Poll

10 votes (35.71%)
18 votes (64.28%)

28 members have voted

SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 108
  • Posts: 6458
July 18th, 2011 at 6:10:38 AM permalink
Quote: buzzpaff

Try This one
Do not try to teach a pig to sing. it wastes your time and annoys the pig. So that is my last post on this thread,



I will bet 1 million dollars this is not your last post on this thread. I have not read further.
As far as 'corporate taxes', if you tax GE then that money is not available to be given to its employees/executives, and thus will not be taxed later. GE will have to either raise its prices or pay its employees less, or employ fewer employees. Which of those 3 options do you want? Also, if GE is competing in the global marketplace, how will it be able to if it has onerous taxes placed on it?
The concept is so simple to me. I want our government to run like I run my household. A rare long term project (buying a house) may be reason to go into debt (mortgage), but there is a defined plan (monthly payments for 30 years) to end the debt. Otherwise, I borrow nothing without a reasonable plan to pay it off. I accumulated a 'reserve', so any 'unexpected' expenses are not cause for more borrowing. If I am running the government, I WOULD expect hurricanes, wars, attacks from Muslim extremists. These would not be 'unexpected expenses'.
Of course there are no perfect solutions. However,what will likely turn out to be the most expensive bill in history, Obamacare, whose gigantic costs will only start phasing in AFTER the next election (quite a surprise he crafted it that way), occurred because we had all 3 bodies (house, senate, executive) all controlled by Democrats. So when forced to call myself a ------, I have to pick Republican.
s2dbaker
s2dbaker
Joined: Jun 10, 2010
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 3259
July 18th, 2011 at 6:19:50 AM permalink
SOOPOO, you do know that employees salaries are expenses that are deducted from revenue. By your logic, GE would actually pay it's employees more to avoid paying taxes.
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 108
  • Posts: 6458
July 18th, 2011 at 7:55:48 AM permalink
Quote: s2dbaker

SOOPOO, you do know that employees salaries are expenses that are deducted from revenue. By your logic, GE would actually pay it's employees more to avoid paying taxes.



And that is why some corporations pay no taxes, because they don't show that 'profit'. But the $100 million they paid to top exec is taxed at the highest marginal rate, regardless of whether the company showed a 'profit'. So tax them LESS, so that that 100 million can be 110 million, and the federal government (and states too) get more.
I think ME hit the nail on the head--- IF we were starting a new taxation system from scratch, then a consumption or VAT would be the way to go. But all those that have paid income taxes all these years, and now are expecting those who now have incomes to pay, would find a swift change to a consumption tax unfair.
By the way, s2dbaker, my group acts like a corporation. We make sure that at the end of every year we 'zero out' by distributing all monies to the partners so we do not have to pay 'corporate taxes'. So each partner is responsible for their own share of federal and state taxes. Additionally, we are responsible for our own FICA (both halves) and Medicare tax (both halves). So on my first 100k I pay about 60% to the feds, state, FICA, and Medicare. After the first 100k it is about 45% on the rest. So as the liberal who wants "taxes on the rich" to go up, what % do you think would have me paying 'my fair share'? I feel like already I am paying my fair share, and then some....
s2dbaker
s2dbaker
Joined: Jun 10, 2010
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 3259
July 18th, 2011 at 8:05:18 AM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

And that is why some corporations pay no taxes, because they don't show that 'profit'. But the $100 million they paid to top exec is taxed at the highest marginal rate, regardless of whether the company showed a 'profit'. So tax them LESS, so that that 100 million can be 110 million, and the federal government (and states too) get more.
I think ME hit the nail on the head--- IF we were starting a new taxation system from scratch, then a consumption or VAT would be the way to go. But all those that have paid income taxes all these years, and now are expecting those who now have incomes to pay, would find a swift change to a consumption tax unfair.
By the way, s2dbaker, my group acts like a corporation. We make sure that at the end of every year we 'zero out' by distributing all monies to the partners so we do not have to pay 'corporate taxes'. So each partner is responsible for their own share of federal and state taxes. Additionally, we are responsible for our own FICA (both halves) and Medicare tax (both halves). So on my first 100k I pay about 60% to the feds, state, FICA, and Medicare. After the first 100k it is about 45% on the rest. So as the liberal who wants "taxes on the rich" to go up, what % do you think would have me paying 'my fair share'? I feel like already I am paying my fair share, and then some....

the rate that we (yes i'm very well off too) were paying under Clinton/Gore would be fine.
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
July 18th, 2011 at 8:31:44 AM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

The concept is so simple to me. I want our government to run like I run my household.


No, you really, really do not. If you're like the majority of American family heads, you provide food, clothing, and shelter for your family. You also make all the spending decisions and household rules. You also do not charge your family members anything to live in your home.

