What's wrong with paying taxes?

[KafirChobee]

Clinton (BJ junky that he was) left Bush with a +$300Billion surplus - that's in yearly surplus of funds - you know?. Which Bush turned into a +$280Billion deficit - a year as soon as he could because he had to save the economy (say what?). Personally, I felt people had adjusted their incomes to their taxation to compensate for the benefits that they would reap in their futures (as becoming elderly - and without healthcare) - but, that more should have been done for those earning less than $20K a year.

Bush, on the other hand had the attitude that the poor-old-wealthy folk that paid for his presidency (and himself, his family, his inheritance) had to be compensated for earning him his presidency (God only knows what gifts he gave the 5 Justices that gave him the presidency). And, he did all in his power to compensate them for everything they had done to aid in the corrupt of the elections system. Hey, they been paid real well by all accounts we have seen thus far, especially the good old boy supplying the new voting machines (one must admire the audacity of someone willing to be the most corrupt president in history, by believing he can get away with it - because God is on his side).

Now, we pay the price. Not the wealthy of course - just the adverage American. Those that paid the price under Clinton, those that accepted having too - those that always have had to bear the burden while the rich people found ways around their having to contribute (both monetarily and by sending their sons into harms way -, I got my own tax attorney so I accept my own corruption to save a dime - but, I ain't rich). Seems fair? Eh? Atleast it seems to be the new GOP-way of things. Put a good spin on it and it all seems right. Hey, we be for the wealthy ... but it will trickle down ... to the Chinese and Indians getting your jobs.

So? What is wrong with paying fair taxes? What is wrong about those that earn more pay more? What is right about those that haven't earned it keep what their predicessors gained (as in inheritance tax). Is being born into wealth a justification for maintaining a status quo for the continuance to suppress everyone else? Or, being born more equal than the rest being able to maintain that quo? Maybe, forcing the rich or political to send their kids to public school ..... might force them to deal with it?

What's wrong with paying taxes? If they are fair? Say Starting at <$30,000 a year = 0%, just the standard sales taxes. $30K-100k, 5%$ + standards; 100-250K, 10-12%; 250-500k, 15%; 500k-1Million, 20%; 1M-3M, 30%; and Billionaires> pay up. Corporations that use USA labels and earn + $1billion 15%. Any Corporation that does business with the US government, cannot claim more than a 10% profit and must pay 15% in taxes on those profits. Any corporation having previosly claimed USA status and wishing to do business with us, equal part of equal paid.

Bingo, balanced budget.

Two, penalize companys (corporations) that have associated themselves with the US for more than say 20 years, that remove themselves from our protection to go elsewhere for profit or to use employment that is cheaper. In other words, disassociate - we as a nation no longer have a reason to uphold or defend their properties. Make that a known fact, and watch how many of theses (GOP) mavericks fly back to the fold. Or, think they can get get away with ignoring the warning - regardless, make it law - they have to become Chineese or stay with us (screw them).

I, realize this is a simplistic overview; but, it is closer to reality than Bush43's policys. And, that is reality. He has the power, but we know the truth.

The truth is, we have to raise taxes ... it is a matter of preferrance of on whom.

[Kanamori]

Why would anyone with money invest with high taxes and high interest rates? I'd keep my money pile to myself and wait for it all to drop. That isn't the way good economies are run. Bush's deficit has more to do w/ an entirely unbalanced budget (fiscal policies) than with his economic policies.

Wealth distribution is another story that isn't fixed with taxes...

[Crazed Rabbit]

You've developed a great plan for driving all big businesses out of the country and ruining the economy. Congrats. Its not too hard when you're using socialism for inspiration, though.

Crazed Rabbit

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Clinton (BJ junky that he was) left Bush with a +$300Billion surplus - that's in yearly surplus of funds - you know?. Which Bush turned into a +$280Billion deficit -

Wow we open he thread with a lie. Nice democratic talking point though. There never was any surplus and the projected one was not because of his tax increases but the fact that congress forced him to sign the balanced budget amendment.

What's wrong with paying taxes? If they are fair

Its already in the works its called the fair tax plan and it sure dont resemble your socialist solution.

Corporations that use USA labels and earn + $1billion 15%. Any Corporation that does business with the US government, cannot claim more than a 10% profit and must pay 15% in taxes on those profits. Any corporation having previosly claimed USA status and wishing to do business with us, equal part of equal paid.

Bingo, balanced budget.
.

You better go back to bussines 101. Corporations pay NO taxes. We do. They just pass it on to the consumer in the cost of their product. These days approximatly 23% of what you pay fr anything is covering the companies taxes on that product. Its the same thing with health care. Those of you who think your company is giving you free healthcare are being duped. If they werent paying for that they could pay you more money. Corporations in reality dont pay for anything. They exist for one purpose and that is to make money. When they cease to do so they cease to exist. This is cold hard reality.

[Spetulhu]

Wow we open he thread with a lie. Nice democratic talking point though. There never was any surplus and the projected one was not because of his tax increases but the fact that congress forced him to sign the balanced budget amendment.

How come Congress can't keep GW in line?

[PanzerJaeger]

Typical anti-upper class mentality shown in this thread. Wealthy people are not bad people.

[Red Harvest]

Wow we open he thread with a lie.

Look who's talking.

There never was any surplus and the projected one was not because of his tax increases but the fact that congress forced him to sign the balanced budget amendment.

This is Gawains way of lying with convenient use of definitions. It is particularly hilarious that the "non-existent surplus" was used by Dubya and the GOP to support tax cuts that have mushroomed the deficits. So one minute they tell you there is a surplus so taxes must be cut, then the next there never was a surplus, *you* just imagined there was, so the GOP tricked you with the illusion.

If you do a simple total revenues vs. total outlays, you find that the U.S. Federal govt. did in fact run a surplus in 1998, 1999, 2000, and even 2001. The difference of course is the "Social Security Trust Fund" which doesn't really exist, except on paper.

In effect, Social Security is being used to make up for other revenue shortfalls, just has been done by every administration. The Social Security tax is a regressive tax, because it declines with income and is used to fund other debts...particularly the ones the GOP govt. is extending at the moment.

So if you want the cold hard truth. Income taxes were already too low to pay for the federal budget, without dipping into other sources of revenue like Social Security. The answer to the tax revenue shortfall? Lower tax revenue even more of course. If that doesn't fix it? Lower tax revenue again.

So much for fiscal responsibility.

Its already in the works its called the fair tax plan and it sure dont resemble your socialist solution.

With the whitewash used for the current deficit and BS used by the GOP discussing the state of the budgets, one can only imagine what their "fair tax plan" would look like. I know one thing is certain, the numbers won't even come close to adding up and any such plan will be sold with the same bald faced lies that have resulted in a $2 trillion dollar reversal already.

You better go back to bussines 101. Corporations pay NO taxes. We do. They just pass it on to the consumer in the cost of their product. These days approximatly 23% of what you pay fr anything is covering the companies taxes on that product. Its the same thing with health care. Those of you who think your company is giving you free healthcare are being duped. If they werent paying for that they could pay you more money. Corporations in reality dont pay for anything. They exist for one purpose and that is to make money. When they cease to do so they cease to exist. This is cold hard reality.

Scary thing is you really believe that hokum. Before the advent of Federal income tax, businesses paid most of the revenues. Now the citizens pay the bulk.

"Corporations in reality don't pay for anything," what a classic. That's of course used as the CEO and his executive team run off with phony profits, leaving the company broke, the employees out of work, and the clean up tab left to others.

[Don Corleone]

Red, again, think about it. What tax can you punish a corporation with that they're not going to just pass on to you in the form of higher prices?

I hear what you're saying, but you're confusing the rich people IN a corporation with the corporation itself. They're not the same. Using GAP accounting practices, all of the tricks they try to play to pay themselves will avail nothing, at the end of the day you'll have: Executive X making Y in the shareholders report. Even if the shareholders are dumb enough to vote for an overpriced salary, he's going to have to turn around and pay taxes, as an individual wage-earner.

If your goal is to soak the rich, and it appears to be, you have to go after the rich, not the corporation itself. By the way, 'soak the rich' means you'll see a lot more investment outside of America, but if your goal is to devalue the stock market, by all means, have at it.

[Red Harvest]

Kafir,

Protectionism is unlikely to help and more likely to hurt. It is going to take time to adjust to a global market with extremely cheap labor--especially with a nation like China that doesn't play by the international rules.

To stay ahead, we have to be leading in fields. Unfortunately, U.S. R&D investment is shrinking rather than growing, and has been for years. Cutting R&D takes a long time to show its effect. In business it allows a company to reap more profits for a few years in a mature market. However, you can't restart R&D overnight, so once it is gone it isn't coming back for years, even if you start throwing money at the problem.

I have not minded paying my taxes. Percentage wise they are low for a developed nation, and there is plenty of infrastructure and services out there which I benefit from. As long as taxes are not exorbitant and are used to keep my country strong and developing, I'm satisfied. I do think it is ridiculous to pay $180 billion dollars extra (and growing) to service debt... It's like running a balance on credit cards rather than paying them down.

[Don Corleone]

I do think it is ridiculous to pay $180 billion dollars extra (and growing) to service debt... It's like running a balance on credit cards rather than paying them down.

Here, here!