poor make absolutely no contribution whatsoever to the wealth of a nation.
Well its time for Evan or American Romance to chime in. American Romance told me on a Hub that he bought a new truck but has no health insurance. I asked him why and he won't answer, but he sure will verbally flog anyone for disagreeing with him. I'm sure Evan will take the pulpit on this thread also.
Well, yellowstone8750, AmericanRomance has the right to decide how he spends his money. He does not, however, have the right the right to judge poor people who pay their taxes,(those lucky enough to have jobs) and those who pay for health insurance (those who can afford) who after all, maybe subsidising his health care. Funny, wasn't it the republicans who winged about paying their neighbours health insurance?
I already chimed in.
Everyone's tax rate is being reduced.
We should be happy.
Complaining the poor do not receive enough.Who cut their funding?
WASHINGTON -- Less than two months after signing tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans into law, President Barack Obama proposed a spending plan to Congress that cuts funding to programs that assist the working poor, help the needy heat their homes, and expand access to graduate-level education, undermining the kind of community-based organizations that helped Obama launch his political career in Chicago.
Obama's new budget puts forward a plan to achieve $1.1 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade, according to an administration official who spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity in advance of the formal release of the budget.
Those reductions -- averaging just over $100 billion each year -- are achieved mainly by squeezing social programs. SOURCE- Huff-Post
No you don't View...this was all done to placate the Right. Congress would not let a dollar be spent if they didn't take something from the poor.
This is not on Obama....this is on the Tea Party Republicans.
I knew that was going to be your response, but guess what, the tea party was not in power then. This was an article from the Huff Post written in February 2010 about the new budget and cuts Obama had made with the Democrat controlled House and Senate. The Tea Party did not come on board until after the November 2010 elections, 9 months after Obama made the cuts. So I guess since it was not the Tea Party the blame will be on the Republicans, oh wait, you will use the old Bushco stand by. It is getting old. Time for the blaming to to end and admit what Obama has done and been doing. Obama with the Democrats made those cuts to those programs, they and they alone. You can try and twist it all you want, the facts are the facts
Well, if it's from the Huffpo, it can't be reliable, can it? Every single article I post, you say it's left, it's no good...and Huffpo?? You like it now?
And I do blame the tea party and the republicans. You have a short memory.
Those tax cuts were used as a bargaining chip by the GOP.
No tax cuts....no unemployment insurance...remember?
I totally blame Boehner and Cantor and all the rest of em.
No I do not like it, I know you do. Funny how when you show it then it is fine, if I show it then they are not good. You cannot have it both ways.
Again, blame them all you want to. This occurred under Obama and the Dem controlled Congress that could pass and do what they wanted to do.Time to end the blame for what Obama has done by trying to put it on someone else.
"And I do blame the tea party" I love the continued blame on a group that did not exist at the time when these things happened. Hell, why not blame George Washington while your at it.
My memory is fine, They were not bargaining chips, they were what Obama proposed in his budget before anyone even began a debate on it. I know for a fact what Obama did for college grants and loans because it had a direct impact on my daughter and how her aid was cut, how she had to scramble for extra jobs to pay for her semesters.
He can sit there and brag how he is going to help the college kids now that is election year, but it is all rhetoric. His actions of the past show his true intent. He can make more money available but it is nothing more than undoing what he did.
I'm pointing out that "increased government aid / spending" is strongly correlated to "failing economy".
I'm glad that you pretty much agreed with me.
Increased government aid/ spending on what though? If you are suggesting the amounts we spend on war, helping billionaires to evade taxation etc, etc, then yes I agree. If your suggesting that the economies are failing because of welfare then are perspectives are poles apart.
It doesn't matter on what the government spends its money -- the money is doomed to be wasted.
Governments don't use a proper pricing structure, nor do they spend their own money.
Governments are doomed to waste wealth. Ludwig Von Mises showed this 80 years ago when he predicted the failure of socialism when every other economist was predicting its domination over capitalism.
Who's this "they", Evan?
Last I looked, we had a say in our government.
WE are the government.
I'm not the government. Our government is lying to us repeatedly over and over again.
If "we're the government" then why didn't I get a free car when my tax dollars were spent on GM?
If "we're the government" then why the f**k are we still killing brown people?!
If "we're the government" then why do I feel so disenfranchised.
No. "we're" NOT the government. We're the people that the powerful USE the government to STEAL from.
Government is, at best, a necessary evil.
"Paul Ryan voted for the Bush tax cuts, Iraq war, Medicare Part D & TARP but got to play debt expert on Greta tonight"
BTW--have you seen Santorum going around saying Obama put TARP through? To smear him, of course.
W was an hallucination. He never happened.
Rubbish, it does matter what the government spends money on, it does matter how they collect money and it does matter who they collect it from. Suggesting that this is unimportant is like saying to your partner "Hey honey, I've been offered a job earning $200,000 dollars a year. I've also been offered a job earning $50,000 dollars a year, however, I'll accept the latter, because irrespective how we spend the money, or budget, we'll end up skint anyway. We are all irresponsible. That's ludicrous. And many socialists have predicted the failure of capitalism, take a good look around you. Unbridled capitalism has led both yours and my nation into the whole they're in. Wake up.
If I receive money from the private sector, then THAT matters.
The government is incapable of creating wealth.
Your example confuses private vs. public.
I think ole Ron Paul did pretty well for himself creating wealth in gvt! After all....what gynecologist do you know that has a worth of 5 million?
The governement is not incapable of creating wealth. Unfortunately, they create it for the already wealthy. Think bailouts and minimal taxation of billionaires.
No, a government can only REAPPORTION wealth.
Government can not generate wealth because it does not engage in trade: government does not spend its own money, it has to steal the money first. It then places people in charge of that money who's care is not to make profits, but instead to get re-elected.
Governments can not create wealth, they can only reapportion it.
Rubbish, when British Telecom was still a publicly owned business it was making huge profits.
government does not spend its own money, it has to steal the money first
Yet again you are demonstrating your nativity. It is the 1% percent that do not spend their own money, they have to steal it first.
The Government collect revenues for public services, health care, education and so forth. The private sector collect those revenues when they have been so incompetent and greedy, that they have become insolvent. Then they declare that they are to big to fail. Government funds are for the public good, not the nest egg of the fat and greedy.
Yes, I know. That was the point.