If the government were run that way, we would abolish Congress and the independent Judiciary and invest the President with sole authority to make and change all rules, pass judgment, and execute policy decisions. The U.S. would cease to be a constitutional democracy and become a benevolent dictatorship. There would be no taxes, yet everyone would be entitled to free food, clothing, and homes. Because there are no taxes, the government would be responsible for earning revenue through commerce with other nations and competing with its own citizens' industries.

I could keep going but you should see the point. The government is entirely unlike a household, and the financial resources and responsibilities of one are very different than the other. Do not fall into the seductively simple trap of thinking that stabilizing the U.S. economy as simple as "balancing the budget like any household does". It's not, and as soon as that simplistic thinking leaves the public discourse, the sooner we can move on to the much more nuanced and difficult task of enacting policy that's appropriate for our nation rather than a single family.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
July 18th, 2011 at 9:27:57 AM permalink
BUT, should government long term borrowing not be based on project/program expenditure, and there to be a long term balance (which may be a long term, small debt (10-20% of GDP, relating to a small, average over spend per year).
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 108
  • Posts: 6458
July 18th, 2011 at 9:38:57 AM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

No, you really, really do not. If you're like the majority of American family heads, you provide food, clothing, and shelter for your family. You also make all the spending decisions and household rules. You also do not charge your family members anything to live in your home.

If the government were run that way, we would abolish Congress and the independent Judiciary and invest the President with sole authority to make and change all rules, pass judgment, and execute policy decisions. The U.S. would cease to be a constitutional democracy and become a benevolent dictatorship. There would be no taxes, yet everyone would be entitled to free food, clothing, and homes. Because there are no taxes, the government would be responsible for earning revenue through commerce with other nations and competing with its own citizens' industries.

I could keep going but you should see the point. The government is entirely unlike a household, and the financial resources and responsibilities of one are very different than the other. Do not fall into the seductively simple trap of thinking that stabilizing the U.S. economy as simple as "balancing the budget like any household does". It's not, and as soon as that simplistic thinking leaves the public discourse, the sooner we can move on to the much more nuanced and difficult task of enacting policy that's appropriate for our nation rather than a single family.



You are too smart, ME, to extrapolate my concept that the government shouldn't borrow what it can NEVER pay off, into the whole 'benevolent dictator' discourse. My analogy is purely fiscal in nature. Do not borrow what you cannot afford to repay. Plan for 'unexpected' expenses which are quite expected. You are correct, the government is unlike a household. My point is if it was run like MY household we would not have the problems we have now. You use the term 'simplistic' in a perjorative way. I would use it in a laudatory way.
s2dbaker
s2dbaker
Joined: Jun 10, 2010
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 3259
July 18th, 2011 at 9:42:58 AM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

BUT, should government long term borrowing not be based on project/program expenditure, and there to be a long term balance (which may be a long term, small debt (10-20% of GDP, relating to a small, average over spend per year).

that sounds a lot like that crazy liberal Nancy Pelosi scheme called Pay-Go. Why do you hate America?
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
July 18th, 2011 at 9:51:32 AM permalink
Quote: s2dbaker

that sounds a lot like that crazy liberal Nancy Pelosi scheme called Pay-Go. Why do you hate America?



I quite like America. I live there. Just not in smaller central belt of the continent.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
July 18th, 2011 at 10:08:04 PM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

You are too smart, ME, to extrapolate my concept that the government shouldn't borrow what it can NEVER pay off, into the whole 'benevolent dictator' discourse. My analogy is purely fiscal in nature. Do not borrow what you cannot afford to repay. Plan for 'unexpected' expenses which are quite expected. You are correct, the government is unlike a household. My point is if it was run like MY household we would not have the problems we have now. You use the term 'simplistic' in a perjorative way. I would use it in a laudatory way.


But even if you limit the analogy to fiscal topics, there is a vast gulf between what one *should* do and what one *can* do. The economic conservatives in this country have long argued for the relaxation of market regulations, restrictions that could have prevented banks from giving mortgages to homebuyers who could clearly not afford to repay them. Those same restrictions could also have prevented the subsequent collateralization and mis-labelling that gave rise to the banking system collapse by saying "No, you can't chop up a bunch of bad paper, shuffle the pieces, and magically come up with A-rated debt" (it's eerie how similar that sounds to the typical betting system). Yet, at the same time, those same economic conservatives are in *favor of* regulating the government's ability to borrow and spend money on things it can't afford. If anything, that indicates an underlying acceptance of the premise that the federal economy is not equivalent to a household economy and should not be regulated similarly. At the risk of quoting the prolific mrjjj, you can't have it both ways.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563

  • Jump to: