Just checked out the election results...

[muddstopper]

Federal reserve, congress, what ever. Bottom line is we need to do away with the IRS, this in itself would save the country billions each year. Then we need to go to a flat tax where everybody is taxed at the same rate, reguardless of income, or go to the Value added tax where you are taxed on what you spend. Personally, I favor the flat tax, the value added tax would make some things unabtainable to lower income families.

I did a little calculation today when I bought some gas for my truck. Gas was $2.88 a gal and of that 50.55% per gal was nothing more than a tax. The total tax amounted to just over 17% of my total cost of fuel. Actual cost of the fuel was $2.3745 a gallon. With the coporate taxe rate of 35% already factored into the price of the fuel. I wonder what the actual price of the gas would have been without all those taxes. I have been tempted to add up all the taxes I pay on everything I buy, own or use to see just what percentage it would be of my income, but I am afraid the total amount paid in taxes, would far exceed what I get to keep.

Just for everybodies info. Woodrow Wilson was the Democratic President in 1913 and here is a list of some of his accomplishments.

In his first term, Wilson persuaded a Democratic Congress to pass the Federal Reserve Act, Federal Trade Commission Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Federal Farm Loan Act and America's first-ever federal progressive income tax in the Revenue Act of 1913. Wilson brought many white Southerners into his administration, and tolerated their expansion of segregation in many federal agencies.

 

[Q9]

Quote:
I'm more of a revenue tariff guy myself.

MODEST revenue tariff, mind you. Just enough to fund what is permitted by the Constitution. That way, it favors no one, and it can be quite small, to the point of being unnoticeable.

Total agreement on the IRS - THIEVES!

 

[Dunkopf]

Quote:
I was a Clinton supporter and I agree with you completely. He should have vetoed those bills instead of promoting them. He has publicly stated that he regretted ever signing those bills. He did it in order to get Congress to pass some other stuff he wanted passed. It sucks the way politics works like that. Lot's of bad horse trading in Congress. You won't see them repealing NAFTA. All you ever hear from the right is the free trade chant. Republicans are all over corporations maximizing profits regardless of job loss.

Your comment about having corporations reinvest is very similar to what the high taxes used to do during Eisenhower. Rather than pay the high taxes on income over a certain threshold, millionaires would plow the money back in to their companies and actually create jobs. Right now corporations in America allegedly pay the lowest tax rates in the world because of deductions and tax breaks that they get. Yes on paper it is high but they do a great job of getting around them. Not criticizing them for that. It's only common sense to take whatever deductions you can get. If they dropped the corporate taxes and required them to reinvest 35% of their earnings I would be all for it. Flat tax as was mentioned wouldn't work, nor would a huge tax on anything you buy. It would be a very big burden on the middle and lower class.

I don't think an extra 3% income tax on people over 250k is going to kill them. Beside from what I hear Obama said that he is pushing to reinstate the entire tax cut for at least 2 more years.

 

[muddstopper]

I don't think an extra 3% income tax on people over 250k is going to kill them. Beside from what I hear Obama said that he is pushing to reinstate the entire tax cut for at least 2 more years.

Have you ever made $250K in one year, I bet not. I on the other hand have. Lets look at what $250 taxed at 35% ends up being.
250k less 35% endsup being $162,500, still a pretty good takehome pay you say. Well if I take home $162.5k, that means I paid a tax of $87,500. That much money would have allowed me to hire 4 more workers and continued to grow my business. Now lets add on 3% more to that already ridiculous tax rate. My $250K is now worth $152,500 and cost me another 10grand in taxes. 10 grand would have provided insurance for those 4 new workers. You think my takeing home $150K is unfair to a minimum wage earner. Tuff turkey. I started out with nothing and worked my tail off. I took the risk necessary to earn the money, I invested not only my time, but my back, I put in the long hours, faught the fight with the bureacrates, Took the training needed, paid for it out of my own pocket, and succeeded inspite of the governments obsticals that they continually threw in my path. And now just because someone didnt do as I did, and doesnt make what I do, I should give them my money. Hogwash!!. If you believe that, send me your next paycheck. Heck, I'll even settle for the same 35% of your paycheck you so desire me to pay. Fair is fair isnt it. If your not willing to pay the 35%, dont expect anyone else to.

I have no problem with paying my FAIR Share of the Taxes, I have a very hard time with someone telling me I should pay more because I make more. If every one was taxed at the same tax rate, I would still be paying more in taxes than the person on minimum wage, but at least I wouldnt be paying my share and theirs too.

I can give another example.
My father had a stroke and had to be placed in a nursing home. He had a retirement check of $2200 per month, another union check for about $50, he got a Indian check twice a year for around $2000, he owned a home and some property. The Government took it all and paid for his medical expenses out of medicaid. Sound fair, on face value it might, but look a little deeper. The hospital room he had was not private. The person that was in the bed across from him was getting the same care, nothing wrong with that. But heres the kicker. I knew the person in the next bed, had known them for most of my life, they had never held a job, where always on welfare and foodstamps, didnt own a home or property, they had nothing for the government to take, yet they still got the same care as my father. Is that fair? I dont begrudge the guy for the care or the services he was recieving, but someone had to pay for that care and it is the taxpayers that funded it. Now if the taxpayers can foot the bill for one person, why couldnt they foot the bill for the other person. Fair is fair, right. Redistribution of Wealth, Take from the rich and give to the poor. Call it what you like, I call it grand theft.

As for Obama reinstateing the Bush tax cuts, if he does its because he knows now that he cant get away with his Redistribution of Wealth plan for America. Not even his fellow democrates think his plan would create any jobs and in fact, most likely cause an even further erosion of jobs to overseas sources.​

 

[I have WHAT in my yard?]

Q9 said:

Both Republicans and Democrats have been buying Keynes' bull for a LONG time now. That's why we're in this mess. As for your "neo-liberal" economics, you really need to study history better. We have been kneeling at the altar of Keynes' discredited theories since at least 1913 - when the Monster From Jekyll Island was born. Personally, I think that before ANYTHING else, that monster must be destroyed.

Be careful of telling other people to study history better. Do you know who was involved in the neo-liberal economics movement? Are you familiar with the team that "helped" the former Soviet states go through shock economics to "help" them make the change from communism to capitalism? Look at who the major players were. Look at the interlocking directorates that have dominated economic thought for the last 30 years.

Once upon a time I thought history was a known. Something that was laid out clearly because it was in the past. But it is not. History is written by the victors. It is played out to support whatever dominant ideology exists at the time, often with little regard for the actual facts. There is no side or group that is more or less adept at this. Nor are we necessarily better at it now than we were years ago.

Yes, the Fed was a bad idea. Even Wilson said so on his death bed, something to the effect that he knew he had ruined this country with that one decision and hoped a president who followed would be able to correct it. The only one who was really serious about dismantling it and had plans to do so was Kennedy.​

 

[Amyable]

Quote:
Have you ever made $250K in one year, I bet not. I on the other hand have. Lets look at what $250 taxed at 35% ends up being.
250k less 35% endsup being $162,500, still a pretty good takehome pay you say. Well if I take home $162.5k, that means I paid a tax of $87,500. That much money would have allowed me to hire 4 more workers and continued to grow my business. Now lets add on 3% more to that already ridiculous tax rate. My $250K is now worth $152,500 and cost me another 10grand in taxes. 10 grand would have provided insurance for those 4 new workers. You think my takeing home $150K is unfair to a minimum wage earner. Tuff turkey. I started out with nothing and worked my tail off. I took the risk necessary to earn the money, I invested not only my time, but my back, I put in the long hours, faught the fight with the bureacrates, Took the training needed, paid for it out of my own pocket, and succeeded inspite of the governments obsticals that they continually threw in my path. And now just because someone didnt do as I did, and doesnt make what I do, I should give them my money. Hogwash!!. If you believe that, send me your next paycheck. Heck, I'll even settle for the same 35% of your paycheck you so desire me to pay. Fair is fair isnt it. If your not willing to pay the 35%, dont expect anyone else to.

I have no problem with paying my FAIR Share of the Taxes, I have a very hard time with someone telling me I should pay more because I make more. If every one was taxed at the same tax rate, I would still be paying more in taxes than the person on minimum wage, but at least I wouldnt be paying my share and theirs too.