To think that "Britain doesn't do enough for the poor" is a completely nonsensical thought.
Notice how they're going broke.
Hmmm, let's see.
US external debt per capita: $47,000
UK external debt per capita: $144,000
US external debt as percentage of GDP: 99%
UK external debt as percentage of GDP: 400%
I don't see any problem with the UK having 4 times it's annual GDP in debt... At least, there better not be a problem since we're heading there ourselves.
But Evan, why is it welfare payments that are making us go broke? Why not bail outs to the bankers? Massive tax evasion? Selling off our industries to none British companies?
Correction, we are not "going broke" we are broke. Why? You are naive, Evan. You still do not see that every government is merely a front for their masters. Tax evasion alone, costs the Uk at least the same amount as welfare payments (and they are only the tax evaders we're aware of) I'll dig out the link for you. I wouldn't expect you to accept my word.
You don't read my posts, do you? I'm anti-government. So, "government" being "a front for their masters" really isn't something I disagree with.
I find it interesting that you can find out how much tax evasion is happening. ... if they knew who was tax evading, and how much they owed, then why don't they just get the money? derp
I do read your posts. You blame government for everything. I blame them for being puppets. Take big money out of politics and we all have a chance. There is not a politician in the western world who can succeed if he does not conform to the desires of "big money". Keep blaming governments, you'll end up with banana republics. You have not addressed the "real problem"
Exactly, if coca-cola were your main funders would you hound them for taxes? Derp.
Hello, Evan, the people that bankrupted Greece got out of there a couple of years ago. Where have you been, man?
A lot of people foolishly think that they should be voting for someone with "business experience".
Who doesn't have business experience? Most people have worked in businesses all their lives, haven't they?
Oh, wait, that's not what they meant. They meant "successful" in business, right?
Well, let's see: there are a coupe of ways to be successful. You could inherit your success from your parents business. You could accidentally be successful through dumb luck. You could actually provide a useful product or service and through skill and luck make a lot of money from it..
Or you could be a nasty, conniving sort who lies, cheats and manipulates their way to the top. You might, fot example (just picking this out of thin air) be someone who buys into failing businesses, strips them to their core and then sells them off at a profit, not caring a bit who gets hurt in the process. If you were someone like that, you might stick your gains in offshore accounts for favorable tax treatment - maybe like this http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ … story.html (not that it has anything to do with that we are talking about, of course).
Paul Krugman did a very good piece recently on why running a country is NOT like running a business.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0 … economics/
Thanks. That's a good piece. Krugman is the smartest guy who writes for the NYTimes.
Paul Krugman contradicts himself more often than Romney.
Thank you, Ralph.
Evan - that's nonsense.
Evan, I didn't realize you're a Paul Krugman fan.
How would Paul Krugman know? Has he ever run a business?
Some of them are lured to vote against their economic interests by GOP appeals to social conservative and racist issues.
Sure. And some are just plain dumb.
But a lot foolishly think we need a "business leader". It is business leaders who screw us up the most.
Loot a company and sell off the assets. Loot a Nation and siphon off the assets, what's the difference?
There's only one difference. Sovereign nations also lose their sovereignty, become trash status and are indebted for years and years. Most business' only go bankrupt once.
I notice that you never bothered to post when I analyzed Bain/Romney. You're way off the mark from what Romney did with those companies.
I hold to the basic Marian theory that when change comes from advanced capitalism, real change will take root. We have not seen socialism evolve from that yet: It has always been from an overturned monarchy or the overhtow of an evil dictator.
Ya think? Mitt Romney paid 14% tax on an income of 21.7 MILLION dollars! And - yeah - it ALL came from investments...uh-huh..If people don't open their eyes (which they won't), they'll quickly find their services cut, their taxes up, and those of corporations and the 1% down. And, the republicans are supposed to be the people's party??? Maybe 100 years ago..or even before 9/11?
What's wrong with paying 14% on investments? He paid higher tax rates than the likes of us will ever pay on his taxable income, and pays the same on investments as anyone else.
Seriously, do you really think you have the right to complain when someone else pays the same tax rate as you on investment income?
People will pay taxes when the government has least power, most checks & balances, and therefore least corruption, because only then do ordinary people see community benefits for their dollar.
"FACT: Buffett Rule, requiring millionaires to pay a 30% tax rate, will reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion over 10 yrs" http://thkpr.gs/yuWH80
Think the repubs and other right-leanings will go for it??
What's more important? The country or their bank accounts?
Cause none of them care one whit for the freedom of women--so speaking of the freedom of rich people kind of rings very hollow. Like a tin bell.
"FACT: Obama's budget eliminates 12 tax breaks for oil, gas + coal companies, saving $41 billion over 10 years." http://thkpr.gs/y90GDz
Fact, if those tax cuts Obama put in place plus the extra income on taxes gives us a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit( CBO) how can you say Fact the buffet rule wll reduce the deficit??? Perhaps because the source is just peoples opinion and not really a fact.
A lot lower than it is now thanks to the over spending of Congress
And the Bush tax cuts!!! 60% of it!
Let Obama end them. He wants to....but will the GOP?
And Obama IS cutting spending..has been from the get go....but will the GOP raise taxes??
It's been an all-or-nothing game for a long time AV...they got it all, and the rest of us got nothing.
If they can't participate in a Democracy....if it's Oligarchy they continue to want...
They are barking up a bare tree. It has been stripped to the bone.
"Obama is cutting spending and has do so from the get go" Really LMC.
Prove it The new budget is 3.9 trillion dollars, the largest ever proposed. The CBO is estimating we will spend around 4.2 trillion dollars this year, the largest ever. WOW we can all see those cuts can't we.
After the Bush tax cuts revenues went to the highest in the nations history. But the Dems got control of Congress and spent all the revenues and then some. Under Obama the revenues are not what they were under Bush even after those breaks you claim drained us.
All good economists agree the problem was not the Bush tax cuts, it was the spending in Congress. Both sides are guilty of that. Bush is responsible for not vetoing those out of control spending budgets, and Obama, well he cannot veto anything since one, he is for all the spending as shown by his budget proposals every year, and two, he cannot veto what is not there. There has not been a budget in over 1000 days. Even his own democrats voted against his budget 0-97. He did not get one single Dem to vote for him
I love the idea that we want to increase taxes to the point where DEFICITS are decreased by X amount.
