OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012

To answer that, let's turn it around. If someone called you a dyed in the wool, conservative, capitalist, would you be insulted. Not me :)

That's a funny thing I've noticed about the liberals here. That seem to be ashamed of what they are.

In general, I agree. To be fair, the involvement with the auto companies began under Bush. The difference is at least with the Republicans it's a choice of last resort. If you had the Democrats way, their would be a lot more of it. They like to think that they create jobs with direct govt involvement and they know where money should go, like Solyndra and the other solar companies that the govt is now taking a bath on.

Now that you have me going on Solyndra, let's take a closer look at how the Democrats did all those deals. They say they believe in capitalism. Well, they obviously are not capitalists and don't even understand the basics. In the free capital markets, how are deals like Solyndra done? Solyndra would have to go to venture capitalists and in exchange for getting $500mil they would have to give the venture capitalists a huge stake in the company, maybe even more than half of it, in the form of stock, warrants, etc. That way, if the company succeeds, the venture capitalists make a nice profit.

Venture capitalists fund a bunch of deals. On a lot of them, they lose everything. On some they break even or make some money. And on a few, they wind up hitting a home run with the likes of an Intel or Apple. Overall, if you do enough deals and do them right, it averages out to a good return.

Now, how did Obama and the Dems structure the solar deals with Solyndra and the rest? They simply guaranteed LOANS. Meaning they set up the tax payers for a LOSS from day one. There was no upside, only downside. The very best case was the govt/taxpayers just didn't lose any of their money. And in the worst case, they got shafted for the full amount of the loan.

Some real capitalist geniuses. Sound like a good deal to you? In return for those loan guarantees these companies should have had to give the govt equity, warrants, etc so that if they turn into a billion dollar business, the govt gets something. But given the business accumen of the buffoons making the decisions, looks like the chances of that are slim as well.

Reply to
trader4
Loading thread data ...

Nope those numbers are based on the AGI, which includes income from all sources. It isn't until you get AGI that you start playing with the different rates.

But SS and MCare have always been built on the model where you pay for your benefits, not someone else's (allegedly anyway). The cutoff for payroll taxes is exactly the cutoff for benefits. If I make a $1 million dollars, I only get MCare based on the cutoff point. Also, as I point out, the very lowest tax brackets have Earned Income and Child Care Credits and other such things which means they get money back over and above any withholding tax refunds. IRS figures clearly show that the bottom quintile STILL has a negative effective tax rate even after payroll taxes and the second one pays a very low rate.

Nope. But is then hard to suggest that the rich don't pay enough if the bottom 40% not only pay nothing, but get money, also.

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

Most plans seem to suggest something like 150 or 200% of poverty line as a cutoff for things like school lunches, etc. The poverty levels are based on family size and are even higher for Alaska and Hawaii. Just for the heck of it. 2011, poverty level in the US for single person is over $20,000. Average per capita income in Africa was around $4,000.

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

Well then why did you cite the expert that agreed with your position?

So now you're back to the expert being knowledgable. Are you confused?

Scaled back? Yeah, it was scaled back a bit two decades ago by trying to make it so that it was not a lifetime program. But if that was so successful, why are we spending $1.5tril this year on social programs?

The total cost since 1965 when LBJ declared war on poverty is now about $16tril, equal to the national debt. Back then the poverty rate was around 15%. It still is.

It depends on who that country is and what the circumstances are. Giving aid to Afghanistan or Germany to counter the Soviet Union during the cold war sounds like a mighty fine investment. Right now I'd be giving it to the revolutionaries in Syria.

Reply to
trader4

You're quite the buffoon. Now I know you're gonna get insulted and your shorts all up in a knot over that, but so be it. Only a buffoon would admit the govt is wasting money and then want to raise taxes to allow it to continue to happen. If you had a child that you gave $5 to and they spent it buying a rock from another kid, would you give them $10 so they could continue? Or would you make them wait awhile for their next regular allowance so they learned a lessson?

If enough people demanded better of their govt, we might get it. At least the Tea Party is doing that. Teh govt is taking in MORE money right now than ever before in history. Federal spending rose 40% from 2007 to 2011. We don't have a tax problem, we have a SPENDING problem.

That's OK. Obama got elected running on just fumes from "hope and change". It worked for him.

Reply to
trader4

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:d- OdndcGNIulLxPSnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:

Sorry, but that's just not true. Income from long-term capital gains is taxed at a different [lower] rate than income from wages and salaries.

Here, learn something about how capital gains are taxed in the United States:

formatting link
Note in particular these sentences extracted from the first paragraph of the article:

"Capital gains are generally taxed at a preferential rate in comparison to ordinary income. ... Short-term capital gains are taxed at the investor's ordinary income tax rate ... Long-term capital gains ... are taxed at a lower rate than short-term gains."

That "allegedly" is the key. The whole damn thing is a Ponzi scheme, everyone knows it, and if anybody other than the Federal government were running it, he would have been thrown in jail two generations ago.

That's not relevant to the point that higher earners have a lower effective tax rate.

Let's look at some real numbers, shall we?

The FICA tax of 6.2% applies only to the first $102,000 of wage or salary income; Medicare tax of 1.45% applies to all wage and salary income; and neither one applies to income from capital gains, interest, or dividends.

formatting link
If your income is $100,000 from salary or wages, you pay 7.65% ($7,650) in these so-called "payroll taxes" which of course are income taxes disguised as something else.

If your income is $200,000 from salary or wages, you pay 6.2% on the first $102,000 ($6,324) plus 1.45% on all of it ($2,900) totalling $9,424 or 4.7%.

If your income is $500,000 from salary or wages, you pay 6.2% on the first $102,000 ($6,324) plus 1.45% on all of it ($7,250) totalling $13,574 or 2.7%.

If your income is entirely from investments, regardless of the amount, you pay NOTHING in these taxes.

The higher the income, the lower the effective rate.

The so-called "payroll tax" is a disguised income tax that is levied disproportionately on the poor and the middle class, and exempts most income received by the wealthy.

Oh, and by the way... if you're self-employed, you pay double.

So do you contend that this income redistribution scheme is a good thing?

Do you mean, nope it's not a good thing, or nope you disagree with me?

I have no problem with the bottom xx% paying nothing in tax. I do have a problem with giving other people's money to the bottom xx%.

And I have a *major* problem with someone whose income from capital gains far exceeds my income from salary paying a lower rate than I do.

Reply to
Doug Miller

I'm starting to get a more clear picture of Dan Espen. Wants higher taxes, and wants higher taxes on the rich. Claims that Democrat party is "for capitalism". You know, that's pretty clear, by now.

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

formatting link
.

You're quite the buffoon. Now I know you're gonna get insulted and your shorts all up in a knot over that, but so be it. Only a buffoon would admit the govt is wasting money and then want to raise taxes to allow it to continue to happen. If you had a child that you gave $5 to and they spent it buying a rock from another kid, would you give them $10 so they could continue? Or would you make them wait awhile for their next regular allowance so they learned a lessson?

If enough people demanded better of their govt, we might get it. At least the Tea Party is doing that. Teh govt is taking in MORE money right now than ever before in history. Federal spending rose 40% from 2007 to 2011. We don't have a tax problem, we have a SPENDING problem.

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

Let me try this one more time as I am obviously having problems explaining it. My figures are taxes paid as a %age of AGI. AGI is all income minus a few things every body takes off like deductions. What I am quoting is looking at the bottom line and dividing that by AGI. It is all of the various brackets and things like cap gains melted together, the final taxes due computed and THEN divided by the AGI.

I am hesitant to call it a Ponzi scheme. I view that as an insult to Mr. Ponzi who did not send people armed with guns and asset seizure orders to get his investors.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I view SS and MCare as money going to a specific program and thus I'll get it back (albeit at a VERY low rate of return.

And you get nothing in return.

Everybody pays double. To say otherwise is to pretend that the employer doesn't look at all employee-related expense when deciding what to a job is worth to them.

I am less hesitant than others specifically because it very nicely (I'll leave the efficiency part to others) addresses some of the progressivity issues you are bringing up.

Why, other than it offends you? (serious question, honest)

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

Not unusual (or funny) at all. Lefties are always changing their name to protect themselves. "socialist" => "liberal" => "progressive" => "Democrat" Why would you expect anything but lies from them?

It began under Bush (hardly a conservative) but Bush didn't seize the assets of one group of citizens and give them to another. He wasn't responsible for closing hundreds of dealerships, putting tens of thousands out of work. That was Barak Chavez.

Venture capitalists aren't that stupid. They certainly wouldn't have put themselves at the end of the line at liquidation. Only a politician would do that - with our money.

They structured the loans such that the taxpayer was the *last* one repaid. Only a politician is corrupt enough to loan money under those terms.

Reply to
krw

Here's some information:

To qualify for EITC you must have earned income from employment, self-employment or another source and meet certain rules.

There are more details, go here:

formatting link
So, this particular money does not go to "people who don't work".

There goes your "communism" theory.

The people I know that qualify for EITC are doing jobs like dish washing making minimum wage. You could stop EITC and even tax them. The most likely result is that they'd end up homeless or resort to crime and wind up in prison.

Ever wash dishes for a living? I'm glad to say I have not, except when I was a soda jerk while in HS. Even as a HS student, I was working pretty hard.

As far as "rewarding the idle", I'm _still_ pretty sure Newt and company largely solved that problem. But if you have more reforms you can think of, I'm all ears. Because I don't want to reward the idle either.

Reply to
Dan Espen

I don't have the inclination to look any of this up, but what you are describing is STANDARD for any large scale investor.

That does not constitute "taking over".

Reply to
Dan Espen

Not hardly. These are all done by the Board of Directors and the Feds have no direct reps on most of the Boards. Even so, few large scale investors (especially in places as big as car companies and banks) have enough votes on the board to mandate these things. The Feds in this instance have come in as an outside entitity and told the board what they could or could not do.

Pretty much by most definitions.

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

So, I'm writing about giving money to people who don't work, and you use EITC as a rebuttal. Please include in the rest of the agencies and programs that give my tax dollars to people who don't work. And give yourself the bigger picture.

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

formatting link
.

Here's some information:

To qualify for EITC you must have earned income from employment, self-employment or another source and meet certain rules.

There are more details, go here:

formatting link
So, this particular money does not go to "people who don't work".

There goes your "communism" theory.

The people I know that qualify for EITC are doing jobs like dish washing making minimum wage. You could stop EITC and even tax them. The most likely result is that they'd end up homeless or resort to crime and wind up in prison.

Ever wash dishes for a living? I'm glad to say I have not, except when I was a soda jerk while in HS. Even as a HS student, I was working pretty hard.

As far as "rewarding the idle", I'm _still_ pretty sure Newt and company largely solved that problem. But if you have more reforms you can think of, I'm all ears. Because I don't want to reward the idle either.

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

Well, that depends on the definition of "is" .... said Slick Willie.

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

formatting link
.

I don't have the inclination to look any of this up, but what you are describing is STANDARD for any large scale investor.

That does not constitute "taking over".

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:OqudnStTf4s2XRPSnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:

You've never completed a Schedule D, have you?

Did you even read the article I cited?

Long-term capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than earned income. Period.

That may be -- but the fact still remains that the higher your income, the lower the rate you pay for these taxes.

Because it's fundamentally unfair: apart from exemptions for the very poor, everyone should pay the same rate.

Reply to
Doug Miller

If you aren't talking about EITC, which IS in this thread, then I have to GUESS what you're talking about?

No thanks.

Let me repeat for the third time:

As far as "rewarding the idle", I'm _still_ pretty sure Newt and company largely solved that problem. But if you have more reforms you can think of, I'm all ears. Because I don't want to reward the idle either.

So I guess you and I agree on the matter.

Reply to
Dan Espen

snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:

e lower the rate you

It would take a flat tax rate of around 20% to be revenue neutral. It would kick in above a certain threshold and cover all income types, no deductions. I'd be OK with that. I'd also be OK with a lower rate for low incomes so that they wind up paying some small amount in taxes and pay like the rest of us instead of zero. I'd be interested in what our liberal friends here think of that.....

Reply to
trader4

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:C-SdnSVaQ9MaQxPSnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:

IIRC, it was a question of letting the car companies go under, or "invest" big money in them. Anyone who had the inclination to "invest" such sums would have negotiated some kind of oversight of what the board could or couldn't do after the "investment" was made.

And, FWIW, Ford management overcame their problems without aid from the government. Makes me think GM management was quite a bit at fault. Just to make sure you understand this liberal progessive, I find wages and benefits for UAW workers high, but "free" enterprise negotiated those, right?

Reply to
Han

At gun point. With tactics the companies aren't allowed to use.

Reply to
krw

" snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@er9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

I have to admit that I used to be much more in favor of unions when I believed that all unions had only the good of their members as target. And didn't try to screw everyone who stood in their way. SO I'm a bit more nuanced nowadays, now I have seen more of US union tactics.

Apparently in Germany the all-powerful metalworkers union a few decades (??) ago got their wishes (sp?). They were made responsible for the jobs of their members, but got seat(s) on the boards of directors of the car companies (I believe). By having to join in responsibility for profitability as well as job security, labor peace was enhanced. Of course the current bad management of GM-Opel is another chapter altogether.

Reply to
Han

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.