I can give another example.
My father had a stroke and had to be placed in a nursing home. He had a retirement check of $2200 per month, another union check for about $50, he got a Indian check twice a year for around $2000, he owned a home and some property. The Government took it all and paid for his medical expenses out of medicaid. Sound fair, on face value it might, but look a little deeper. The hospital room he had was not private. The person that was in the bed across from him was getting the same care, nothing wrong with that. But heres the kicker. I knew the person in the next bed, had known them for most of my life, they had never held a job, where always on welfare and foodstamps, didnt own a home or property, they had nothing for the government to take, yet they still got the same care as my father. Is that fair? I dont begrudge the guy for the care or the services he was recieving, but someone had to pay for that care and it is the taxpayers that funded it. Now if the taxpayers can foot the bill for one person, why couldnt they foot the bill for the other person. Fair is fair, right. Redistribution of Wealth, Take from the rich and give to the poor. Call it what you like, I call it grand theft.

As for Obama reinstateing the Bush tax cuts, if he does its because he knows now that he cant get away with his Redistribution of Wealth plan for America. Not even his fellow democrates think his plan would create any jobs and in fact, most likely cause an even further erosion of jobs to overseas sources.

 

[deerman]

Quote:
Have you ever made $250K in one year, I bet not. I on the other hand have. Lets look at what $250 taxed at 35% ends up being.
250k less 35% endsup being $162,500, still a pretty good takehome pay you say. Well if I take home $162.5k, that means I paid a tax of $87,500. That much money would have allowed me to hire 4 more workers and continued to grow my business. Now lets add on 3% more to that already ridiculous tax rate. My $250K is now worth $152,500 and cost me another 10grand in taxes. 10 grand would have provided insurance for those 4 new workers. You think my takeing home $150K is unfair to a minimum wage earner. Tuff turkey. I started out with nothing and worked my tail off. I took the risk necessary to earn the money, I invested not only my time, but my back, I put in the long hours, faught the fight with the bureacrates, Took the training needed, paid for it out of my own pocket, and succeeded inspite of the governments obsticals that they continually threw in my path. And now just because someone didnt do as I did, and doesnt make what I do, I should give them my money. Hogwash!!. If you believe that, send me your next paycheck. Heck, I'll even settle for the same 35% of your paycheck you so desire me to pay. Fair is fair isnt it. If your not willing to pay the 35%, dont expect anyone else to.

I have no problem with paying my FAIR Share of the Taxes, I have a very hard time with someone telling me I should pay more because I make more. If every one was taxed at the same tax rate, I would still be paying more in taxes than the person on minimum wage, but at least I wouldnt be paying my share and theirs too.

I can give another example.
My father had a stroke and had to be placed in a nursing home. He had a retirement check of $2200 per month, another union check for about $50, he got a Indian check twice a year for around $2000, he owned a home and some property. The Government took it all and paid for his medical expenses out of medicaid. Sound fair, on face value it might, but look a little deeper. The hospital room he had was not private. The person that was in the bed across from him was getting the same care, nothing wrong with that. But heres the kicker. I knew the person in the next bed, had known them for most of my life, they had never held a job, where always on welfare and foodstamps, didnt own a home or property, they had nothing for the government to take, yet they still got the same care as my father. Is that fair? I dont begrudge the guy for the care or the services he was recieving, but someone had to pay for that care and it is the taxpayers that funded it. Now if the taxpayers can foot the bill for one person, why couldnt they foot the bill for the other person. Fair is fair, right. Redistribution of Wealth, Take from the rich and give to the poor. Call it what you like, I call it grand theft.

As for Obama reinstateing the Bush tax cuts, if he does its because he knows now that he cant get away with his Redistribution of Wealth plan for America. Not even his fellow democrates think his plan would create any jobs and in fact, most likely cause an even further erosion of jobs to overseas sources.

With you 100% just because one person works hard all their life, long hard hours to get what they have....no reason for our goverment to take it and give to those who didn't earn it.

I am for everyone paying the same % of tax....these deduction are crazy why should a person who want 12 children get to pay less than the person who knows they only can aford to raise two.

Pay less if you buy a larger home, than the person who buy a cheaper one....


Heck how about the earned income credit....those people get a refund of taxes they didn't even payed in. Just getting refund of taxes someone else payed in........sound crazy to me.

 

[Organics North]

Quote:
Horse pucky... Been there done that.. I do think 250K is a little low for small business owners but not by much.. You most likely will hire more employees to make up the difference in your personal profit. Do you not keep separate books on your business? What if that 3% increase removed your burden of having to purchase and manage health insurance plans for your employees?? Cut that staff and cost and come out x% ahead you will..

You sound like you are greedy and jaded with your bold statements..
ON

 

[nonseq]

You all do remember that a scant 30 years ago the highest personal income tax bracket was 70% don't you? Reagan's administration did away with that bracket, but increased taxes in all kinds of sneaky little ways to try to make up the shortfall.

Also allowing the tax cuts to expire is only on the income over 250,000. That is, the additional 3% of tax will be only on earnings over $250,000.

Has anyone checked out the CBO's site? I highly recommend it.

OH. And to the person squawking about illegal immigrants, in my state the vast majority of Medicaid dollars are spent on the elderly poor. Something like 75% of the money is spent on 25% of the recipients.....nursing home care, etc.

 

[muddstopper]

Horse pucky... Been there done that.. I do think 250K is a little low for small business owners but not by much.. You most likely will hire more employees to make up the difference in your personal profit. Do you not keep separate books on your business? What if that 3% increase removed your burden of having to purchase and manage health insurance plans for your employees?? Cut that staff and cost and come out x% ahead you will..

You sound like you are greedy and jaded with your bold statements..
ON

Greedy and jaded. I really dont know how to respond to that. At least not in a manner that would be permitted on this forum.

Since when is 250k low for a profit on a small business. You think all small business clear a million bucks a year. To simplify this for you, you pay taxes on your profit, not on the revenue the business takes in. Do I need to also explain profit to you. Profit is what you make after all expenses/ cost of doing business, or as the liberals would like to call it, deductions, are substracted from your balance sheet.

As for the seperate books, yada, yada, yada, Stupid question and no answer deserved. Bottom line as a Chaper S corporation, My wife and I where still the listed owners of the company and all profits belonged to us and it is still our responsibility to pay the taxes owed. Now those taxes would have been paid thru the corporate account, but it still came out of our pockets.

Now your reference to cutting staff and the cost of insurance and makeing more money is rediculous to say the least. The goal is to grow a company in order to make more money. Not cut the staff so you cant do more work. And if you think that paultry 3% in extra taxes is going to pay the healthcare if the money is sent to the government to swindle and waste, you really need to rethink what you are proposeing. That 3% would be put to much better use in growing a business, hireing more workers and letting them get off of the welfare rolls. Let them become taxpayers, the government will still get their money, but it will be from the additional taxpayers added to the tax base, and not all from the few taxpayers that still have jobs.

Let me explain how a company not paying corporate taxes will not reslut in a lost of tax dollars to the feds. Lets just use $40k for a dollar wage. Now suppose I save $40g by not having to pay a coporate income tax. Wow, Now I am greedy, I just got to keep $40 g of my hard earned money. Now instead of sticking that money away in a jar in my back yard, I decide that if I hire another employee, I could increase production of my widgets and make more money. I take that $40g and hire another worker. This worker has been laid off for many months, was recieving food stamps, rent assitance, and medicare health benefits. Now he has a job, and isnt eligable for all the free handouts. Hes makeing $40g a year and can pay for his food electricty, rent and has health insurance thru a company health plan. Gosh, that alone has already saved the Federal Gov. a ton of money. I would guestimate at least $1200 a month or $14gs a year. This new worker, is also Paying income taxes on his newfound wealth, he had a little pocket money to spend on a new car, remodeling his house, ect, etc. He is in effect actually hireing or creating more jobs that can take even more poeple off of public assitance. Saving the gov even more. Reduceing the burden on medicare, paying into social security, driving this economy forward. Nah, it has to be better to let the federal government have the $40g and redistribute it as they see fit. We all know the government can be trusted to not waste our money on trips to India, playing golf, or a basketball court on the back lawn of the White House.​