I WANT THE DEBT TO BE DECREASED
Every dollar spent is a dollar taxed. Cut spending.
We can't cut our way out of this mess.....it's what got us IN it in the 1st place.
Here's what I learned in kindygarden school:
It takes money to make money.
Tax cuts increase the deficit.
Reagan said deficits don't matter. GOP Luuuuuv Reagan: ergo, deficits don't matter to them!
They want to put it all on the credit card of Uncle Sam.
And NOT for the people of Uncle Sam, but for the corporatists of the whole world!
http://visualizingeconomics.com/2007/11 … ome-group/
The top 1 per cent have won out to an astonishing degree in the last 40 years.
These figures certainly give the lie to the idea that higher tax rates for the very wealthy hurt the economy.
The fifties and sixties were boom times.
Yes, it's a joke for kids nowadays. A complete and total joke.
EVERYTHING is tainted with a profit-motive as the bottom line....everything.
Good job Capitalists. NOT.
GOD DA**IT!!! I HATE CAPITALISTS!!!
... ohhh, look at that nice computer.... Oh, check it out, a great new iPod!!! Oh man! Look at that, I can BUY FOOD AT MY LOCAL STORE... oh man, a place to live...
That had nothing to do with capitalism. Here's capitalism:
I pay $2.69 for a gallon of gasoline.
My bank charges a $27.00 overdraft charge on a penny over.
Credit cards charge 19% interest.
School ...a normal college, costs near $50,000 now!
Using my computer costs money.....50 a month. Computer costs money to buy. They're not doing me any favors! They make a profit on it.
A - They are providing you a service. You don't have to pay for it if you don't think it's worth it.
B - If you manage your finances you won't have overdrafts. You agree to pay those if you incur them by banking at your bank. It's not the bank's fault.
C - It's your fault if you run up credit on high interest. You are paying them for the privilege of spending money you don't have. It's possible to live without credit, by the way.
School - go to a community college or earn scholarships.
What do you want? Everyone to go broke providing things to you for less money? Give everything to you for free?
The U.S. standard of living is really great, what would you rather have?
Gvt provides you a service too...and you don't want to pay for it!
And sorry--I don't make enough to cover my costs....and I always have overdrafts...that is why they are there...people like me pay for the upkeep of the bank, while they use rich people's money. And rich people get their services for free... Weeeeee capitalism!
I don't have a credit card...I learned that lesson long ago. If I want to find a loan-shark, I'll go to downtown Boston.
I want a livable wage, and a livable cost of living. Like my parent and theirs before them.
I want the ultra rich to stop using my country and give commensurate with what they take.
I want a democracy, not an oligarchy.
I want money to stop being God. Anything else on my want list??????
Oh yeah...I want that guy who suggested assasinating Obama to be jailed and tried for treason.
I want to pay for the services the government should be providing. I don't want to be paying for foreign aid, I don't want to be paying for wars we don't need to be in, I don't want to be paying for a failing SS/Medicare/Medicaid program that will bankrupt the country, I don't want to be paying for any other number of failing, wasteful governmental programs.
I only want to pay for what the government should be doing, and what the government can do without tremendous amounts of waste.
Have you trimmed down your expenses as far as you can? What is your internet/computer/phone/tv/entertainment situation? What about assets? If you have enough to cover your costs late, with overdraft fees added in, you have enough to cover your costs on time. You just have to do a little work to get ahead rather than behind.
Rich people don't use banks for free. They put their money in and the banks make money off of their money. That's how they pay.
Then why are you complaining about the interest rates?
Stop right there. Go talk to the older generations. They never expected to have the standard of living we do. Now it's buy a house right out of college, or before. It's have a brand new car in college. It's have an iPhone, iPad, laptop, desktop, cable, satellite, internet, etc, etc, etc.
It's the expectations that are off the mark. I have friends in debt with $200,000 mortgages and $800/month in car payments. Know what I did? I bought a $2000 honda and rented a cheap apartment until I could afford to buy a cheap apartment. Now I'm about to purchase my first house, cash. The expectations for standard of living in the young generations is just stupid...
You don't think the rich do any good for the country? They are the ones who create the jobs. They spend tremendous amounts of money every year, which helps the businesses they interact with. The top 1% earns 20% of the income yet pays 40% of the taxes, so they pay twice their fair share. What are you complaining about?
If you hate capitalism so much, save up and move to a country you like better.
"I don't want to be paying for foreign aid, I don't want to be paying for wars we don't need to be in"
Then why are you pro Romney? He supports Netanyahu 100%, and we give Israel 8 mil a day. And he wants to attack Iran.
"Have you trimmed down your expenses as far as you can?"
Yeah..I have trimmed. Sometimes we don't eat or have heat. Is this how America treats her workers?
"They put their money in and the banks make money off of their money. That's how they pay"
That's not paying, that's getting it for free.
Not complaining about credit cards, just pointing out-- when the Mafia does it, it's a crime!
"Go talk to the older generations."
I do all the time. In fact, my mom and her friend were just talking about the high cost of college these days.
My grandfather did not speak English, worked in a factory and supported a wife and 3 kids.
My dad did the same--did not work in a factory, but supported a wife and 3 kids on his income. I work and have 3 kids...and my quality of life is way below theirs.
Cost of living has quadrupled, my wages have not. Hmmmmm, who's rigging that game?
"The top 1% earns 20% of the income yet pays 40% of the taxes, so they pay twice their fair share. What are you complaining about?"
They don't "earn" their money, it's all investment and deferred interest,or hiding it as "gifts"... all that crap. That's why they pay lower taxes, cause labor is taxed more than wealth! 400 people have more than 1/2 the rest combined. That's highway robbery!
"If you hate capitalism so much, save up and move to a country you like better."
I thought of that...but I love this country too. Why should I let some greedy punks ruin it for me? I'll stay and fight.
I'll support him because he's better than Obama.
Unfortunately, yes it is difficult sometimes. America has always been a free land where there has been risk, not a nanny welfare state.
Maybe you could find something more productive than arguing on HP forums if your finances are that bad?
No, it's letting the bank use your money in exchange for services.
The banks don't make as much money off of someone who has very little in their account... so how do you expect them to pay the bills if they don't charge?
Nobody is forced to accept high interest rates.
Interesting... A buddy of mine is going to college right now for $750/semester tuition. Another friend of mine supports himself, his wife, and a child off of $10/hour... And yet, most people who complain still have nice tvs, computers, phones, internet, etc, etc, etc,... Standard of living is much better than what I have seen in the past.
It's not all investment, but even with investment income they AVERAGE %24 percent tax rate, when the bottom 50% averages 1.85%. How is that not fair? They DON"T PAY LOWER TAXES THAN ANYBODY ELSE IN AMERICA.
"Maybe you could find something more productive than arguing on HP forums if your finances are that bad?"
None of your business what I do with my time. I work enough and have been at my job long enough to have a better life. Cost of living used to be square with a decent wage. No longer.
"America has always been a free land where there has been risk, not a nanny welfare state."
Not if you're an oil company! Or a gentleman farmer...then you can have all the welfare you want! Even if you gross huge profit.
"Another friend of mine supports himself, his wife, and a child off of $10/hour"
Where do they live, where you can pay all your bills on $400.00 a week minus taxes? Where I am; Massachusetts, they did a study years ago, and found you needed $14.00 and hour just to get by!
$750.00 a semester is way over my income bracket...and my daughter works too, but that is too much. She will have to apply for aid...and thank GOD Obama believes in education! Cause Romney would privitize it, and then the banksters would have to take their cut on top of it!
"how do you expect them to pay the bills if they don't charge?"
Like I said..they pay for the operating expenses on the backs of people like me, while they use rich people's money, and rich people get their service for free. As Usual...poor subsidizing the rich!
"They DON"T PAY LOWER TAXES THAN ANYBODY ELSE IN AMERICA."
As a percentage of what they have, I'm afraid they do.
$46,000-$105,000: FICA, State, Fed
$106,000 and up: State, Fed, no FICA
Ok... then complain about how the system is screwing you, when you could otherwise spend your time doing something to better your situation. That's your choice... it's a free country.
The rich pay a much higher tax as a percentage of what they earn than anyone else. You can't deny fact. The top 1% pays 24% average effective tax rate. Nobody else pays that much. The bottom 50% pay 1.85%. You can try and skew that all you want, but they just pay more.
As for living, yeah, some places are more expensive. That's why I live where it's less expensive. In Phoenix you can get a 3 bedroom apartment for $20k, or rent a 2 bedroom for as little as $400/month.
If a college student can't afford $750/semester, then they need to work full time and go to school part time. It's doable.
This is America though, there is always an excuse.
Maybe you could find something more productive than arguing on HP forums if your finances are that bad?
Maybe you could substantiate your arguments and have the courtesy to address LMC, point by point. Instead of being condescending and alluding to her financial status when you clearly cannot validate your points. Your friends situation is very interesting, but neither demonstrates or proves anything. Evidence please?
LMC - I never asked my government to kill brown people. That's why I don't want to pay taxes.
However, I did tell HP that I want a pimped out new computer to play a game that simulates killing undead, vampires, monsters, dragons, and demons.
See the difference? One is consent, one is theft.
... ugh... why do I bother.
JaxsonRaine, in which world are you living? If you have kids, and want them to do well at school you need the internet, you need a computer. You sound like like someone who has always been in a position to earn enough to cover the basics. Not everyone is that fortunate, it's not a matter of managing your finances, but finding employment that pays enough to cover the essentials. Instead of judging another, why don't you attempt to see a reality from a different perspective?
Aye Hollie,although he hasn't touched on it yet I'll take bets that he thinks the minimum wage is the downfall of the US and everybody (except him) should be paid barely enough to live on!!
Ayup. It makes me sick.
I've been one of the privileged ones who has usually had more than we needed. We started our lives in poverty, but through intelligence and hard work, we did fairly well.
However, I always knew that luck played a part in it. I have empathy for others and I also know that it makes economic sense to help those who have fallen on hard times.
People are so cruel and greedy. It is disgusting.
@John. Indeed. Those people who make minimum wage should be thankful, shouldn't they? I mean, they get food, how much more dare they ask?
@Pcunix, I fear that intelligence (that's a slippery concept which now has to be demonstrated with diplomas), and hard work, simply aren't enough any more. I'm a Wiley old bird, I've always gotten by but I worry about my kids. It's a completely different game now. However, as has always been my stance, I will gladly donate a percentage of my income to help those who are not in a position to help themselves. That's what socialism means to me.
As will I. Even when it has fallen to 40% of what is what's just a few short years ago. We still have more than many and are happy to help.
In the end, that's what it comes down to isn't it. Those who can differentiate "need" from "greed"
Before Murdoch bought our local "rag", they used to have a comments section. This was way back when my own descent into poverty started...2003. Well, there were these 2 old-timers who always used to come on there and laugh at me for my concern..something bad was happening! They would call me a whiner....tell me to just fix it...stop being lazy, how all these "bums" don't work, blah blah blah.
Well, right next door to me was a single mom with 3 kids. She worked as a dental assistant...pretty good money for here. But every morning, she had to get up, get her kids ready for school, get herself ready for work, get them to the bus or drive them wherever they needed to go. Work a days work, come home and then start her work at home. Making dinner, doing homework, taking baths,cleaning up.
Then she could relax and watch tv for a while, go to sleep and do the same thing the next day....barring none of her kids got sick..then she would have to scramble.
So I compared HER work day to these old-timers.....
How when they got up, their wives fixed them breakfast, made their coffe, packed their lunches.
How when they got home, their wives kept the house clean, made their dinner, listened to their day.
See-their only job was their job...the women held down the homefront. Compare this to my neighbor, who had the work outside the home, work inside the home and was mommy and daddy all rolled up in one. And they had the nerve to say she was a "bum". And SHE was the one Bushs' policies were hurting.
Now just the other day, Obama mentioned "suppose you are a single mom", and my neighbor came to my mind....
Obama cares about her! R's don't. Simple as that for me.
Yes Lmc, it's really tough for lone parents. As you say they work full time and then come home again to their other job. And that doesn't even include all those lone parents who are also carers for elderly relatives. It fascinates me that the ones that often accuse another of being lazy often do the least work.
Or the ones who never went to war, push for war. Or the ones who never can get pregnant push for forced birth. Or the ones who were born to wealth push for cutting social programs.
It's a lost wisdom that came from the "Americans before Columbus"...."walk a mile in another man's moccasins" !!
I mean--I could do the same...because celebrities always say that as soon as they get paid, Uncle Sam takes half....cause it's "work", not "investments"...That might be galling....
BUT then if you consider, they STILL make millions....well, I don't feel so bad. I could def handle that!
LMC just admitted that 'buying things in a store with money earned from a job" doesn't qualify as capitalism to her.
Don't bother wasting your time.
He's a simple soul, our Evan, to him any thing to do with money is capitalism. He once insisted that co-operatives were capitalist because they used money!
I don't think he's simple.
He lives in a different world where people are good and can be trusted. Tthe strange part is that he knows that the liars and the thieves exist, but he still thinks Libertarianism would work. I don't know how he reconciles that, but he does.
Buying things in a store has NOTHING to do with capitalism.
... talking to you is now OFFICIALLY pointless.
No, acting like they do it out of the goodness of their hearts is not capitalism! They are not doing me a favor...I have to pay for it. They make a profit.
But somehow, the things the gvt provides are supposed to be free. ODD, that. It would seem you want the gvt to do things for nothing, while your capitalists reap the benefits.
hmmm--no wonder we are brainwashed.
yeah, like I said: Officially pointless.
You're defining "Capitalism" as "Charity"
No wonder you think the government can pay for everything.
The joke is: it can't.
And you're defining it as good!
It isn't. It's a racket, bub.
"I'm LMC! Governments have infinite money!! And then when they give the money to companies, the money suddenly turns into evil!"
Ummmm, Adelson is not a member of the gvt. He does, however, have more money than most small country's.
THIS, is unrepentant GREED. And shame on the gvt for allowing it.
but on a positive note: he is under investigation for bribery.
And keep in mind the great poet and philosopher Honore de Balzac:
"Behind every great fortune is a crime."
Could apply to at least one of our current candidates for prez.
OBAMA'S RICH!!! WHY DON'T YOU HATE HIM!!?!?!?!
You HAVE to be trolling me at this point. There is simply NO other explanation.
That was very good! I couldn't stop chuckling.
Yes, and his policies are geared towards helping those who aren't.
How bout those Republicans?
Last time I checked, we're in like 3 wars, insurance companies gained one of the greatest subsidies in all US history, banks got bailed out to the tune of $20 Trillion, and companies have been bailed out for more than a trillion...
... LMC, wake up. It's impossible to defend Obama. He's ACTUALLY worse than Bush.
The more I see you mindlessly type pro-democratic things, the more I suspect you're a paid poster. I know you aren't, but it's just impossible to defend the Ds.
I love Obama's new budget. It's right in line with my thinking.
You may insult it if you like...I'm not too keen on your ideas either.
LMC: If his new budget is right in line with your thinking, then
*you hate brown people
*you like theft
*you don't understand how money works
*you like giving money to banks and wall street
*you enjoy having a debased currency
*you think that breaking windows creates jobs
... and on and on.
We are as far apart as 2 people can be.
Nothing you said I agree with. nada. Zip. NuuNuu
I know. Cause you know it all. Ron Paul Ron Paul.
Hope and change
The new Messiah
Puritan Redux if you ask me.
Santorum: birth control leads to things in the sexual realm....can't have that. Ron Paul agrees?
you just got done telling me that Capitalism isn't capitalism because it involves profits.
I'll let the readers decide.
NO--I told you capitalism isn't some religion to be worshipped and money treated as God...as some seem to do.
You also told me that "using money you earn from a job to buy things from a store" is not capitalism.
Yep, and how many times have I hear Obama say "I should pay more taxes."
How many times do people who say they want to pay more taxes actually VOLUNTEER to donate their money to government?
Never? Not even Buffet?
Now you must be playing with me, I don't believe you could be that stupid. People VOLUNTEER to donate to governments all the time, they don't like mandatory requirements, ie: obligatory taxation, there are no perks. But voluntary is good, they're known as party funders and get a whole load of favours for their trouble.
If everyone would pay their fare share there would be no problem. My friend works for a tax lawyer and it amazes me at how many people don't pay their taxes and how much some owe and then they need to pay a lawyer to get their tax burden reduced.
That is what happens when people decide that working is not important anymore. A wonder mix of socialism and atheism. Great Britain is what you get. Cradle to the Grave welfare is not the answer.
Another one away with the fairies. Dare I ask, how many Brits do you know that have decided working is not important any more? Moreover, on which studies do you base your ASSUMPTIONS? By the way, Great Britian, although far from perfect, does not allow the poor uninsured to die without healthcare, or to suffer acute pain when they cannot afford prescriptions. I know where I'd rather live.
People bash on the idea of lower taxes just like they bash on Romney's work at Bain. No real research, and often just ignored when real data is presented. It's just repeating headlines and popular phrases, with no real thought.
Here's a thought for anyone who thinks we should raise taxes:
If a company's taxes go up, it can do one of three things.
1 - Just take the hit, less net profit, weaker financial sheets, and (in the case of public companies) a drop in stock prices(and total company worth).
2 - Raise prices. In this case, the increased taxes come straight out of the pockets of the 99%.
3 - Shaft the investors. Don't give out as much, or any dividends. Stock prices fall. Mutual funds under-perform. Again, the end result is the money comes out of the pockets of the 99%.
These situations don't even include the shockwaves. If all corporations' financial sheets were weakened, not only would all stocks fall, but this would lower the risk appetite for investments, slowing the cash flow as well. People sit on their money and the economy stagnates.
Some people pay in alot of taxes and work hard for what they earn and dont get back an eighth of what they pay in. My dad paid $11,000 in taxes one year and he barely got back $1,700. That is 1 person. So if 1 person pays in that much money for taxes for the year and gets very little back, what is the taxes paying for since our country is in debt and budgets cut for the things that need the money?
Define "got back".
Did he use public roads? Was he protected by our military? Was he protected from epidemics by our public health system? Was he protected from adulterated food, air pollution, stock market manipulation and on and on and on and on?
Yes, but that is not what I was pointing out. If 1 person pays that much money in for 1 year, how much money is the government collecting from everyone else for that 1 year? How much of that money is actually going to the budgets when budgets are being cut because there is not enough money being paid in from taxes?
Interesting reading when you have a minute Subject: Wal-Mart vs. The Morons 1. Americans spend $36,000,000 at Wal-Mart Every hour of every day. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute! 2. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year. 3. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target + Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined. 4. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people, is the world's largest private employer, and most speak English. 5. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the world. 6. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger and Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this in only fifteen years. 7. During this same period, 31 big supermarket chains sought bankruptcy. 8. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world. 9. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA, of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had five years ago. 10. This year 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur at Wal-Mart stores. (Earth's population is approximately 6.5 Billion.) 11. 90% of all Americans live within fifteen miles of a Wal-Mart. You may think that I am complaining, but I am really laying the ground work for suggesting that MAYBE we should hire the guys who run Wal-Mart to fix the economy. This should be read and understood by all Americans, Democrats, Republicans, EVERYONE!! To President Obama and all 535 voting members of the Legislature: It is now official that the majority of you are corrupt morons: a. The U. S. Postal Service was established in 1775. You have had 234 years to get it right, and it is broke. b. Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get it right, and it is broke. c. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to get it right, and it is broke. d. War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more. e. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years to get it right, and they are broke. f. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke. g. The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees, with a budget of $24 Billion a year, and we import more oil than ever before. You had 32 years to get it right, and it is an abysmal failure. You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down our throats, while overspending our tax dollars. AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM??!!!!! Folks, keep this circulating. It is very well stated. Maybe it will end up in the e-mails of some of our "duly elected officials' staff" (they themselves never read anything), and their staff will clue them in on how Americans feel.ANDSomeone please tell me what’s wrong with all the people that run this country!!!!!!I know what's wrong. We have lost our minds to "Political Correctness" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!We're "broke" & can't help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, Homeless etc.??????????? In the last months we have provided aid to Haiti, Chile, and Turkey ... and now Pakistan ...home of Bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS of DOLLARS!!! Our retired seniors living on a 'fixed income' receive no aid nor do they get any breaks, and have had their meager incomes frozen for two years now, while our government and religious organizations pour Hundreds of Billions of $$$$$$'s and Tons of Food into Foreign Countries! We have hundreds of adoptable children who are shoved aside to make room for the adoption of foreign orphans. AMERICA: a country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed hungry, elderly going without 'needed' meds, and mentally ill without treatment, most of them mentally ill because of the treatment they received --etc., etc. YET...................... They have a 'Benefit' for the people of Haiti on 12 TV stations, ships and planes lining up with food, water, tents clothes, bedding, doctors and medical supplies. Imagine if the *GOVERNMENT* gave 'US' the same support they give to other countries. Sad isn't it? 99% of people won't have the guts to forward this. I'm one of the 1% -- I Just Did
This was posted on Facebook. Not sure where it was orginated from but I would have to agree with this.
GOP tax cut plan cost more than healthcare reform and stimulus combined.
http://pwtenny.newsvine.com/_news/2010/ … -stimulus-
Good luck with the foreign aid.......they would sooner cut from your gramma. Oooops.
The government has already ruined SS and Medicare/Medicaid. Through 2084, we're going to be $45 TRILLION DOLLARS short in paying out those benefits.
TALK ABOUT FOREIGN AID!!!
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/01/27/ … -hated-it/
Ummmm, it was this other dude who was talking about foreign aid...the one you told to ignore me cause I'm just too stupid for words. I was just pointing out that the main GOP ally takes a LOT of it.
So--he still supports Romeny despite that. SEE? That's how it works..we all support things we don't necessarily like because we know we can't have everything.
"Romney filed his finacial disclosure form..made $40m paid 14% tax"
My mother is retired. She pays at 28%. Ummmm, he does pay less >a percentage< than my mom.
So--he gets to keep more of what he has!
Here's some interesting data to support my assertion:
It's not the Rich... the "upper/middle/lower class" are all considered part of the 99%
Your talking about the Elite the MultiBillionaires, not the Rich.
(rich/upper class is still part of the 99% )
Tax Exempt Foundations.
"You cannot tax them.
Their wealth and profits have long left the country.
They are Transnationalists !
In fact if you look into the bylaws of how the BIS, IMF, and World Bank are written they are actually immune from any form of taxation by any country.
They cannot even be prosecuted. They are legally above all laws. "
Certain Elites exempt from paying "taxes"
Australians Elites, call for tax cuts ^
"The underlying theme of the tax summit was that the profitability and wealth of the corporate elite must be protected at the expense of the majority of the population."
Hope that change can happen... http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/11/w…
*** The SYSTEM is FLAWED at a GLOBAL scale. ***
You're comparing capital gains tax to income tax? And why would your mother be paying at 28%, no income bracket pays a 28% tax rate. Marginal rates aren't what you actually pay.
Better question to me is why is Romney paying at 14%? And I've read analysis that says it's really more like 10.
Why do you think that hotel magnate said "Only the little people pay taxes"?
Do you think she knew something you don't?
Because it's capital gains!
If he had salary money coming in, he'd be paying a higher rate on that income.
If grandma had investment income she would pay a lower rate on that as well.
We need to change the tax laws so that capital gains are taxed same as labor.
Coddling leads to sucking of thumbs
Yeah, lets discourage people from investing by raising taxes on investments.
Investing helps the economy. It shouldn't be taxed any higher than it is.
They have had 10 years of tax cuts...where are the investments? Not here.
Geee, since you invited me to leave the country...maybe they should move to where their investments are?
Cause you know they are only taking up air space from those of us who actually support the U S of A.
Their investments are in the markets. The markets consist 100% of investment money.
If you tax it at a higher rate, there will be less investing, less cash flow, less capital for companies to grow/operate/expand.
That might be a good thing....i'm tired of buying things made of Chinese slave labor.
Goes against my values.
Less investing in American companies.
Lower returns on 401k and mutual funds.
= BAD for the economy.
Giving tax breaks to move companies overseas....bad for the whole world.
People are not commodities to be used for profit. Sorry....it has become just that.
In the name of "freedom", we can abuse workers all over the globe.
Human rights, not corporate rights.
http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-detention- … fense-853/
Keep chanting, Obama Evan. He's on his way to a second term.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/20 … -now-what/
"If a college student can't afford $750/semester, then they need to work full time and go to school part time. It's doable."
And yet...Michelle Bachmann needed $250,000, and all she had to do was ask.
You change topics like a rabid cheetah on a proverbial trampoline.
College kid needs money for school: work for it!
