• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

State of the Union Address

TurtleDude said:
You know well that there have been dozens of posts explaining why LONG term capital gains are taxed less

those include

1) the risk element
2) to stimulate investment
3) the diminishing of the investment due to inflation

and it is why SHORT TERM capital gains are taxed the same as earned income

what is pathetic is people who are mad that some can avoid having earned income while having no problem with so many voters having no income tax
Click to expand...

1) Risk is part of investing. It isn't a justification for preferential treatment by the government. Why should the taxpayers subsidize your risky behavior? Has this sort of thing ever come back to bite us on the ass?

2) There is no convincing evidence that lower LTCG rates spur investment.

3) Diminishing investment due to inflation is one reason why people invest in stocks, as opposed to holding cash. It isn't a justification for a preferential tax rate.
 
TurtleDude said:
and your position is based on what advances the interests of the party that you work for and the union that you were a member of
Click to expand...

Actually, my position on taxation is based on my love for America and its people.

My position on corporate taxes and individual income taxes NOT being double taxation is based on the law itself and reality.

If I quit my job today - that would not change.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
1) Risk is part of investing. It isn't a justification for preferential treatment by the government. Why should the taxpayers subsidize your risky behavior? Has this sort of thing ever come back to bite us on the ass?

2) There is no convincing evidence that lower LTCG rates spur investment.

3) Diminishing investment due to inflation is one reason why people invest in stocks, as opposed to holding cash. It isn't a justification for a preferential tax rate.
Click to expand...
there is no evidence that taxing the rich more does anything to help society. When GHWB compromised with the dems the dems were supposed to cut spending. Didn't happen. Didn't happen with Reagan either

and why should we subsidize people who make poor life choices. like those who drop out of school and cannot find productive work. and you don't seem to understand that not taking more and more is not subsidizing. subsidizing risky behavior would be taxing people to make up for capital losses which I oppose.
 
haymarket said:
Actually, my position on taxation is based on my love for America and its people.

My position on corporate taxes and individual income taxes NOT being double taxation is based on the law itself and reality.

If I quite my job today - that would not change.
Click to expand...

I have to leave the board on that one, I just laugh-snarfed mountain dew all over my trousers and have to go change

your position is about taking more money from the wealthy

nothing more nothing less
 
TurtleDude said:
you can pretend its different entities BEING taxed but it is the same ENTITY TAKING the money
Click to expand...
I don't think you understand how corporations work in legal terms. Shareholders are completely separate from the corporation.

That's the cost of having the benefits and personal legal protection corporations provide.
 
haymarket said:
Again, for at least the tenth time from the Wikipedia article on CORPORATIONS - in fact the opening lines

A corporation is created under the laws of a state as a separate legal entity that has privileges and liabilities that are distinct from those of its members
Click to expand...

Not that this is going to do any good.
Click to expand...

Does this imply that the corporation’s PROFITS are separate from its members?
 
TurtleDude said:
there is no evidence that taxing the rich more does anything to help society.
Click to expand...

To the contrary. When we had a more progressive tax code we had lower deficits, and for a time, even a surplus. It was only after Reagan flattened tax rates that our deficits and debt began to explode.
 
Tettsuo said:
I don't think you understand how corporations work in legal terms. Shareholders are completely separate from the corporation.

That's the cost of having the benefits and personal legal protection corporations provide.
Click to expand...

With SPECIFIC regards to profits, how so?
 
AdamT said:
To the contrary. When we had a more progressive tax code we had lower deficits, and for a time, even a surplus. It was only after Reagan flattened tax rates that our deficits and debt began to explode.
Click to expand...

Prove that we had lower deficits as a result of higher taxes on the rich? You don't seem to understand the unified budget nor do you understand the Tax Reduction Act of 1997. You continue to play your game

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Relief_Act_of_1997
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
nothing but pretending its the moral high ground over someone who is tired of paying too much taxes is specious

he derives benefits from his dem masters winning elections and he pretends that is some sort of noble cause that trumps others objecting to paying more taxes so his Dem masters can use that to buy votes
Click to expand...

Allow the HE in your post to speak for himself:

1- I have no masters. It reeks of masters and slaves or serfs and I suspect that is your intent in using such a schoolyard slur. For you to continue to use that after being informed will be taken as a provocation and your intention ot be less than intellectually honest. That is insulting when you use that term and it is taken as an intentional slur and insult against me. I have asked you before to restrain yourself and refrain from using it. Please do that.

2 - I have repeatedly told you that I do NOT decide issues of policy by what my personal gain is. Some here do. You obviously do as your own words repeated by me show that you do. I do not support the sun shining because it shines on my ass. Look how I have openly and repeatedly advocated ALL Americans paying at least five points more in federal income tax. That includes me. I do NOT decide things based on my own personal gain so your whining about my job of past union affiliations is absolutely inane and ridiculous.
 
Tettsuo said:
I don't think you understand how corporations work in legal terms. Shareholders are completely separate from the corporation.

That's the cost of having the benefits and personal legal protection corporations provide.
Click to expand...

I think you are wrong in making that judgment. I believe there is 100% complete and total understanding of the legal distinction between the two. What there is not is acceptance of that reality over a personal belief system which places the highest and ultimate priority on personal gain over everything else - the law and reality included.
 
AdamT said:
To the contrary. When we had a more progressive tax code we had lower deficits, and for a time, even a surplus. It was only after Reagan flattened tax rates that our deficits and debt began to explode.
Click to expand...

While I agree there were times that the MARGINAL tax rates were more progressive the EFFECTIVE tax rates have not historically changed much, at least back to 1979 which is as far back as I have found credible data.
 
TurtleDude said:
I have to leave the board on that one, I just laugh-snarfed mountain dew all over my trousers and have to go change
Click to expand...

I believe you. I have little doubt, based on the countless posts you have made where you place your own personal selfish needs and wants above those of the American people, that you would have that reaction to someone whose position is based on what is good for all the American people and the nation we love. Your reaction would have been exactly what I would have predicted it would be. In fact, it is a tribute to your abilities of physical control that there was not an additional eruption of fluids from other openings as well. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
What there is not is acceptance of that reality over a personal belief system which places the highest and ultimate priority on personal gain over everything else - the law and reality included.
Click to expand...

You are profoundly correct with this statement. Those espousing ‘fair’ and ‘tax the rich’ are equally placing the ultimately priority on THEIR personal gain over anything else.

Thank you for that.
 
Last edited:
Dickieboy said:
You are profoundly correct with this statement. Those espousing ‘fair’ and ‘tax the rich’ are equally placing the ultimately priority on THEIR personal gain on anything else.

Thank you for that.
Click to expand...

Perhaps some are. That is not true for my own position. I have repeatedly stated that I favor ALL Americans who earn as little as dollar one having their tax rate raised a full five points. And that includes me.
 
haymarket said:
Perhaps some are. That is not true for my own position. I have repeatedly stated that I favor ALL Americans who earn as little as dollar one having their tax rate raised a full five points. And that includes me.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am aware of that and honor you position on this. But you seem to disrespect other's.
 
haymarket said:
That clearly would not be you Turtle since you repeatedly seem ignorant to the fact that a corporation is a legal entity with its own separate legal obligations including taxes. A shareholder who gets dividends from owning that share or shares is a whole different entity with their own legal obligations of taxation. This is been explained to you over and over and over in thread after thread after thread by poster after poster after poster and you simply ignore it and skate on by with blinders on your eyes.

Again, for at least the tenth time from the Wikipedia article on CORPORATIONS - in fact the opening lines

Not that this is going to do any good.
Click to expand...

You really do lose credibility when you argue that dividends are not taxed twice, for they are. You can argue that it doesn't make any difference to you, that it should be that way, but reality is reality. I would argue that there are few (if any...can't think of any) expenditures a business makes in the course of its business that aren't tax deductible. And their being tax deductible is what triggers tax on the receiving end.
 
MaggieD said:
You really do lose credibility when you argue that dividends are not taxed twice, for they are. You can argue that it doesn't make any difference to you, that it should be that way, but reality is reality. I would argue that there are few (if any...can't think of any) expenditures a business makes in the course of its business that aren't tax deductible. And their being tax deductible is what triggers tax on the receiving end.
Click to expand...

Who is it that is paying taxes twice on this money?
 
Dickieboy said:
Yes, I am aware of that and honor you position on this. But you seem to disrespect other's.
Click to expand...

Who am I disrespecting? If somebody wants to take the position that they want all the money that they can get and are willing to embrace a large variety of contradictory positions on different tax schemes to obtain a tax cut - that is their right. And it is mine to point that out. How is that disrespecting anyone? It simply accepting their position and exposing it for what it is.
 
MaggieD said:
You really do lose credibility when you argue that dividends are not taxed twice, for they are. You can argue that it doesn't make any difference to you, that it should be that way, but reality is reality. I would argue that there are few (if any...can't think of any) expenditures a business makes in the course of its business that aren't tax deductible. And their being tax deductible is what triggers tax on the receiving end.
Click to expand...
Actually, the reality is each entity is taxed separately. Again, that's the cost of having all of the benefits a corporate can bring.

But I understand where you're coming from. The term double taxation is based on this exact scenario. If you're the sole owner of a corporation, you 'feel' double taxed. But that's the only way a corporation can exist, if it's considered a legal separate entity from it's shareholders. Without that layer, nothing stops the shareholders from be personally attacked if lawsuits are placed against their corporation.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Who is it that is paying taxes twice on this money?
Click to expand...

Haymarket, dividends are taxed twice. The tax is being paid by two separate entities. I imagine you would have a different outlook if your pension fund had to pay tax on its profits, and then you had to pay tax on them when you received them....for that would mean you would receive substantially less than you do.

Gift tax. Tax paid by the giver. Received by the giftee tax-free.
Inheritance tax. Paid by the estate. Received by the beneficiary tax-free.
Alimony. Deducted by the payer. Taxable to the receiver.
Salary. Deducted by the business. Taxable to the employee.
Health Insurance Premiums. Deducted by the business. Not taxed to the employee. Oops. (A pet peeve of mine, by the way.)
OEM businesses. No tax paid on purchases for the purpose of manufacturing. Tax collected when the manufactured item is sold.
And on and on and on.

Capital gains are treated as an anomoly. Taxed twice.
 
haymarket said:
Who am I disrespecting?
Click to expand...

Just a few examples:

haymarket said:
Unlike others here, I do not base my political positions on if the sun shines on my own ass.
Click to expand...
haymarket said:
That clearly would not be you Turtle since you repeatedly seem ignorant …ignore it and skate on by with blinders on your eyes.
Click to expand...

haymarket said:
In fact, it is a tribute to your abilities of physical control that there was not an additional eruption of fluids from other openings as well.
Click to expand...

Sounds disrespectful to me…
 
haymarket said:
Who am I disrespecting? If somebody wants to take the position that they want all the money that they can get and are willing to embrace a large variety of contradictory positions on different tax schemes to obtain a tax cut - that is their right. And it is mine to point that out. How is that disrespecting anyone? It simply accepting their position and exposing it for what it is.
Click to expand...

What I find interesting is always the rhetoric about spending in the name of compassion yet never any rhetoric about never getting compassionate results meaning actual results. I wonder what it is about someone who works in state govt. promoting massive increases in spending by the Federal govt. on issues that are state and local responsibilities. What drives people like you to promote that ideology? What is it that the Federal Govt. knows about state and local problems that you don't? Could it be that you really aren't concerned about state and local problems but more concerned about giving those problems lip service and claiming how much you care?

How does sending the money to the Federal Govt. and having them distribute that money as they see fit benefit you at the local level?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom