ok libs...defend this...obama WANTS the cuts to hurt so he can blame pubs

[Soonerjeepman]

Yes cuts CAN be made...and won't be horrible unless the gov CHOOSES them to be.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/06/leaked-email-adds-fuel-to-claims-white-house-playing-politics-over-impact-cuts/

[8timechamps]

That's been his MO during this sequester episode. And not just BO, but the majority of the dems.

It's not really that hard to calculate that the sequester isn't an 'end of the world' event as we would be led to believe by the dems.

[Midtowner]

If the Republicans aren't willing to put forward an honest proposal and deal on revenue and closing loopholes, they're equally to blame.

[olevetonahill]

If the Republicans aren't willing to put forward an honest proposal and deal on revenue and closing loopholes, they're equally to blame.

Boy, You sharp as a Bowling ball aint ya?

[yermom]

the pubs push this as the end of the world and Obama's fault

i don't see much difference on either side

[TheHumanAlphabet]

If the Republicans aren't willing to put forward an honest proposal and deal on revenue and closing loopholes, they're equally to blame.
They already have, ole socialist is using this to try to kill the repubs for 2014. Wont work, people aretired of the Socialist and his mojo is used up.

[Midtowner]

Boy, You sharp as a Bowling ball aint ya?

Hittin' the sauce a lil' early?

[Midtowner]

They already have, ole socialist is using this to try to kill the repubs for 2014. Wont work, people aretired of the Socialist and his mojo is used up.

The polling says otherwise. The vast majority of Americans think large corporations and the top 2% should pay more taxes. If the 'pubs want to go down swinging defending that ground, it's going to be ugly.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

What polling? The socialist' numbers are in the 40s approval range...

[Midtowner]

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Americans for Tax Fairness, a national coalition representing more than 250 groups pressing for a fairer tax system, released a national survey by Hart Research today showing two-thirds of voters nationwide now say that the richest 2% (by 66% of voters) and large corporations (by 64% of voters) should pay more in taxes. The new polling comes as the group launches an 18 state field strategy to mobilize every day Americans to push for revenue through national days of action, lobby visits, calls to Senate offices, and online activity.

http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/press/2013/02/07/national-poll-on-tax-reform-two-thirds-of-voters-believe-top-2-corporations-should-pay-more-taxes/

[REDREX]

The polling says otherwise. The vast majority of Americans think large corporations and the top 2% should pay more taxes. If the 'pubs want to go down swinging defending that ground, it's going to be ugly.--I believe we already have the highest Corp Tax rate in the world

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Yes, stupid people answer those polls, stupid and ignorant. Rather than cut taxes and cut budget, these stupid people want "rich" folks to pay for them, there will be a time that they are "deemed" rich and will then have to pay through the nose for those bene's. idiots all for they do not see the end, only the now...

[olevetonahill]

Hittin' the sauce a lil' early?

Boy ya got me, Cant slip anything past you can I?

[Midtowner]

--I believe we already have the highest Corp Tax rate in the world

A study by the World Bank covering 183 nations found, once you factor in taxes paid by businesses, including the cost of employee taxes borne by the employer, the U.S. ranks 124/183. Just going off the tax rate without considering the effective rate of all the taxes borne by U.S. corporations vs. global competitors is cherry picking at its finest.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jan/03/pat-toomey/pat-toomey-says-us-has-highest-corporate-tax-rates/

[Midtowner]

Yes, stupid people answer those polls, stupid and ignorant. Rather than cut taxes and cut budget, these stupid people want "rich" folks to pay for them, there will be a time that they are "deemed" rich and will then have to pay through the nose for those bene's. idiots all for they do not see the end, only the now...

Not really.

How do you get that? If we tax the rich now, pretty soon everyone will be rich?

Heck.. sounds awesome! Let's get started ASAP.

[okie52]

Boy ya got me, Cant slip anything past you can I?

Hell...3:00 pm ain't early.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Not really.

How do you get that? If we tax the rich now, pretty soon everyone will be rich?

Heck.. sounds awesome! Let's get started ASAP.
no stupid, we tax the rich, pretty soon more money will be needed for all those bene's and the definition of rich will come down. Say down to 50k or lower... Man, you are classic!

[REDREX]

A study by the World Bank covering 183 nations found, once you factor in taxes paid by businesses, including the cost of employee taxes borne by the employer, the U.S. ranks 124/183. Just going off the tax rate without considering the effective rate of all the taxes borne by U.S. corporations vs. global competitors is cherry picking at its finest.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jan/03/pat-toomey/pat-toomey-says-us-has-highest-corporate-tax-rates/----Something from the World Bank the masters of disaster

[soonercruiser]

If the Republicans aren't willing to put forward an honest proposal and deal on revenue and closing loopholes, they're equally to blame.

Duh!
Obummer got his tax cuts in January.
Now is the time for spending cuts only!

[Midtowner]

----Something from the World Bank the masters of disaster

And there you go back to your safe name calling BS. Go prove the World Bank wrong or tell me why we shouldn't be looking at all of the taxes paid by corps instead of just one kind without deductions.

Either way, really.

[Fraggle145]

That's been his MO during this sequester episode. And not just BO, but the majority of the dems.

It's not really that hard to calculate that the sequester isn't an 'end of the world' event as we would be led to believe by the dems.

Hell I'm sure most of us saw the (biased) pie graph. The amount of cuts really isnt **** unless they make the cuts to where we actually have real people who are worth a damn.

http://michaelgraham.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/chart-pie-debt-sequester.png

[Fraggle145]

If the Republicans aren't willing to put forward an honest proposal and deal on revenue and closing loopholes, they're equally to blame.

Mid we agree on a lot of things. A lot more than most people and you agree on, especially since the dog thing. But seriously how can you blame one side over the other. They are both terrible. The reason they are both terrible is that they are both playing for the same team, that bought and sold all of us years ago, many times over. Every eight years its just the other teams turn to play bad cop any more.

[Midtowner]

Mid we agree on a lot of things. A lot more than most people and you agree on, especially since the dog thing. But seriously how can you blame one side over the other. They are both terrible. The reason they are both terrible is that they are both playing for the same team, that bought and sold all of us years ago, many times over. Every eight years its just the other teams turn to play bad cop any more.

Read the last three words of the post you quoted and revise your post accordingly.

:)

[Blue]

Midtowner makes me miss LAS and <cough> Oregon Sooner

[soonercruiser]

Hell I'm sure most of us saw the (biased) pie graph. The amount of cuts really isnt **** unless they make the cuts to where we actually have real people who are worth a damn.

http://michaelgraham.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/chart-pie-debt-sequester.png

Darn!
I've only been getting "apple"!

[Soonerjeepman]

the pubs push this as the end of the world and Obama's fault

i don't see much difference on either side

really...I haven't heard 1 republican say it's the end of the world...link?

[StoopTroup]

I like that if you defend something....you are instantly a lib. If I am sad for the otherside....is there some sort of amnesty?

[Soonerjeepman]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/28/education-secretary-called-out-for-misleading-pink-slips-claim/?intcmp=obinsite

another one...

ST nope...I do think BOTH sides are to blame. Problem is dems and obama don't want ANY of it. We NEED cuts.

[StoopTroup]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/28/education-secretary-called-out-for-misleading-pink-slips-claim/?intcmp=obinsite

another one...

ST nope...I do think BOTH sides are to blame. We NEED cuts.

Same here. Just asking. Thanks.

[Midtowner]

ST nope...I do think BOTH sides are to blame. Problem is dems and obama don't want ANY of it. We NEED cuts.

The President has said cuts to entitlements are on the table.

Pubs won't do anything on the revenue side of things. You should've heard the Speaker parroting his talking points on Meet the Press last Sunday.

[SoonerBBall]

The President has said cuts to entitlements are on the table.

Pubs won't do anything on the revenue side of things. You should've heard the Speaker parroting his talking points on Meet the Press last Sunday.

I'd like to see the republicans put up a substantial tax increase on an individual's capital gains over $250,000/yr. Somewhere in the range of 50% would be nice. This would target the very rich exclusively but would leave small business and normal retirement investors alone. I'm flexible on the actual percentage and starting amount, but it seems like a no brainer that everyone below the bottom 20% would support.

I seriously doubt that it would pass seeing as most of the political class is made up of those living exclusively off massive investment money.

Thoughts for or against?

[StoopTroup]

Taxes are out of control. I think that much of the taxes like taxes on food are morally bankrupt. That said....should you get a tax break because you have enough money to buy all the saffron in the World?

Would people quit shopping at regular grocery stores if places like Whole Foods were tax free? I'd say that regular Groceries would go bankrupt.

[REDREX]

I'd like to see the republicans put up a substantial tax increase on an individual's capital gains over $250,000/yr. Somewhere in the range of 50% would be nice. This would target the very rich exclusively but would leave small business and normal retirement investors alone. I'm flexible on the actual percentage and starting amount, but it seems like a no brainer that everyone below the bottom 20% would support.

I seriously doubt that it would pass seeing as most of the political class is made up of those living exclusively off massive investment money.

Thoughts for or against?----Why would anyone invest if the capital gains tax rate was 50% ?

[Soonerjeepman]

----Why would anyone invest if the capital gains tax rate was 50% ?

lol..no doubt....let's just tax all the rich ...tax tax tax. Listen, I'm a teacher, make under 60K...don't have cable, don't have new windows in house, don't go out much...but I don't want believe in taxing the crap out of those that have more than me...

[cleller]

----Why would anyone invest if the capital gains tax rate was 50% ?

That kind of logic doesn't play in all the Washington circles.

[REDREX]

That kind of logic doesn't play in all the Washington circles.I guess that is why the US Gov't has $50 Trillion in unfunded liabilities------------Like someone said don't tell Obama what comes after Trillion

[SoonerBBall]

----Why would anyone invest if the capital gains tax rate was 50% ?

Is that a serious question? What else are they going to do with the money? Are you suggesting that those who make most of their money purely off of investments are going to stop investing completely because they don't get quite as much back?

[Midtowner]

----Why would anyone invest if the capital gains tax rate was 50% ?

No one is suggesting that.

But treating it like regular income after a certain point? Maybe anything > $500K or even $1MM? That'd be reasonable.

[REDREX]

Is that a serious question? What else are they going to do with the money? Are you suggesting that those who make most of their money purely off of investments are going to stop investing completely because they don't get quite as much back?

---No one is going to put Capital at risk if the tax rate is 50%----- Why would you take that much risk and only get to keep 50% of the profit and take the chance on eating the loss. I hate to break it to you but not all investments make money

[Midtowner]

---No one is going to put Capital at risk if the tax rate is 50%----- Why would you take that much risk and only get to keep 50% of the profit and take the chance on eating the loss. I hate to break it to you but not all investments make money

When they don't, the losses are nice writeoffs.

[REDREX]

When they don't, the losses are nice writeoffs.---Anyone that thinks a "write off" is nice knows nothing about investing

[SoonerBBall]

---No one is going to put Capital at risk if the tax rate is 50%----- Why would you take that much risk and only get to keep 50% of the profit and take the chance on eating the loss. I hate to break it to you but not all investments make money

You didn't answer my question, though. What else are they going to do with their money besides invest it? They aren't going to just sit on it. What if the tax rate was 40% instead of 50%? I'm just as sick of the republicans acting stupid about taxes as democrats. We don't live in some magical world where taxes don't exist. The reality at present is that they need to work with the president and the democrats to agree where the taxes are going to come from so that spending cuts will be agreed upon as well. I think this is as good a solution as any at this point. My preference would be to get rid of all taxes at the federal level (including capital gains and income taxes) and institute a national sales tax. This would solve all sorts of tax problems that have been created over the years. That isn't happening, though, so in the meantime we have to look at realistic tax/spending goals.

If you don't like this plan, what would you institute instead? In this scenario you HAVE to raise taxes. If you had to do it, where would it come from?

[Midtowner]

If you don't like this plan, what would you institute instead? In this scenario you HAVE to raise taxes. If you had to do it, where would it come from?

From the poor and middle class of course, with a flat tax while wealth inequality looks like this:

http://catholiccharities.webaloo.com/files/catholiccharities/images/poverty/wealth_pie2.gif

[pphilfran]

You didn't answer my question, though. What else are they going to do with their money besides invest it? They aren't going to just sit on it. What if the tax rate was 40% instead of 50%? I'm just as sick of the republicans acting stupid about taxes as democrats. We don't live in some magical world where taxes don't exist. The reality at present is that they need to work with the president and the democrats to agree where the taxes are going to come from so that spending cuts will be agreed upon as well. I think this is as good a solution as any at this point. My preference would be to get rid of all taxes at the federal level (including capital gains and income taxes) and institute a national sales tax. This would solve all sorts of tax problems that have been created over the years. That isn't happening, though, so in the meantime we have to look at realistic tax/spending goals.

If you don't like this plan, what would you institute instead? In this scenario you HAVE to raise taxes. If you had to do it, where would it come from?

I find it distasteful to raise LTCG rates about 20 or 25%...STCG rates you can crank up into the stratosphere...

As far as Venture Capitalist firms and cap gains goes I don't think that we want to increase the cost of them doing business...if you raise taxes significantly we are reducing the projected "reward"...risk has stayed the same...so one of two things is going to happen...

1. Some firms won't get funding since the risk/reward profile could fall into the negative side
2. Higher costs to the ones that receive the funding...risk is the same but reward is reduced so VC will make their money through higher financing charges...

I might be off base but since the economy didn't grow last quarter...add in the fact we have already taken at least 2% of disposable income out of the economy this year...so I go for caution...

Raising taxes on firms that loan out billions (43 billion last year) to start up companies isn't what we need in the current economy...

[FaninAma]

From the poor and middle class of course, with a flat tax while wealth inequality looks like this:

http://catholiccharities.webaloo.com/files/catholiccharities/images/poverty/wealth_pie2.gif
And more goverment taxation and deficit spending is going to change that distribution graph? That's the thing you progressive fail to grasp. As the government spends higher and higher levels of collected revenue the income distribution gap gets bigger and bigger.

[BermudaSooner]

---Anyone that thinks a "write off" is nice knows nothing about investing

EXACTLY!

[cleller]

You didn't answer my question, though. What else are they going to do with their money besides invest it? They aren't going to just sit on it. What if the tax rate was 40% instead of 50%? I'm just as sick of the republicans acting stupid about taxes as democrats. We don't live in some magical world where taxes don't exist. The reality at present is that they need to work with the president and the democrats to agree where the taxes are going to come from so that spending cuts will be agreed upon as well. I think this is as good a solution as any at this point. My preference would be to get rid of all taxes at the federal level (including capital gains and income taxes) and institute a national sales tax. This would solve all sorts of tax problems that have been created over the years. That isn't happening, though, so in the meantime we have to look at realistic tax/spending goals.

If you don't like this plan, what would you institute instead? In this scenario you HAVE to raise taxes. If you had to do it, where would it come from?

Just off the seat of my pants, I'd bet they'd try to either invest in tax-free municipal bonds, until that is taken away, or try and set up complex off shore accounts.
Historic stock returns in the last 90 years are about 9.2%. Though they are lower now, municipal bonds have averaged something around 5%. After capital gains, that would make investing in the stocks, treasuries, etc look like either a poor return, or poor risk.

[pphilfran]

Just off the seat of my pants, I'd bet they'd try to either invest in tax-free municipal bonds, until that is taken away, or try and set up complex off shore accounts.
Historic stock returns in the last 90 years are about 9.2%. Though they are lower now, municipal bonds have averaged something around 5%. After capital gains, that would make investing in the stocks, treasuries, etc look like either a poor return, or poor risk.

I have a brilliant idea...raise that LTCG to the limit...chase stock investors into the treasury market to help absorb the trillions in bonds we need to issue...

[Midtowner]

And more goverment taxation and deficit spending is going to change that distribution graph? That's the thing you progressive fail to grasp. As the government spends higher and higher levels of collected revenue the income distribution gap gets bigger and bigger.

I don't care about that graph except to say that the system is very obviously rigged and the graph is proof of it. We can pay off the debt by capturing more of that revenue going to the top 1% and that's basically the only way to do it absent draconian cuts which would probably cause revenue to dip by themselves.

[Blue]

"You don't even know what a write off is"

"Do you?

"No, I don't"

"Well they do, and they're the ones writing it off"

[jkjsooner]

I think this is as good a solution as any at this point. My preference would be to get rid of all taxes at the federal level (including capital gains and income taxes) and institute a national sales tax.

I think this is a bad idea. If we had a sales tax as our main tax I'd cut back my spending and watch my bank account grow. Not only would that be horrible for our economy but it would give me a perfect way to avoid paying my fair share.

[yermom]

it hurts the poor the most.

that and it would make the secondary market insane.

i could see used prices going higher than new

[bluedogok]

The polling says otherwise. The vast majority of Americans think large corporations and the top 2% should pay more taxes. If the 'pubs want to go down swinging defending that ground, it's going to be ugly.
"Polling" is junk science, you can craft outcomes based on where you do the polling, criteria used and the questions you ask.

[yermom]

yeah, like all those biased polls that showed Obama was going to win reelection

[jkjsooner]

---No one is going to put Capital at risk if the tax rate is 50%----- Why would you take that much risk and only get to keep 50% of the profit and take the chance on eating the loss. I hate to break it to you but not all investments make money

I want to go back to this. I'm not in favor of making capital gains rate at 50%.

But, why can't we treat income as income? Why can't it be taxed at the same rate as all other income? If you do so, nobody is going to shy away from stock investments because the tax rate is higher than other investments because the tax rate would be the same as other investments.

Look at the risk/reward for the stock and decide if the reward is worth the risk. I find it ironic that many of you want the government out of the markets but you're happy to have the government influence your investment strategy by tax policy.

If you really want a hands off government you would want the LTCG to be treated as any other income.


All that said, I understand the argument that stock investments are doubly taxed. The corporation pays a tax (ideally reflected in the stock price) and then you pay a tax when you sell the stock. I presume if you own a private company you only pay taxes once. Or is that true? If you sold the company would you pay taxes on those profits? I really don't know.

Anyway that is no different than many investment strategies. A bank has to consider the cost of taxes before offering you an interest rate on your savings account. Then you pay taxes on that interest. So you could look at it as if you're being taxed twice there as well. I imagine you can go on and on with similar analogies.

[BermudaSooner]

I want to go back to this. I'm not in favor of making capital gains rate at 50%.

But, why can't we treat income as income? Why can't it be taxed at the same rate as all other income? If you do so, nobody is going to shy away from stock investments because the tax rate is higher than other investments because the tax rate would be the same as other investments.

Look at the risk/reward for the stock and decide if the reward is worth the risk. I find it ironic that many of you want the government out of the markets but you're happy to have the government influence your investment strategy by tax policy.

If you really want a hands off government you would want the LTCG to be treated as any other income.


All that said, I understand the argument that stock investments are doubly taxed. The corporation pays a tax (ideally reflected in the stock price) and then you pay a tax when you sell the stock. I presume if you own a private company you only pay taxes once. Or is that true? If you sold the company would you pay taxes on those profits? I really don't know.

Anyway that is no different than many investment strategies. A bank has to consider the cost of taxes before offering you an interest rate on your savings account. Then you pay taxes on that interest. So you could look at it as if you're being taxed twice there as well. I imagine you can go on and on with similar analogies.

Lots here...you kinda have it right, but not really. Corporations pay taxes....and then give dividends(or at least most corporations do). It are these dividends that are then taxed again after being paid to the stockholders---hence the double taxation and why dividends are taxed at a different rate...or at least should be.

The capital gain from selling a stock was not already taxed...at least not directly. If you view the value of a company as the present value of it's future earnings, and those earnings are taxed, then the capital gain realized when selling a stock has an element of indirect tax to it as the value of the stock is the PV of the future after tax income of the company.

Make sense?

[Midtowner]

So let's say I'm general counsel for a large corporation... I do work, they earn money and pay taxes on it there too. Isn't my income also double taxed? How is it any different than dividends in that respect besides the fact that dividends are profit, which is an arbitrary distinction, really.

[olevetonahill]

So let's say I'm general counsel for a large corporation... I do work, they earn money and pay taxes on it there too. Isn't my income also double taxed? How is it any different than dividends in that respect besides the fact that dividends are profit, which is an arbitrary distinction, really.

How in hell do you figure your wages are double taxed?

[Midtowner]

Just followin' Bermuda's 'double taxation' logic.

[soonercoop1]

If the Republicans aren't willing to put forward an honest proposal and deal on revenue and closing loopholes, they're equally to blame.

I can deal with ridding ourselves of the IRS for a flat tax...but honestly tax increases are off the table until the government is drasticallt reduced, the FED is gone (no more tax increses by printing money), and congress and the pres are severely restricted from spending anything without a balanced budget...(a balanced budget amendement)

[REDREX]

Just followin' Bermuda's 'double taxation' logic.---Not really----His statement made sense

[olevetonahill]

---Not really----His statement made sense

Thank, Seems if I point his stupid out Im nothing but an ignorant Rube.
Some times I think matlocks education far exceeds his intelligence

[StoopTroup]

Thank, Seems if I point his stupid out Im nothing but an ignorant Rube.
Some times I think matlocks education far exceeds his intelligence

What is interesting is the level of thought he's put into this thread compared to your pouring over it all to find something that confuses you.

[olevetonahill]

What is interesting is the level of thought he's put into this thread compared to your pouring over it all to find something that confuses you.

Whats interesting is You following my every post and making snarky comments. Good job.

[StoopTroup]

Whats interesting is You following my every post and making snarky comments. Good job.

This website isn't all about you. It's the other one. Pay tension.

[cleller]

I actually caught something worthwhile from the NBC Nightly news on this subject. They pointed out that when a White House staffer came to do an interview with them today about closing the White House, the staffer had an entourage of 6 people, plus a security detail.

They also mentioned little tidbits like $2 million being given to Lake Murray State Park airport here in Oklahoma, and a $285,000 armored Humvee given to some little town in New Hampshire. Nobody has any control of all this spending, and the White House is intentionally failing to prioritize cuts in a responsible way.

[olevetonahill]

I actually caught something worthwhile from the NBC Nightly news on this subject. They pointed out that when a White House staffer came to do an interview with them today about closing the White House, the staffer had an entourage of 6 people, plus a security detail.

They also mentioned little tidbits like $2 million being given to Lake Murray State Park airport here in Oklahoma, and a $285,000 armored Humvee given to some little town in New Hampshire. Nobody has any control of all this spending, and the White House is intentionally failing to prioritize cuts in a responsible way.

Ur right Bro. There is so much waste

[diverdog]

I actually caught something worthwhile from the NBC Nightly news on this subject. They pointed out that when a White House staffer came to do an interview with them today about closing the White House, the staffer had an entourage of 6 people, plus a security detail.

They also mentioned little tidbits like $2 million being given to Lake Murray State Park airport here in Oklahoma, and a $285,000 armored Humvee given to some little town in New Hampshire. Nobody has any control of all this spending, and the White House is intentionally failing to prioritize cuts in a responsible way.

There is nothing more arrogant than a White House staffer. I had to deal with those azz holes a lot when I was in the service. Clinton's staff were a bunch of pricks. Reagan had some pricks but for the most part they were respectful to service members.

[SoonerBBall]

I think this is a bad idea. If we had a sales tax as our main tax I'd cut back my spending and watch my bank account grow. Not only would that be horrible for our economy but it would give me a perfect way to avoid paying my fair share.

I really would urge you to read up on the fair tax or other national sales tax proposals. Spending in this country is far more consistent than income and has been since we started collecting stats on it in the early 1900's. We are the most consumptive entity in the history of the planet. I don't disagree that it would allow those who want to save an advantage, but we need that these days. If you were taking all of your paycheck, though, you'd have enough to maintain your consumption level AND save more than you want. It also allows you to pay taxes how and when you want to pay. It also eliminates the need for IRS completely. It also makes tax fraud imminently less likely (due to fraud being a two party affair) and reduces the number of tax collection points by 9/10ths. It is not a perfect tax system, one like that doesn't exist, but it is the most fair one I've ever heard proposed and it is the one that a large number of economists worth their salt propose.

[SoonerBBall]

---Not really----His statement made sense

You have made quite a few one line comments in this thread, but refuse to actually participate.

In a situation where we have to raise taxes, who would you tax and why?

[REDREX]

You have made quite a few one line comments in this thread, but refuse to actually participate.

In a situation where we have to raise taxes, who would you tax and why?Tax collections this year and I believe last year were at all time highs----record highs----And will still have a Trillion $ deficit as far as you can see. The Gov't has made too many promises not just on social issues but also on projects that they build and cannot maintain. If you look at unfunded liabilities in the future----This is over and above the national debt-- the obligations are over 50 trillion and counting, that is the low end of the estimate, No way to tax your way out of this mess. So do we have a spending problem or a revenue problem?

[SoonerBBall]

Tax collections this year and I believe last year were at all time highs----record highs----And will still have a Trillion $ deficit as far as you can see. The Gov't has made too many promises not just on social issues but also on projects that they build and cannot maintain. If you look at unfunded liabilities in the future----This is over and above the national debt-- the obligations are over 50 trillion and counting, that is the low end of the estimate, No way to tax your way out of this mess. So do we have a spending problem or a revenue problem?

We obviously have a spending problem. I think that is clear to everyone who reads these boards, and most of America too. We don't get spending cuts in a recession unless there are revenue increases as well. Again, this isn't some fairy tale world where all the sudden both sides are going to cut the chaff out of the whole federal government so that we can lower taxes and reduce the debt. We are dealing with parties so petty that when they have to make cuts, they'd rather cut necessary services in an effort to bilk the public into thinking the cuts can't be sustained. In this bad situation (read: real life), what are you willing to give up so that real work can be done on spending cuts?

[REDREX]

We obviously have a spending problem. I think that is clear to everyone who reads these boards, and most of America too. We don't get spending cuts in a recession unless there are revenue increases as well. Again, this isn't some fairy tale world where all the sudden both sides are going to cut the chaff out of the whole federal government so that we can lower taxes and reduce the debt. We are dealing with parties so petty that when they have to make cuts, they'd rather cut necessary services in an effort to bilk the public into thinking the cuts can't be sustained. In this bad situation (read: real life), what are you willing to give up so that real work can be done on spending cuts?---The Federal Gov't should provide for the National Defense , provide a rule of law and provide for those that CANNOT---not won't but cannot provide for themselves. Other than that I am more than happy to not have them provide services to me

[Midtowner]

I actually caught something worthwhile from the NBC Nightly news on this subject. They pointed out that when a White House staffer came to do an interview with them today about closing the White House, the staffer had an entourage of 6 people, plus a security detail.

They also mentioned little tidbits like $2 million being given to Lake Murray State Park airport here in Oklahoma, and a $285,000 armored Humvee given to some little town in New Hampshire. Nobody has any control of all this spending, and the White House is intentionally failing to prioritize cuts in a responsible way.

Earmarks don't come from the White House.

Stop reelecting your senators if you don't think Lake Murray State Park needs an airport. We have a spending problem to be sure, but we can't fix the deficit on spending cuts alone. Not unless you want another recession.

[Midtowner]

What is interesting is the level of thought he's put into this thread compared to your pouring over it all to find something that confuses you.

I'm not sure whether he just refuses to understand or whether he simply can't understand.

Either way, he seems pretty whiny about a statement I made several weeks, maybe months ago. You know what they say, it's not the false words which sting--it's the true ones.

[okie52]

Earmarks don't come from the White House.

Stop reelecting your senators if you don't think Lake Murray State Park needs an airport. We have a spending problem to be sure, but we can't fix the deficit on spending cuts alone. Not unless you want another recession.

I like the airport at Lake Murray...one of my favorite lakes in OK.

[SoonerBBall]

---The Federal Gov't should provide for the National Defense , provide a rule of law and provide for those that CANNOT---not won't but cannot provide for themselves. Other than that I am more than happy to not have them provide services to me

So REDREX apparently cannot remove himself from a land of unicorns and magic fairy dust. Does anyone have something meaningful to add?

[REDREX]

So REDREX apparently cannot remove himself from a land of unicorns and magic fairy dust. Does anyone have something meaningful to add?-----Great comeback from a Obama koolaid drinker

[SoonerBBall]

-----Great comeback from a Obama koolaid drinker

----Obama koolaid drinkers don't advocate a national sales tax----they also don't admit with full force that the country has a massive spending problem-----
----It is okay to admit you don't have any real ideas like the rest of the republicans----

-----!!---
??-----

[REDREX]

----Obama koolaid drinkers don't advocate a national sales tax----they also don't admit with full force that the country has a massive spending problem-----
----It is okay to admit you don't have any real ideas like the rest of the republicans----

-----!!---
??--------- look at what programs will cost in the future , I guess no one in Washington can read an actuarial table --------Privatize things like the Post office , job training, airport security, Try and make Medicare efficient----The Profit from the 10 largest insurance companies combined is about 10% of the yearly Medicare fraud -----its a huge list but having the Federal Gov't try and be everything to everybody is not the answer. The economy needs to grow and more Gov't is not the answer---------- the Gov't consumes wealth it does not create it

[pphilfran]

----Obama koolaid drinkers don't advocate a national sales tax----they also don't admit with full force that the country has a massive spending problem-----
----It is okay to admit you don't have any real ideas like the rest of the republicans----

-----!!---
??-----

Both sides are making this a hell of a lot more difficult than it actually is...

Myself, I am sick of a tens of thousands of pages of tax code...in a flat tax we could easily exempt food stuffs and clothing less than 40 bucks and the low incomes would come out fine...

Somebody brought up the point about less spending and more savings in a flat tax situation...here is my take...

* It won't affect to poor since they spend everything they rake in...no loss of spending here...
* I don't think the middle class is going to give up much of the discretionary spending...in most cases there is little excess they would be willing to move out of vacations and into savings....
* The rich have enough that they are not so concerned with spending vs savings...they are going to have one of two mindsets, mindsets that have been burned into them over a decade or longer...buy what they want when they want or live like a pauper and save everything...

I do think that there would be a year or two of everyone getting used to the system...and that the tax rate would be much higher than most project...30% is my guess...

[cleller]

I actually caught something worthwhile from the NBC Nightly news on this subject. They pointed out that when a White House staffer came to do an interview with them today about closing the White House, the staffer had an entourage of 6 people, plus a security detail.

They also mentioned little tidbits like $2 million being given to Lake Murray State Park airport here in Oklahoma, and a $285,000 armored Humvee given to some little town in New Hampshire. Nobody has any control of all this spending, and the White House is intentionally failing to prioritize cuts in a responsible way.

Earmarks don't come from the White House.

Stop reelecting your senators if you don't think Lake Murray State Park needs an airport. We have a spending problem to be sure, but we can't fix the deficit on spending cuts alone. Not unless you want another recession.

Earmarks may not come from the White House, but the entourage mentioned sure did.

No one said the White House was responsible for the other spending projects, anyway. They're just examples of wasteful federal spending that is ongoing despite these cuts to more necessary services, and job layoffs.

Since those spending examples were pointed out by NBC News, who have always been supportive of Obama, it must be to be viewed as an example of the the way the government (under Obama's leadership) operates. Spending like there is no tomorrow, with no one trying to stop it. And the buck stopping nowhere.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

----Obama koolaid drinkers don't advocate a national sales tax----they also don't admit with full force that the country has a massive spending problem-----
----It is okay to admit you don't have any real ideas like the rest of the republicans----

-----!!---
??-----
Neither do you. We HAVE an EXTREME spending problem! There is plenty of tax funds to run this country, we don't need more taken from people. Just as we don't need more of our RIGHTS taken from us. Philosophies like that is what will ruin this country.

[SCOUT]

----Obama koolaid drinkers don't advocate a national sales tax----they also don't admit with full force that the country has a massive spending problem-----
----It is okay to admit you don't have any real ideas like the rest of the republicans----

-----!!---
??-----

Here is one Republican who has a very simple recommendation. Eliminate the concept of baseline budgeting. Keep spending rates flat for the next three years. The impact would be huge.

[diverdog]

Here is one Republican who has a very simple recommendation. Eliminate the concept of baseline budgeting. Keep spending rates flat for the next three years. The impact would be huge.

Five years and I have been advocating this for a while.

[jkjsooner]

in a flat tax we could easily exempt food stuffs and clothing less than 40 bucks and the low incomes would come out fine...

I'm assuming by the above sentence you are talking about a sales tax. If not ignore what follows.


I don't think the middle class is going to give up much of the discretionary spending...in most cases there is little excess they would be willing to move out of vacations and into savings....

One thing I was thinking about was the fact that you would not be paying income taxes so you would have that extra money. Of course, ideally, the sales taxes on what you already spend would eat up this extra money.

But, anyway, I would think harder about every dollar I spent if there was a 20-30% federal sales tax on it.


The rich have enough that they are not so concerned with spending vs savings...they are going to have one of two mindsets, mindsets that have been burned into them over a decade or longer...buy what they want when they want or live like a pauper and save everything...

But this is the big problem. The more money you have, the less percentage of your income you spend. That means that a flat tax would lower the tax for the very rich and that would have to be made up for by the middle class.

[olevetonahill]

jkj, Why would it have to 20 to 30% sales tax?

[BermudaSooner]

So let's say I'm general counsel for a large corporation... I do work, they earn money and pay taxes on it there too. Isn't my income also double taxed? How is it any different than dividends in that respect besides the fact that dividends are profit, which is an arbitrary distinction, really.

Not sure if this was already answered, but Mid, your salary and benefits are expensed and paid prior to the corporation paying taxes--there is no double taxation in this situation.

Said another way, if you work for a company that makes widgets, and the company has revenue of $1 million, the cost of your goods to manufacture them is $500K, and your salary is $100k..no other expenses, then the corporation pays taxes on the $400k of profit....and you of course pay taxes on the $100k you make.

If I own the corporation, the $400k of profit is taxed and reduced down to $250k, or so, and then the company pays out full dividends to me of the net profit--so $250k, and then I pay taxes on the dividends I received. The $400k of profit has be double taxed. First at the corporate level, then again at the personal level as dividend income.

[BermudaSooner]

Just a quick search online, consumer spending in the US is about $39 trillion in a year.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/consumer-spending

2013 government spending is $6.3 trillion (no argument at the moment on whether that is too high or low)
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

So you'd need roughly a 14% sales tax on everything to cover the costs. (6.3 / (39+6.3))=13.9%

Obviously this doesn't account for any change in spending--a complex economics problem.

[olevetonahill]

Just a quick search online, consumer spending in the US is about $39 trillion in a year.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/consumer-spending

2013 government spending is $6.3 trillion (no argument at the moment on whether that is too high or low)
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

So you'd need roughly a 14% sales tax on everything to cover the costs. (6.3 / (39+6.3))=13.9%

Obviously this doesn't account for any change in spending--a complex economics problem.

So with the States wantin their cut it would be a total of around 25%

[Midtowner]

Not sure if this was already answered, but Mid, your salary and benefits are expensed and paid prior to the corporation paying taxes--there is no double taxation in this situation.

Said another way, if you work for a company that makes widgets, and the company has revenue of $1 million, the cost of your goods to manufacture them is $500K, and your salary is $100k..no other expenses, then the corporation pays taxes on the $400k of profit....and you of course pay taxes on the $100k you make.

If I own the corporation, the $400k of profit is taxed and reduced down to $250k, or so, and then the company pays out full dividends to me of the net profit--so $250k, and then I pay taxes on the dividends I received. The $400k of profit has be double taxed. First at the corporate level, then again at the personal level as dividend income.

The same money was taxed twice. I think that's really the bottom line. Your argument is essentially a semantic proposition. You're classifying income one way just to make your point, but the same dollar in either event is taxed when it comes into corporate custody and then again when it leaves--just at two different rates depending on who the money is going to.

In my position, assisting the wigit making, I was part of the $500K COGS, of course, but also part of the $500K in revenue, which was taxed, and then the feds and state again tax that same money. It gets taxed again at the local level when I spend it. With the Capital Gains/Ordinary Income dichotomy, I guess it just boils down to class warfare. The wealthy class pays one low rate on dividends they receive while the working class pays up to 39% of their income as taxes.

[BermudaSooner]

So with the States wantin their cut it would be a total of around 25%

If you got rid of state income taxes and went Texas style, then yes, something like 25% all in.

I lived for 10 years in Bermuda--where the only taxes are VAT (value added tax) on all purchases. No income tax. It is awful tax situation for an American to live there because you pay the local 23% tax (some items were different, but most were 23%) plus your tax to the US (unlike any other nationality). The Brits and Canadians that live there, for example, paid nothing to their home gov'ts.

Anyway, it is a simple system, but with some challenges. When you fly back into the country, there are customs agents that check your bags and you have to pay duty on anything purchased. This isn't like taking the green "nothing to declare" line or the red "items to declare" line at other airports. And when someone sends you Christmas presents, for example,, you have to go to the post office, open it for the customs agents and then pay duty on it. Gee, thanks Aunt Betty for the ceramic rooster that just cost me $18 in duty.

Obviously in the US it would be much easier. In Bermuda, all air travel is international (the whole island is 21 square miles--that's probably smaller than Warr Acres) and all mail is basically international. So you likely wouldn't have to go open Grandma's Christmas presents at the post office because Grammy would have already paid her tax.

[BermudaSooner]

The same money was taxed twice. I think that's really the bottom line. Your argument is essentially a semantic proposition. You're classifying income one way just to make your point, but the same dollar in either event is taxed when it comes into corporate custody and then again when it leaves--just at two different rates depending on who the money is going to.

In my position, assisting the wigit making, I was part of the $500K COGS, of course, but also part of the $500K in revenue, which was taxed, and then the feds and state again tax that same money. It gets taxed again at the local level when I spend it. With the Capital Gains/Ordinary Income dichotomy, I guess it just boils down to class warfare. The wealthy class pays one low rate on dividends they receive while the working class pays up to 39% of their income as taxes.

I'm not really sure why we are arguing this...or what point you are trying to make. But look at any finance book and it will give you a good definition of double taxation of dividends.

I was attempting to split out your wage from COGS and show it separately--wasn't intending you to be part of the $500k in my example. And if you are the corporate lawyer, you wouldn't have been part of COGS from an accounting perspective.

I don't follow your statement of, " same dollar...is taxed when it comes into corporate custody and then again when it leaves" How is it taxed when it comes in? The revenue, in the example, is $1 million. That is free from tax (unless you are considering some sales tax, but in this example we are only talking about federal taxes). All expenses are then deducted from that revenue to arrive at EBIT (Earnings before income tax). (Let's also ignore depreciation which just complicates this for no reason). Your salary is one of those expenses. It isn't taxed at the corporate level--only at the personal level (again, ignoring payroll taxes which are a different debate).

Said another way, if your salary was $500k, the company would make nothing and pay no taxes. Only taxes payable would be yours at the personal level. And if your salary was $500k, you'd be one of those evil bastards who stole it from some poor person. ;)

[Midtowner]

I'm assuming C-Corp taxation, you're assuming S.

And with S Corps, declaring dividends is the biggest tax loophole there is out there. So many owners take tiny pissant salaries and declare huge dividends and get away with it.

[olevetonahill]

I'm assuming C-Corp taxation, you're assuming S.

And with S Corps, declaring dividends is the biggest tax loophole there is out there. So many owners take tiny pissant salaries and declare huge dividends and get away with it.

So wait, Are you the OWNER or a salaried EMPLOYEE?
Make up your mind which way you are going to argue this.

[jkjsooner]

jkj, Why would it have to 20 to 30% sales tax?

I said that because that's what we pay in income taxes. Maybe it will be less or more. I don't know.

[BermudaSooner]

I'm assuming C-Corp taxation, you're assuming S.

And with S Corps, declaring dividends is the biggest tax loophole there is out there. So many owners take tiny pissant salaries and declare huge dividends and get away with it.

Uh...no. Certainly not getting into the intracies of Sub chapter S corporations. Those are rare, and S corps are not taxed. Only the owners of the shares of S corps.

I'm talking about standard C Corps...your Microsofts, Apples, Berkshire Hathaways....and widget manufactures.

Under my very simple example, the widget manufacturer would have likely been S Corp and not paid taxes--I would have paid them all as owner....but I was trying to keep it simple and describe the vast majority of corporations...which are C Corp and pay taxes at the corporate level.

Why are we even talking about double taxation? And BTW, a simple google search talks all about double taxation of dividends.

[jkjsooner]

Just a quick search online, consumer spending in the US is about $39 trillion in a year.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/consumer-spending

2013 government spending is $6.3 trillion (no argument at the moment on whether that is too high or low)
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

So you'd need roughly a 14% sales tax on everything to cover the costs. (6.3 / (39+6.3))=13.9%

Obviously this doesn't account for any change in spending--a complex economics problem.

Interesting. I suppose the rate would be quite a bit lower. I just used the 20-30% just because that's the income tax rates most people pay. That of course didn't factor in the effective tax rate because much of your income is in the lower brackets and because of deductions, etc. So I definitely overestimated it a bit.

In addition, since so many people don't pay income taxes right now, the rate would be less for a sales tax. But on the same token, you would have to exempt food and clothing from consumer spending if you're going by pphilfran's plan.

[BermudaSooner]

Interesting. I suppose the rate would be quite a bit lower. I just used the 20-30% just because that's the income tax rates most people pay. That of course didn't factor in the effective tax rate because much of your income is in the lower brackets and because of deductions, etc. So I definitely overestimated it a bit.

In addition, since so many people don't pay income taxes right now, the rate would be less for a sales tax. But on the same token, you would have to exempt food and clothing from consumer spending if you're going by pphilfran's plan.

Well, as soon as you start exempting things the rates change. Which could certainly be the way it works. In Bermuda if you were buying a car the tax rate was 75% on the first $15,000 and 150% on the amount above $15,000---but they were discouraging the purchase of cars because it is a very small and crowded island. We would get much the same in the US. Maybe the sales tax rate on baby formula is 0% or something very low, but the rate on an Aston Martin is 50%.

Our politicians would "engineer" our spending...much like Mayor Bloomberg wanting to tax sugar. Imagine how that would affect the poor...