Bachmann needs money for farm: No problemo. Here you go: Quarter Mil Tax-Payer gift.
No, that's a different topic.
Did I say there was no political corruption? No!
I said, if a student can't afford $750/semester, they should work for it. That's the American way. You just deflect to an irrelevant subject.
Well, Bachmann's an American...is she better than my daughter?
I'm not saying she is!
I'm saying, if you daughter can't afford $750/semester for an education, then she needs to work for it. That's America. It's taking your future in your hands and working for your goals.
Not complaining that a politician is treated differently and wasting away.
You can try to change politics, but you still have to live your life.
Well, that might be your America, where favors are given to the few...but my America is this: All people are equal.
If she gets a quarter mil....where's mine?
Listen, I don't like that crap any more than you do, but it has nothing to do with what we were talking about.
America isn't a place where the government is supposed to pay for your education, your health care, your house, your car, your computer, your internet, or anything else like that. America is a place where you earn your way.
Can you really not understand that you are deflecting from the topic?
I'm telling you I earn my way....it's not enought to keep up with the cost of living.
Gvt is supposed to protect us from gaugers, isn't it?
Or is it to give free-reign to crooks?
Here's what I know: the rich have gotten filthy rich, and the poor have gotten dirt poor.
Gvt policies did it, gvt policies can reverse it.
Maybe you need to move somewhere cheaper. I don't know.
All I know is, America is still the land of opportunity. Sometimes it's a huge sacrifice, but it's there.
There are tons of companies around here that will hire anyone willing to work for $10-$14/hr, and enough places to live where you can get by on that much.
You complain about banks as gougers, credit card companies, internet providers... they are just providing services. It is up to the consumer to accept their terms or not.
I'm not complaining!!!
And the probolem is when they have a monopoly on the terms!
Every single bank charges big overdraft fees
6 companies own all of media
Cable, Internet, owned by very few
Banks merging all the time...phone companies merging...less and less choice. More and more monopolies who decide the cost...and it's always high.
now I have to go to work, after working today too. And bring my kids with me. Do I rate now?
Google, for one. Unless of course you bring to mind another internet provider on equal terms.
Excuse me, but what do parents work for? What do they pay their taxes for? I know I pay both for the benefits that are supposed to accompany both, including the right for my children to have a decent education. As someone who worked part-time, whilst raising two children and studying for their first degree, I can tell you that without support from your family it is practically impossible. Not everyone has a family that can help, however, if you have paid your dues to the government, then you should be able to expect some help from them.
Here's a link to the Social Security Trustees' Report for 2011:
You see...you R's always try and make it personal...like it's one person complaining and that's just cause they're lazy.
It's a theft syndicate...on a global scale. And you are their cheerleader.
BTW....I like Obama's new term for it:
The American Promise.
Also like his slogan: Built to Last
Here's Romneys: gimme more gimme more
.....which he will do. Give himself a tax cut......on 21 mil. Whew...poor guy must be HURTIN!
Yeah, whilst you all pay taxes, as we do, to bail out his puppet masters.
What, you do not like hope and change anymore? He did deliver on it. He CHANGED America for the worse and now we HOPE to vote him out.
Know what's funny? Now others are saying they want change from Obama!!
My my....will it be denegrated and made fun of?? Is Santorum the new Messiah?
Oh no. They shall get a pass as they always do.
Say---did you know Obama did TARP? Caused the crash? Created the problems we face now?
whoooooosh. 2000-2008: erased from history.
Talk about erase from history, who forced the regulations that allowed the crash? Who lied that Fannie and Freddy were solvent, strong and never have a problem while the Republicans warned of a crash? Who doubled the deficit in 3 years?? Who wants you to pay $5 dollar gas? Who passed more regulation than the last 6 presidents combined? Who said no lobbiests then appointed several of them? Who grew the federal government more than 30% under his watch? Who has made us weaker around the world? Who had a pink model airplane sent to him from a country just spitting in our face and who sad nothing about it? Who is begging for Super Pacs to back him, get people to donate to them and said so publicly? Who violates the Constitution every chance he gets?? Seems like you want to forget 2009 to present. And yes we want change from Obama. He need to change course from destroying the country.
You may want to forget 2000-2008 because they show the truth that you refuse to admit to. The following chart shows actual spending and actual revenues under Bush and Obama. Notice revenues went up after the Bush tax cuts, notice how they tanked after Obama was elected. These are actual figures from both the GOA and CBO web sites. Figures are in Billions
2000 Clinton 1,921 1,992
2001 Bush 1,863 1,853
2002 Bush 2,011 1,782-after 911
2003 Bush 2,160 1,782 Tax breaks approved
2004 Bush 2,293 1,889 Tax breaks go into effect
2005Bush 2,472 2,153
2006 Bush 2,655 2,406
2007 Bush 2,729 2,569
2008 Bush 2,983 2,524
2009Obama 3,518 2,105-raises taxes stops drilling
2010Obama 3,457 2,167
2011Obama 3,601 2,302
2012Obama 3.900 4.300-CBO estimates
The important part of this is notice the tax breaks did indeed work, they raised revenues. Notice how Congress outspent the revenues and how spending dramatically rose under Obama. Raising taxes or tax breaks alone will not fix the problem, the problem is spending. Did you know if congress kept all money Americans make, in other words they taxed us at 100%, it would take 5 years to pay down the national debt and that does not include paying the bills. Raising taxes is not the answer, and this President does not understand that or he is just clueless, either way he needs to go. If Obama stood at the podium and honestly made as many cuts that could be made and we still did not have enough revenue, then raise our taxes, not before, Oh I know he says he cannot find a place to cut, let me say this. Congress, President, VP and all federal employees, take a 25% pay cut. Stop paying for useless crap like studying the mating habits of bees, watching shrimp on a treadmill, building models, studies of how fast tickets to concerts sell on the internet, just to name a few.
The important thing to me is WHO they spend the money on. Some people need it, others don't.
R policy gives globs of money to those already wealthy. THAT to me is wasteful and ridiculous.
I am WAY more conservative than you on that issue.
Stop the wasteful gift-giving to millionaires!!!
I agree with lovemychris. Overdraft fees and ownership of mass media by a few are all symptoms of the issues we are having. The core of this is that there is very little protecting the middle class in the US today.
Stop concentrating on the dummies and focus on the ventriloquist...Corporate Capitalism.
America no longer practices Capitalism. It is now a form of mercantilism.
Yes: that is what Mercantilism is.
See how you hate it? But how Obama practices it?
But see how you like Obama?
These two facts SHOULD wake you up... but they won't.
Obama was not pres from 1980 til 2008. Sorry: FAIL!
HE'S CONTINUING THE POLICIES!!!!
Why does "Obama" equal "holy angel from on high" to you?!
Go read the chart provided earlier in this thread. The spending and revenues do not lie, even though LMC wants to ignore them
Yes he is.
We're still at war; we're still bailing people out; we're still printing money; we're still taking away freedoms.
Obama supports my freedom of choice.
He couldn't BE more different than those squeegy old men R's put up as candidates.
Obama is for taxing the Uber rich, not letting them steal from us...those old squeegys aren't.
Iraq war is over...going to end Afghanistan soon.
How come no kudos from Paul?
And most important....he can sing! (joke...in case you don't get it)
Wrong, America no longer practices mercantilism, it is now out right capitalism.
So... We lower taxes for the top earners and businesses and they invest the money in Job creation to help everyone... Can anyone provide any evidence to say that happens?? I think the statistics show exactly the opposite, higher job creation rates when the taxes are highest!
What do the rich do with their money? Do they go and create a new company to employ a few people? Do they spend the money in our local businesses? I don't think so, they will buy million dollar watches, designer dresses and invest in pieces of art etc! Most of their money goes to other super rich people!
They will also speculate in land and other investments causing the cost to spiral upwards in excess of the true value raising costs across the board for everything we (the not super rich!) have to buy!
and if you were rich you would do the same thing. You'd try to avoid all the taxes you could.
Really? Have you ever had enough income that it was worth your while to avoid taxes?
I have. And I didn't.
I still don't look for every opportunity I could legally take.
For example, I am self employed 100%. I go to the post office and the bank almost every day. That's 13 miles round trip, say 2600 miles a year or so. I could legally deduct 51 cents per mile for that because it is business use.
I don't because I'm always always doing some personal errands, too. I also don't because when I calculate my taxes without looking for every possible deduction, I consider what I'm paying to be fair.
Not everybody is greedy.
The evidence has shown just the opposite actually.
Those tax cuts made the wealthy into the Uber wealthy...that's about it.
I'm having a hard time believing this actually. Does anyone have a brain anymore??? @bSide4Life
I'm voting for the one man who said no to each one of those entities.
IN fact, the lobbyists call him Dr. No, because he's a doctor who tells them no
RON PAUL 2012
It isn't about republican or democrats. The reason why the rich get richer is capitalism. It doesn't matter who is running the country.
I admire your passion, but your delusion leads me to doubt your posts further.
Everyone is drunk on greed. Greed kills. Left, right doesn't matter. Every aspect of our society is addicted to greed and the bottom line. If each of us lives long enough, we all become a burden to the system which that system can ignore only so long. I find both sides to be interested in one thing. Getting wealthy as Pres and getting wealthier on the lecture circuit. There is still only so much wealth to go around, but both parties are bound by this. Corporate control over the nation, the nation itself, mirroring the corporate structure is a mistake.
I didn't mean you Druid Dude, I meant Evan. In my heart of hearts, I believe the ideology of the left is in tune with my thinking and my ethical code. I come from a family of Labour party activists. As a little girl I would go to the labour club with my dad, I learnt a lot about socialism from a very young age, and no, this was not indoctrination but an introduction to the "world" and its inequalities. Today, I'm afraid that I would have to say that I would not vote for the labour party as we know it, to me it is alien. They are so far removed from my version of socialism and what it means to me.
It's a shame, I would, however, suggest to any trade unionist that they fund the green's from now on. Their ideology is in tune.
Taxation is founded on theft. If you enjoy theft, please continue to argue for liberal beliefs.
What part of "Dr. Paul doesn't hand out money to lobbyists" is hard to comprehend?
But would lobbyists hand out money to him? That is the question.
That would be the better question considering lobbyists, on behalf of their clients, are the ones doing all the paying and extorting and whatever it takes to get their clients views on the front burner. Although, couldn't we consider PR firms as 'unofficial' lobbyists and all politicians pay for and use PR firms or personnel.
Yes, I suppose so. But at least there's some transparency there, we know it happens and it's out in the open. I wish we had the same transparency with party donors and lobbyists.
I've got some news for folks....take a deep breath, this might raise your blood pressure a tad.
If you think Bill Gates is even close to being the world's most wealthy individual....then you're merely a product of mass media.
There's no way Gates is remotely as wealthy as someone like David Rockefeller. John D. Rockefeller was America's first Billionaire. Anyone who understands how economic works realizes then that someone with that kind of wealth would have to continually make the most idiotic business decisions imaginable for several lifetimes in order to foul away that advantage.
Imagine yourself as one of the ten or so wealthiest persons on the planet....would it be in your advantage for everyone to know who you are and what all you control?
Heck no it wouldn't! You'd want folks believing that a common techy dude from out West somewhere could work his way into being the world's richest person!
by Jesusjohn7811 months ago
Everyone hates the "rich" and I do not understand why. I was always under the impression the American dream was to become successful and stay successful? SO why are we always trying to punish the...
by Jimbo'daNimbo4 years ago
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/22/state … poor-most/You know what is really confusing about this is the simple fact the smoking is one of the greatest health issues we have..but I just would wonder how much...
by Stacie L4 years ago
Is it acceptable for the US Presidential candidate and possible future president to hide millions of dollars in off shore accounts?Romney hiding millions in dozens of secret offshore accounts: reportBy Stephen C....
by Mike Russo2 years ago
During Obama's state of the union speech, he stated that he wants the minimum wage raised and is going to raise it for federal employees. He implied this will create jobs. The republican party countered...
by MikeNV6 years ago
ACCORDING TO AN ASSOCIATE PRESS STORY RELEASED TODAY... THE "RICH" ARE ALREADY PAYING THE MAJORITY OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.I'm not sure I buy into their numbers but here is what they had to say:"The...
by tksensei6 years ago
BARNEY FRANK: "I'm a supporter as many in the House are, of a surtax on very wealthy people. We should probably be restraining this. But secondly, this is why a surtax on the very wealthy ought to go forward. This...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.