Poll

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

28 members have voted

s2dbaker
s2dbaker
Joined: Jun 10, 2010
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 3259
July 17th, 2011 at 5:59:54 PM permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

I can't make you see them.

You could if you were to post one.
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
ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
July 17th, 2011 at 6:01:12 PM permalink
Quote: s2dbaker

This is a good question and a fair question and the answer is "Yes". Corporations that pay taxes are making a profit and are indeed surviving quite nicely.



Thanks for identifying a question.

But you're obfuscating. Again.

The question was, corporations with a 10x tax burden will keep ALL the employees they have, and at the exact same salary levels? Corporations don't seek a way to cut costs to survive?

You answered a question I didn't ask. Answer the question I did ask. Which is, for the 3rd time ...

Corporations, with a 10x tax burden, will keep ALL the employees they have, and at the exact same salary levels? Corporations don't seek a way to cut costs to survive?

EDIT: thanks for showing, again, what happens when you're asked a direct question.
s2dbaker
s2dbaker
Joined: Jun 10, 2010
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 3259
July 17th, 2011 at 6:08:41 PM permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

You answered a question I didn't ask. Answer the question I did ask. Which is, for the 3rd time ...

Corporations, with a 10x tax burden, will keep ALL the employees they have, and at the exact same salary levels?

Yes, they will keep ALL of their employees they have and at the exact same salary levels.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Corporations don't seek a way to cut costs to survive?

Corporations do seek a way to cut costs to survive.
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 17th, 2011 at 6:19:06 PM permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Finally, it's wrong to assign bad motive to using tax loopholes. Loophole-finders are perfectly law-abiding. Your gripe isn't with loophole-finders. It's with the folks who wrote the tax laws.

Until your thinking is correct on those points, I'm not sure there's much else to talk about here.


My thinking agrees with yours, so I'm not sure why you're being dismissive. I'm not assigning any motives to anyone operating under tax loopholes. I'm suggesting that it's foolish to preclude Congress from closing those loopholes simply because it would be a tax increase. If we agree that the loophole-writing authors of the tax code were wrong, I submit that it is a terrible idea to say fixing those loopholes is off-limits. But that's precisely what the ATR pledge does. When dogma trumps efficacy, we all lose.

Quote:

Before condemning fiscal policy to two levers, tell me what other levers are. Playing with only red numbers is perfectly legitimate if there are no other colors.


You misread me, I'm afraid. I said there are two levers (and there are: taxation and spending). The Tea Party is willing to operate only one of them (spending) and has put taxation off-limits. And to my analogy, there are indeed red and black numbers on the roulette wheel.
"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
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
July 17th, 2011 at 6:30:51 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Actually a base belief of most in the Tea Party is to repeal the right of congress to collect an income tax and replace that with a consumption tax. I'd be for this as long as the pols do not start handing out money to "make up" for the burden. Anything to get the bottom half of the country used to the idea they need to pay something and maybe then the next handout proposal we ask "how will this be paid for?"

The consumption tax could have an added benefit. The USA gets a lot of inflow of tourists, this would capture revenue from them. All the illegal aliens would start paying a fair share as well.


There are a lot of problems with a national VAT or consumption tax, least of all the fact that the rate would need to be about 31% or so in order to be revenue-neutral (and don't get me started on the exclusive vs. inclusive language games -- if I pay $1 before and $1.31 after, that's a 31% increase). In order to keep the rate that low, you'd have to pay taxes on your rent, your doctor's bills, your legal fees, and even a new home. You'd also have about two generations of very angry older Americans who saved for retirement and are now living on a fixed income, now faced with a world in which their saved, after-tax dollar no longer covers a dollar's worth of goods because now that costs $1.31. There have been no sensible proposals for handling such transitions. Until there are, I think the Fair Tax or other VAT-like proposals are simply academic exercises.
"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
kenarman
kenarman
Joined: Nov 22, 2009
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 966
July 17th, 2011 at 6:50:20 PM permalink
I answered yes since the bond agencies will reduce the credit rating of all levels of USA governments. This will increase interest rates on the trillions of dollars of debt putting the governments of all levels that much further in the hole. This will increase the interest rates on all business and personal loans (ie mortgages) which will push any economic recovery far into the future at the best case scenerio and likely put the country into an even deeper recession.

This is all just part of the total reorganization of the world economy. Those of us in the USA, Canada and Western Europe were the top dogs. We had no place left to go but down. Nobody wants to give up a significant part of their life style but that is what is going to occur so get used to it people. For those that believe in global warming blame it on bad stewardship of the envrironment if you want. Hopefully that isn't the case since the worst environmental countries are now some of the most successfull economically. I think that the bottom line is that we got fat and sassy and forgot how to work. There were billions of people lined up to take our place when we decided that we didn't want to work like our parents or grandparents had to work. I believe this recession is not something that we are going to recover from and go back to the 'way it was'. I think we are in the middle of a total revamping of the world and those of us in North America are going to end up with a significantly reduce lifestyle from what we had become used to and most still think they are owed. The sooner we accept that, the faster we can get on with our new lives and become productive and happy.
Be careful when you follow the masses, the M is sometimes silent.
NandB
NandB
Joined: Jan 26, 2010
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 146
July 17th, 2011 at 7:40:49 PM permalink
Corporations are 4% of Rev. stream and borrowing is 40%, and PIT-1040 is 26%. Its the borrowing at 40% that bothers me... is that portion of the stream shrinking due to the economic hardship certain sectors are in? I mean fail-to-pay is also fail-to-pay this particular portion of the Revenue Stream. I also think this portion needs drilling-down to Personal and business-entity streams. I tend to think Corporate is getting low taxation with fail-to-pay privilidges. JMH2c

N&B
To err is human. To air is Jordan. To arrr is pirate.
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 423
  • Posts: 24135
July 17th, 2011 at 9:30:44 PM permalink
Wanna see hysteria? Just mention you know who to a Lib. Little white specks of spittle occur at the corners of their mouth as they begin to froth..


"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
July 17th, 2011 at 10:08:51 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Correct. There are some federal "excise taxes" on gas and booze for example, but no federal "sales tax" or VAT.



BC has 12% sales tax, 5% goes to the federal level, and 7% to the Province (as I recall, it might be flipped around).

Solely charging sales (or consumption taxes) is a very regressive tax system. While your aim may be to ensure that everyone pays something, consumption taxes effect the lower paid proportionally more than the higher paid (not least as the higher paid tend to consume less than 100% of their income, deferring expenditure or moving it abroad).

I used to think (personal) taxation should all be one way or the other (all consumption or all income based), but I now think that's too dogmatic and a mix approach works. It also allows you to have another dial at your disposal (I understand that some people would reject the ability of the government to effect the market place...).
"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
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 165
  • Posts: 9597
July 18th, 2011 at 4:21:44 AM permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

But I ask it with a pure motive, and to show that, I'm not going to opine on the "why" and the political philosophy.



Well, since it looks like you broke your own promise, (just my opinion on that mind you), I have to say, if this were poker, the Republicans went all in on a bad bluff. The President can see their hand, so bluffing at this point is a matter of pride going before fall.

The fall would be if they bust the credit rating. The President will surely get blame but the Republicans aren't going to be heroes when they total up the cost of that.

The fall also would be if they cause more rancor and splits among the tea partiers by either raising taxes in a deal, or kicking the can.

The fall would also be that the polls don't support their no taxes, just cuts strategy. What happens when you go against the will of the people?

Republican FAIL.
Quasimodo? Does that name ring a bell?

  • Jump to: