Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Laz · 10-08-2011, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

I would find it very wrong if my technicians were paying a higher tax bracket than me-I have no problems paying taxes and I expect to pay more taxes than someone making considerable less.

If you check I think you will find that you do pay more in taxes than those earning less than you. When I was in your income bracket I know that my taxes were significantly higher than those making half of what I earned.

As for loopholes you will find that your liberal buddies create them just as often as anyone else to pander to their donors.

Little Stevie · 10-08-2011, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CountryGentleman35

What about cain's 999 plan? Will it work?

Most seasoned economists say "No". Says several well-known and respected economists helped him devise the plan but last night Lawrence O'Donnell asked him to reveal them and Cain refused naming only one of what he says is his "panel of economic advisors" saying they wanted to remain anonymous.

CountryGentleman35 · 10-08-2011, 12:16 AM

Everyone should pay the same percentage. 20 percent of 50 k pays 10k. 100k pays 20k. Everyone pays. Politicians get the same benefits as the military. If it's good enough for those that protect us it's good enough for them. Make our trade agreements fair with other countries. Charge other countries if they need our military might including the UN if they want our assistance. Stop giving ANY foriegn aid until we are debt free and have a balanced budget and never give a dime to any country that votes against us in the UN. They want to vote against us then they don't need our help. We have not truly won a conflict since WWII. Pass a law that says if we declare war we allow our military to do their job and get out. We are not the worlds police force.

blue3122 · 10-08-2011, 12:20 AM

I am sure that think tank's on the left and right have evaluated Cain's plan.

Personally, I don't think any corporation should pay taxes. it would eliminate a lot of compliance burden and allow reinvestment to create more jobs with some limitations. If the income was paid in dividends, exempt the first $500 and then tax like ordinary income. The 9% flat less charitable deductions probably is not enough for upper incomes and there probably needs to be a floor for lower incomes. so 0% for incomes of $30K or less, tax each individual. The 9% sales tax might be too high. By their nature, sales taxes regressive (more burden on lower incomes).
its not a bad plan, look at moveon.org or heritage foundation to see what opposite side have to say

Little Stevie · 10-08-2011, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Reagan's plan was simple, lower tax rates and broaden the tax base by eliminating loopholes. Not true! I remember the interest only land deals that sunk the S&L's and the multiple year write-offs on equipment purchases and leasing under Reagan. Over the years, thanks to lobbyists and corrupt politicians, the loopholes have returned without the corresponding rate increase. We have one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world, yet General Electric pays no income taxes. Why? Loopholes. That is exactly my point on the hue and cry from both the Tea Party and the Republicans! Corporations would fire every accountant and CPA firm they employed if the 35% "Corporate Tax Rate" they whine about was EVER paid by a single one of them.

Red was added by me.

blue3122 · 10-08-2011, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

I agree with the obvious "bastardization" of the term "millionaire". His speeches all target taxing people who EARN far more than people taxed at a greater rate.

At various times, Obama and others who see the need for a balance approach that includes both spending cuts and revenue increases have proposed taxes or surcharges on persons earning above $250K PER YEAR, above $500K PER YEAR and on persons earning above $1M PER YEAR.

Only one Republican has seen fit to acknowledge the wisdom of any of those proposals because the rest work for and have signed pledges to their corporate-paid lobbyist/boss, Grover Norquist. Rest assured that Grover will sell the interests of ordinary Americans out to the highest corporate bidder.

Here is a GREAT research project to see if Obama really is drinking his own kool-aid. in 2009, he and the mrs. earned about $5.5 million. in 2010, book sales were down and he only earned 1.73 million. So, since we all agree that he would only be "fair", whatever rate of tax he paid should be the rate of tax on all people earning over $1mil. Agreed?
Also, it is not against the law to pay more than you owe. it does happen occasionally. They paid about 25%. so there you go, set the rate at 25% and let's get on with it.

CuteOldGuy · 10-08-2011, 12:32 AM

Stevie, the deduction for equipment depreciation has accelerated even faster now.

Little Stevie · 10-08-2011, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blue3122

I am sure that think tank's on the left and right have evaluated Cain's plan.

Personally, I don't think any corporation should pay taxes. it would eliminate a lot of compliance burden and allow reinvestment to create more jobs with some limitations. If the income was paid in dividends, exempt the first $500 and then tax like ordinary income. The 9% flat less charitable deductions probably is not enough for upper incomes and there probably needs to be a floor for lower incomes. so 0% for incomes of $30K or less, tax each individual. The 9% sales tax might be too high. By their nature, sales taxes regressive (more burden on lower incomes).
its not a bad plan, look at moveon.org or heritage foundation to see what opposite side have to say

Pretty good grasp and explanation of why we have a progressive tax system. I agree that we should have some way to keep from taxing the lower-tired earners since a flat tax takes a disproportionate amount of the income they need to put food on the table.

A person earning $30K has less "discretionary income" (if any) than a person who earns $150K.

Countrygentleman, you should look into the potential harm a flat "same percentage" tax would do to those least likely to have anything left after the rent and utilities are paid.

Little Stevie · 10-08-2011, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Stevie, the deduction for equipment depreciation has accelerated even faster now.

Yes, and it can cause harm to the natural selection process. An example was the $100K write-off in one year for vehicles used in your business in the middle of Bush's terms. It created a market for Hummers that went away with higher gas prices and the cessation of the one-year write-off provision.

CuteOldGuy · 10-08-2011, 12:44 AM

I don't think any flat tax proposal taxes everyone from dollar one. I'm pretty sure there is a floor beneath which no tax would be levied, but I'm relying on memory, so I could be wrong. If there isn't there should be. Problem is, how long would a flat tax stay flat? The income tax, as I have said, is more about control than revenue, and the loopholes and sweetheart deals would start before the ink is dry from the President's signature.

CuteOldGuy · 10-08-2011, 12:45 AM

If tax accounting ever resembles real world accounting, it is by accident and not by design.

Little Stevie · 10-08-2011, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The income tax, as I have said, is more about control than revenue...

Despite my differences with the other portions of your post, THE ABOVE is straight out of a Ron Paul Conspiracy "meetup". Step back from that theory and read it again.

CuteOldGuy · 10-08-2011, 01:14 AM

I didn't get that from Ron Paul. I was a tax attorney, with an advanced law degree in taxation. I was also a CPA. I stand by my statement.

LexusLover · 10-08-2011, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

... their are millionaires who are paying little to nothing and that they need to pay their(rich) fair share.

If I have $100 million in assets/investments with $120,000 a year "fixed" income from those "assets/investments" what's my "fair share" compared to a "pharmacists" making $120,000 a year as an employee?

This past week I sat down at a table at which another player had been sitting for awhile and in a relatively short period of time, I had twice the chips he had after I "deducted" my initial "purchase" ... would it have been "fair" for him to demand a share of my chips? And more importantly, if the dealer had announced those were the "house rules" .... to share the winnings .... how many players are going to sit down at those tables and "invest" their money and time at winning?

Doove · 10-08-2011, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laz

Claiming that they are saying the same thing without recognizing the differences in the tax code is dishonest.

Oh please. It's a distinction without a difference. Nothing 30 years apart is going to be exactly the same.

Quote:

He could probably get support for changes that simplified the tax code and eliminated unnecessary deductions.

You obviously haven't been watching the news lately.

If Republicans are against raising the rate to get rich people to pay more, they're going to be against closing loopholes that force rich people to pay more. What they're against is rich people paying more. No more, no less.