View Poll Results: Do you support the People's Budget?

Voters
23. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    11 47.83%
  • No.

    11 47.83%
  • Unsure.

    1 4.35%
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 60

Thread: People's Budget.

  1. #11
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,461

    Re: People's Budget.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    It has some good aspects, but there's too much in here that I cannot agree with to vote "yes." Specifically their ideas toward corporate tax (which is already regressive, and would become even moreso under this plan) and their ideas toward itemized deductions (which they propose capping at 28%, thus adding to the complexity of the tax code, rather than just eliminating most of them entirely).
    Why would you want to eliminate itemized deductions?

  2. #12
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: People's Budget.

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Why would you want to eliminate itemized deductions?
    . . . thus adding to the complexity of the tax code, rather than just eliminating most of them entirely

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #13
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,461

    Re: People's Budget.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    . . . thus adding to the complexity of the tax code, rather than just eliminating most of them entirely
    You can't tax the gross income. It won't work. How many times do you have to told that?

    Example:

    a business earns a gross income of $100,000 a year.

    The business spends approximately $80,000 on operating costs. (payroll, equipment, repairs, etc.)

    That company falls into the 34% tax bracket, per the U.S. tax code, which means they will have to pay $34,000 in taxes with your new and improved tax code.

    $80,000 + $34,000 = $114,000 and the company only makes $100,000 to begin with.

    I would love for you to explain to us how that's supposed to be a good idea, unless your mission is to destroy private businesses, that is.

    You've simplified the tax code, alright...there won't be anyone left to tax!

  4. #14
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: People's Budget.

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    You can't tax the gross income. It won't work. How many times do you have to told that?

    Example:

    a business earns a gross income of $100,000 a year.

    The business spends approximately $80,000 on operating costs. (payroll, equipment, repairs, etc.)

    That company falls into the 34% tax bracket, per the U.S. tax code, which means they will have to pay $34,000 in taxes with your new and improved tax code.

    $80,000 + $34,000 = $114,000 and the company only makes $100,000 to begin with.

    I would love for you to explain to us how that's supposed to be a good idea, unless your mission is to destroy private businesses, that is.

    You've simplified the tax code, alright...there won't be anyone left to tax!
    I thought you guys wanted a flat tax?

    True flat rate income taxA true flat rate tax is a system of taxation where one tax rate is applied to all income with no exceptions.

    In an article titled The flat-tax revolution, dated April 14, 2005, The Economist argued as follows: If the goals are to reduce corporate welfare and to enable household tax returns to fit on a postcard, then a true flat tax best achieves those goals. The flat rate would be applied to all taxable income and profits without exception or exemption. It could be argued that under such an arrangement, no one is subject to a preferential or "unfair" tax treatment. No industry receives special treatment, large households are not advantaged at the expense of small ones, etc. Moreover, the cost of tax filing for citizens and the cost of tax administration for the government would be further reduced, as under a true flat tax only businesses and the self-employed would need to interact with the tax authorities.

    Flat tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I wasn't making my arguement above, which is why I didn'tadd anything but merely highlighted what I think was his stated argument. However, as long as there are a lot of things that can be called deductions, business effectively reduce their tax responsibility to the point of being meaningless, like GE actually making money instead of paying taxes. There hs to be more control, and it does have to be simpler. How we do that? There is reasonable room for debate.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #15
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,461

    Re: People's Budget.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I thought you guys wanted a flat tax?

    True flat rate income taxA true flat rate tax is a system of taxation where one tax rate is applied to all income with no exceptions.

    In an article titled The flat-tax revolution, dated April 14, 2005, The Economist argued as follows: If the goals are to reduce corporate welfare and to enable household tax returns to fit on a postcard, then a true flat tax best achieves those goals. The flat rate would be applied to all taxable income and profits without exception or exemption. It could be argued that under such an arrangement, no one is subject to a preferential or "unfair" tax treatment. No industry receives special treatment, large households are not advantaged at the expense of small ones, etc. Moreover, the cost of tax filing for citizens and the cost of tax administration for the government would be further reduced, as under a true flat tax only businesses and the self-employed would need to interact with the tax authorities.

    Flat tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I would love a flat tax...minus deductions. Not on the gross that would be totally idiotic, not to mention it would destroy private companies.

    I wasn't making my arguement above, which is why I didn'tadd anything but merely highlighted what I think was his stated argument. However, as long as there are a lot of things that can be called deductions, business effectively reduce their tax responsibility to the point of being meaningless,
    A business expense is a business expense and business expenses should be deductable.


    like GE actually making money instead of paying taxes. There hs to be more control, and it does have to be simpler. How we do that? There is reasonable room for debate.
    GE paid income taxes. Stop believing the propaganda.

    The truth about GE's tax bill - Fortune Features

  6. #16
    Guru
    celticwar17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,900

    Re: People's Budget.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I thought you guys wanted a flat tax?

    True flat rate income taxA true flat rate tax is a system of taxation where one tax rate is applied to all income with no exceptions.

    In an article titled The flat-tax revolution, dated April 14, 2005, The Economist argued as follows: If the goals are to reduce corporate welfare and to enable household tax returns to fit on a postcard, then a true flat tax best achieves those goals. The flat rate would be applied to all taxable income and profits without exception or exemption. It could be argued that under such an arrangement, no one is subject to a preferential or "unfair" tax treatment. No industry receives special treatment, large households are not advantaged at the expense of small ones, etc. Moreover, the cost of tax filing for citizens and the cost of tax administration for the government would be further reduced, as under a true flat tax only businesses and the self-employed would need to interact with the tax authorities.

    Flat tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I wasn't making my arguement above, which is why I didn'tadd anything but merely highlighted what I think was his stated argument. However, as long as there are a lot of things that can be called deductions, business effectively reduce their tax responsibility to the point of being meaningless, like GE actually making money instead of paying taxes. There hs to be more control, and it does have to be simpler. How we do that? There is reasonable room for debate.
    I do agree with you partly... if you are talking about closing tax loop holes and such. If tax loops are closed completely and the system was revamp to be much simpler. Then i think at the very least we could cut the taxes by half without any lost immediate revenue from taxes.

  7. #17
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: People's Budget.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticwar17 View Post
    I do agree with you partly... if you are talking about closing tax loop holes and such. If tax loops are closed completely and the system was revamp to be much simpler. Then i think at the very least we could cut the taxes by half without any lost immediate revenue from taxes.
    I think that is all that is being said, no matter how inarticlualtely.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #18
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: People's Budget.

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    I would love a flat tax...minus deductions. Not on the gross that would be totally idiotic, not to mention it would destroy private companies.
    Your leaps are neither his fault nor mine. Try to stay with what was actually said.


    A business expense is a business expense and business expenses should be deductable.
    Depends on how liberally you use that word. Golf balls for playing golf really shouldn't be a busniess expense, for example.


    GE paid income taxes. Stop believing the propaganda.

    The truth about GE's tax bill - Fortune Features

    Maybe, but you miss the point. Regardles sof whether they paid no taxes, some taxes, or just less taxes, they still, according to your link, ". . . for decades has been an aggressive tax-minimizer, and could have averted this mess by explaining things simply and clearly to the Times and us and others. It either couldn't or wouldn't do so." To often people try to side track by saying they aren't as bad as first noted. This is rarely the actual point.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  9. #19
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: People's Budget.

    BTW, you should read your article more:

    It's been 25 years since the last big tax reform legislation, which cut the corporate rate to 34% from 46% and eliminated a lot of deductions and tax breaks. But a quarter-century of pushing by businesses -- of which GE has been among the most aggressive -- has left us with both the lower tax rate (now 35%) and lots more deductions and shelters and other tax-reducing tactics than the 1986 legislation envisioned. GE's current idea of "reform" as expounded by John Samuels, the head of its tax department, is to cut the rate, but to allow some of GE's major tax-minimizing maneuvers to remain in place. It's hard to imagine anything like that happening now.

    Samuels said at a tax forum in February that GE needs a tax system that will let it compete effectively with giant, foreign-based multinationals like Mitsubishi, Siemens (SI), and Phillips. However, their effective tax rates for earnings purposes last year were 40%, 31% and 26% respectively, compared with 7% for GE. (GE says its tax rate's been artificially low the past few years, and will soon rise.)

    So, to compete with tax rates of 26 - 40%, they need less than 7%. And some actually buy that argument.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  10. #20
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,461

    Re: People's Budget.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Your leaps are neither his fault nor mine. Try to stay with what was actually said.
    Ok, sure...here is what was actually said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    It has some good aspects, but there's too much in here that I cannot agree with to vote "yes." Specifically their ideas toward corporate tax (which is already regressive, and would become even moreso under this plan) and their ideas toward itemized deductions (which they propose capping at 28%, thus adding to the complexity of the tax code, rather than just eliminating most of them entirely).
    Then I responded with:

    Why would you want to eliminate itemized deductions?
    Then, before you know it, ya'll were really talking about a flat tax and omitted deductions out of the conversation all together.




    Depends on how liberally you use that word. Golf balls for playing golf really shouldn't be a busniess expense, for example.
    They're not. Try again.





    Maybe, but you miss the point. Regardles sof whether they paid no taxes, some taxes, or just less taxes, they still, according to your link, ". . . for decades has been an aggressive tax-minimizer, and could have averted this mess by explaining things simply and clearly to the Times and us and others. It either couldn't or wouldn't do so." To often people try to side track by saying they aren't as bad as first noted. This is rarely the actual point.
    Still doesn't take away from the fact that they did pay income taxes and attempts at insisting that they didn't is a lie.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •