Some interesting taxation and income figures
-
fish82
Greed by those manipulating the financial markets is a completely different animal. The paycheck of the CEO at Bob's Dildo Factory didn't have squat to do with the current troubles.Gobuckeyes1 wrote:
If enough people share an opinion on any subject, they can eventually work to have laws changed to reflect their opinion. It has happened throughout history.Writerbuckeye wrote: How you FEEL isn't the issue, Gobuckeyes...it's whether or not the force of law should be used to "even" the playing field.
I don't know what the answer is...I can see both sides of the argument. I just know that unregulated greed played a part in our recent economic troubles. -
QuakerOatsAmerica’s Forgotten Depression... and Roaring Recovery!
February 24, 2010 - 12:31 ET
Ever hear of the Great Depression of 1920? No, me either. Do you know why? Because the recession that began shortly after World War I ended never deepened and never became “great” (as though any depression is great). There is a history lesson in that story that our leadership in Washington should keep in mind today.
As the United States, and the world, came out of World War I, the economies of the warring powers had been cranked up to full production to meet wartime demands. Suddenly, in 1918, the Armistice was announced, and within a year, troops began returning to civilian life. The influx of millions of soldiers worldwide introduced sudden unemployment, and thousands of farmers came back to farms that were already at or near full capacity, causing farm prices to fall. In the United States, Woodrow Wilson’s hand-picked successor, James Cox, the newspaper magnate from Dayton, Ohio, ran on a platform of reducing America’s wartime debt through a policy of maintaining Wilson’s outrageously high wartime tax rates.
The Progressive President Wilson had been in office when the Income Tax Amendment was passed—a story in itself. While the goal of the Progressives who favored an income tax was first and foremost wealth redistribution (not raising money to run the government), the income tax itself was largely sold to the American people on two major positive features. First, its rates were (by current standards) ridiculously low. Most people paid no income taxes at all, the bottom bracket paid only about 1%, and the very richest Americans paid only 6% (today, many states have higher income tax rates than that!). As a Vegas comedian would say, “What’s not to like?”
But it only took Wilson a couple of years of war to jack up the top rates to an astounding 73% (near confiscation) and hike the bottom rate to 25%.
Now for a little sidebar: how often have you heard that “World War II got us out of the Great Depression?” Probably more times than you can count. What is often forgotten is that when your very survival is at stake, as it was from 1941 to 1945, people will submit to most anything—rationing, confiscatory tax rates, muzzling of civil liberties. This is laudable and natural. But it is wholly unnatural and oppressive for a government to seek to maintain wartime tax levels and intrusions on civil liberties in peacetime. Hence, to return to our story, Wilson “got away” with the outrageously high tax rates during the war because . . . it was a war! Once the threat was over, however, Americans expected their country back.
Cox’s opponent, Warren Harding, also of Ohio, ran on a platform of returning the country to its pre-war “normal” economy and freedoms. While he didn’t explicitly endorse a tax cut, voters rightly inferred that’s what he meant, and sent him to the White House instead of Cox. In perhaps his shrewdest move, Harding asked Pittsburgh millionaire Andrew Mellon to be the Secretary of the Treasury. When Mellon told him he “didn’t want the job,” Harding knew he had the right guy. Mellon finally gave in, and immediately studied the recession, which was severe.
Various estimates of the 1920-1921 recession suggest that Gross National Product fell anywhere from 2.4% to a whopping 6.9%. Estimates of unemployment put the rate at between 7% and 8%. Interestingly, while most economists correctly identify the issue of returning troops as a “shock,” few note that the extremely high tax rates dragged the economy down faster than “Bernie” behind the boat (reference to “Weekend at Bernies,” if you haven’t seen it).
Mellon performed a review of another phenomenon: even though Wilson’s boys consistently pushed up tax rates, the relative return from those rates fell steadily. Without knowing it, Mellon had come up with an early version of the “Laffer Curve,” which says that at a certain point, raising taxes will result in less revenue to government, because people will silently revolt and either cease work or go into the black market. Mellon convinced Harding to ask Congress for a radical tax cut. Of course, many in government opposed. In a stunner, the New York Times of 1909 had actually warned that “when men get in the habit of keeping themselves to the property of others, they cannot easily be cured of it.”[1] Harding died in office, but his successor, the great Calvin Coolidge, remained committed to steeply reducing tax rates. Mellon, Harding, and Coolidge succeeded in reducing the top rate from 73% to 25%, and the bottom rate from 25% to 5%. There are two observations one can make: a) that’s an astounding drop, and all three men are to be commended, and b) it was still many times higher than the pre-war rates!
Nevertheless, the economy quickly recovered. Unemployment rates fell, down to 5%, then 4%, then finally, in 1926, to 1.6% according to one study. Even more shocking, the share of taxes paid by the rich . . . skyrocketed. Those earning over $50,000 (a “supermillionaire” back then) had only paid 45% of the total taxes when the rates were sky-high, but after the Mellon cuts paid 62%. Those in the “Bill Gates” category of “so-rich-they-wouldn’t-pick-up-a-$100-bill-on-the-sidewalk” rich ($100,000 at the time), saw their share of taxes paid almost double, from 28% to 51%.
We call what happened next the “Roaring ‘20s,” because the economy absolutely went nuts. Average Americans came to own cars, radio, have appliances and the electricity to power them (electricity use rose by almost 300% between 1899 and 1929), telephones, and a myriad of other products once considered luxuries.[2] Ford’s Model T, once considered revolutionary for its low cost and simplicity, now was out; General Motors, with its different car line for every income class was in. And they say tax cuts don’t work? Tell that to the Americans of the Roaring ‘20s.”
Larry Schweikart
Professor of History, University of Dayton -
Footwedge^^ Great article. The same could be written about the late 1940's. Nothing like a good war to kickstart economies.
-
Footwedge
Much of the redistribution goes to things that are enjoyed equally by everyone, rich and poor.believer wrote:
In theory yes but who the hell are we to judge what a person should or should not earn even if that income seems obscene?fan_from_texas wrote:When a CEO brings as much to the table in one day as an average employee does over the year, something is wrong. Call it elitism, call it whatever the hell you want.
The mindset that says redistribution of wealth to even the economic playing field regardless of a person's education, accomplishments, labor, and life circumstances is equally obscene.
Arbitrary and capricious confiscation of one person's wealth by the government and redistribution of that wealth to others is theft plain and simple.
And wouldn't it be nice if the private sector would grow as opposed to contracting, thus minimizing the need for social programs.
Or are you a believer in the works of Malthuse...that the starvation and dying off of the weak and fragile is a wonderful thing, and a necessary reality for the purification of the human race? Kind of like, post partem. mass abortions if you will. -
fan_from_texas
I think you misunderstood the sarcasm of my post. I'm pointing out that I think there are CEOs who are worth more than a thousand times as much as the average worker. I think 1 LeBron James does more for the Cavs than 500 people who are picking up trash from the seats. That's not to say that those people don't bring value--they do--nor is it to say that they're not important--they are--but I don't think they are as important to the Cavs as LeBron.believer wrote:
In theory yes but who the hell are we to judge what a person should or should not earn even if that income seems obscene?fan_from_texas wrote:When a CEO brings as much to the table in one day as an average employee does over the year, something is wrong. Call it elitism, call it whatever the hell you want.
The mindset that says redistribution of wealth to even the economic playing field regardless of a person's education, accomplishments, labor, and life circumstances is equally obscene.
Arbitrary and capricious confiscation of one person's wealth by the government and redistribution of that wealth to others is theft plain and simple.
Some CEOs are worth many millions (billions?) of dollars. Some aren't. People should be mad at CEOs who make millions while the company tanks. But they shouldn't be mad at the mere fact that a CEO makes a ton of money. Some of them are worth it. -
fish82
A lot of them are worth it.fan_from_texas wrote:
I think you misunderstood the sarcasm of my post. I'm pointing out that I think there are CEOs who are worth more than a thousand times as much as the average worker. I think 1 LeBron James does more for the Cavs than 500 people who are picking up trash from the seats. That's not to say that those people don't bring value--they do--nor is it to say that they're not important--they are--but I don't think they are as important to the Cavs as LeBron.believer wrote:
In theory yes but who the hell are we to judge what a person should or should not earn even if that income seems obscene?fan_from_texas wrote:When a CEO brings as much to the table in one day as an average employee does over the year, something is wrong. Call it elitism, call it whatever the hell you want.
The mindset that says redistribution of wealth to even the economic playing field regardless of a person's education, accomplishments, labor, and life circumstances is equally obscene.
Arbitrary and capricious confiscation of one person's wealth by the government and redistribution of that wealth to others is theft plain and simple.
Some CEOs are worth many millions (billions?) of dollars. Some aren't. People should be mad at CEOs who make millions while the company tanks. But they shouldn't be mad at the mere fact that a CEO makes a ton of money. Some of them are worth it. -
Belly35
I have not followed this Thread but have read some (not all) of the post. When it comes to “taxation and income figures” my asshole begins to hurt, my blood pressure goes up and I want to go to the firing range with pictures of accountants, lawyers and democrat or some republican campaign signage. I should that a bigger interest in topic like this but just thinking about it and the additional $9000.00 in taxes last years is a reminder I don’t want to be reminded of.
CEO or Business owner are they the same ..yes and no
As a Business owner I don’t look at myself as a CEO why?
CEO applies for the job or is ask to take the position of a company that was started by and Entrepreneur (Business Owner). Should they get the big bucks …Yes if they are good and have made the firm better that before and improves the growth. No if they are there to just rake the business over to sell –out over the stock holder. The Entrepreneur that started that company did not have that in mind when he /she took that risk.
To often the image of the Entrepreneur goal is lost along the way and the vision is gone. Many firms need to get back to the basics of the firm and the mentality doing business. CEO that earns the title of CEO should receive the big bucks.
Let me tell you what a Business owner (Entrepreneur) should get paid and why?
He or she should get as much as they can without losing the vision of the firm or hurting the firm’s ability to grow and achieve profit. Why?
What rick did you perform filling out a resume? I or any Entrepreneur took the rick of losing our homes, family, life style and even our business. Not once or twice but many times over. Could you put that on the table with the potential to lose without knowing what the future brings? Hell some of you don’t even bring a pen to fill out a job application. Daily business owner take risk and have to sleep wondering if it was the right thing to do. Their risk is your future and that means something to the true Entrepreneur. -
I Wear PantsWhat type of business owner are we talking about?
If we're talking about a local store type deal or even a small chain then yes the business owners/founder takes much of the credit as they do most of the work. But for companies with bigger plans the owner/founder often takes a back seat because the goal is to raise capital or sell for massive profits to a larger firm and the owner probably isn't experienced in dealing with that type of thing. -
BoatShoes
Yeah! War! Massive Keynesian Spending everyone can agree on! Come get some! You want to get conservatives to shun classical economics and balanced budgets? Find a bitter enemy! What makes the grass grow!?!? Blood! Blood! Blood! You want 60 votes and to create jobs! Invade Iran babay! God damn persians and their animal rugs and gucci sunglasses!Footwedge wrote: ^^ Great article. The same could be written about the late 1940's. Nothing like a good war to kickstart economies. -
general94I do my own taxes every year, and I am not rich or even close to being that way, but even I can see the U.S. tax code for what it is. I also fill out a few other people's taxes for them (parents, coworkers, friends) This year I had a really interesting one. Two of the people actually got back $700 more than what they PAID in federal taxes thanks to the EIC credit for "poor people." How in the hell is this right? This is wealth redistribution at its worst folks, and will be one of the culprits of the downfall of our society if it continues. I don't have a problem with the guy making $20,000 a year not paying much tax, but to get back more than you paid in is just plain ridiculous. So, all you people making more than say about $50,000 a year are subsidizing those that make less than $25,000. I don't see how anyone can defend such nonsense, but I'm affraid it is only going to get worse with the liberal (socialist-marxist) that we have in office. This is his philosophy. He is nowhere close to being a moderate on any issue.
This whole topic reminds me of something my grandfather would say when some pinhead would start bitching about the "evil" rich. He would just calmly ask them "have you ever got a job from a poor man." That would usually end the discussion. But I guess someone that has NEVER worked in the private sector (Obama) would not understand this. -
Footwedge
I agree....but no mention at all about the private sector jobs that are drying up. That's the root of the problem.general94 wrote: I do my own taxes every year, and I am not rich or even close to being that way, but even I can see the U.S. tax code for what it is. I also fill out a few other people's taxes for them (parents, coworkers, friends) This year I had a really interesting one. Two of the people actually got back $700 more than what they PAID in federal taxes thanks to the EIC credit for "poor people." How in the hell is this right? This is wealth redistribution at its worst folks, and will be one of the culprits of the downfall of our society if it continues. I don't have a problem with the guy making $20,000 a year not paying much tax, but to get back more than you paid in is just plain ridiculous. So, all you people making more than say about $50,000 a year are subsidizing those that make less than $25,000. I don't see how anyone can defend such nonsense, but I'm affraid it is only going to get worse with the liberal (socialist-marxist) that we have in office. This is his philosophy. He is nowhere close to being a moderate on any issue.
This whole topic reminds me of something my grandfather would say when some pinhead would start bitching about the "evil" rich. He would just calmly ask them "have you ever got a job from a poor man." That would usually end the discussion. But I guess someone that has NEVER worked in the private sector (Obama) would not understand this. -
Footwedge
As Abbott said to Costello in the forever imfamous "Who's on First"....NOW YOU'VE GOT IT!!BoatShoes wrote:
Yeah! War! Massive Keynesian Spending everyone can agree on! Come get some! You want to get conservatives to shun classical economics and balanced budgets? Find a bitter enemy! What makes the grass grow!?!? Blood! Blood! Blood! You want 60 votes and to create jobs! Invade Iran babay! God damn persians and their animal rugs and gucci sunglasses!Footwedge wrote: ^^ Great article. The same could be written about the late 1940's. Nothing like a good war to kickstart economies. -
Footwedge
Yes Belly there is a huge difference between CEO's and entrepreneurs. For example, AIG just posted a quartely loss of 8 billion more dollars. The CEO of AIG received compensation over 10 million. And AIG may ask you and me for more bailout money.Belly35 wrote: I have not followed this Thread but have read some (not all) of the post. When it comes to “taxation and income figures” my asshole begins to hurt, my blood pressure goes up and I want to go to the firing range with pictures of accountants, lawyers and democrat or some republican campaign signage. I should that a bigger interest in topic like this but just thinking about it and the additional $9000.00 in taxes last years is a reminder I don’t want to be reminded of.
CEO or Business owner are they the same ..yes and no
As a Business owner I don’t look at myself as a CEO why?
CEO applies for the job or is ask to take the position of a company that was started by and Entrepreneur (Business Owner). Should they get the big bucks …Yes if they are good and have made the firm better that before and improves the growth. No if they are there to just rake the business over to sell –out over the stock holder. The Entrepreneur that started that company did not have that in mind when he /she took that risk.
To often the image of the Entrepreneur goal is lost along the way and the vision is gone. Many firms need to get back to the basics of the firm and the mentality doing business. CEO that earns the title of CEO should receive the big bucks.
Let me tell you what a Business owner (Entrepreneur) should get paid and why?
He or she should get as much as they can without losing the vision of the firm or hurting the firm’s ability to grow and achieve profit. Why?
What rick did you perform filling out a resume? I or any Entrepreneur took the rick of losing our homes, family, life style and even our business. Not once or twice but many times over. Could you put that on the table with the potential to lose without knowing what the future brings? Hell some of you don’t even bring a pen to fill out a job application. Daily business owner take risk and have to sleep wondering if it was the right thing to do. Their risk is your future and that means something to the true Entrepreneur.
How much REAL risk of their own equity are they actually risking? As a one time small entrepreneur myself, I admire what you do and moreover, would love to see you make million plus per year. The small businessman always has my respect.
It's after decades and decades of multi mergers of corporate entities that now feel entitled to ungodly incomes, even after shitty performances, and now paid for by the future taxpayers of Americans, that's when I stop the love a flowin for CEO's. -
Gobuckeyes1
Exactly. This is the kind of bullshit I was alluding to in my earlier posts...Footwedge wrote:
Yes Belly there is a huge difference between CEO's and entrepreneurs. For example, AIG just posted a quartely loss of 8 billion more dollars. The CEO of AIG received compensation over 10 million. And AIG may ask you and me for more bailout money.Belly35 wrote: I have not followed this Thread but have read some (not all) of the post. When it comes to “taxation and income figures” my asshole begins to hurt, my blood pressure goes up and I want to go to the firing range with pictures of accountants, lawyers and democrat or some republican campaign signage. I should that a bigger interest in topic like this but just thinking about it and the additional $9000.00 in taxes last years is a reminder I don’t want to be reminded of.
CEO or Business owner are they the same ..yes and no
As a Business owner I don’t look at myself as a CEO why?
CEO applies for the job or is ask to take the position of a company that was started by and Entrepreneur (Business Owner). Should they get the big bucks …Yes if they are good and have made the firm better that before and improves the growth. No if they are there to just rake the business over to sell –out over the stock holder. The Entrepreneur that started that company did not have that in mind when he /she took that risk.
To often the image of the Entrepreneur goal is lost along the way and the vision is gone. Many firms need to get back to the basics of the firm and the mentality doing business. CEO that earns the title of CEO should receive the big bucks.
Let me tell you what a Business owner (Entrepreneur) should get paid and why?
He or she should get as much as they can without losing the vision of the firm or hurting the firm’s ability to grow and achieve profit. Why?
What rick did you perform filling out a resume? I or any Entrepreneur took the rick of losing our homes, family, life style and even our business. Not once or twice but many times over. Could you put that on the table with the potential to lose without knowing what the future brings? Hell some of you don’t even bring a pen to fill out a job application. Daily business owner take risk and have to sleep wondering if it was the right thing to do. Their risk is your future and that means something to the true Entrepreneur.
How much REAL risk of their own equity are they actually risking? As a one time small entrepreneur myself, I admire what you do and moreover, would love to see you make million plus per year. The small businessman always has my respect.
It's after decades and decades of multi mergers of corporate entities that now feel entitled to ungodly incomes, even after shitty performances, and now paid for by the future taxpayers of Americans, that's when I stop the love a flowin for CEO's. -
general94
The private sector is not growing because of these dumbass policies and our tax code that discourages success and rewards laziness and incompetence. Look at Western Europe, they have tried this B.S. for 40 years and they have been falling further and further behind the rest of the world. Now it seems like we are trying to catch up with them in a hurry. I agree with you guys about the "bailed out" companies and their CEO's. They deserve everything they get, including the Ceo's salary being capped. Other than those cases, the government has no business deciding what someone does or does not earn.Footwedge wrote:
I agree....but no mention at all about the private sector jobs that are drying up. That's the root of the problem.general94 wrote: I do my own taxes every year, and I am not rich or even close to being that way, but even I can see the U.S. tax code for what it is. I also fill out a few other people's taxes for them (parents, coworkers, friends) This year I had a really interesting one. Two of the people actually got back $700 more than what they PAID in federal taxes thanks to the EIC credit for "poor people." How in the hell is this right? This is wealth redistribution at its worst folks, and will be one of the culprits of the downfall of our society if it continues. I don't have a problem with the guy making $20,000 a year not paying much tax, but to get back more than you paid in is just plain ridiculous. So, all you people making more than say about $50,000 a year are subsidizing those that make less than $25,000. I don't see how anyone can defend such nonsense, but I'm affraid it is only going to get worse with the liberal (socialist-marxist) that we have in office. This is his philosophy. He is nowhere close to being a moderate on any issue.
This whole topic reminds me of something my grandfather would say when some pinhead would start bitching about the "evil" rich. He would just calmly ask them "have you ever got a job from a poor man." That would usually end the discussion. But I guess someone that has NEVER worked in the private sector (Obama) would not understand this. -
Footwedge
Not even remotely accurate. Old talking point that just doesn't pass the smell test.The private sector is not growing because of these dumbass policies and our tax code that discourages success and rewards laziness and incompetence.
Much of the private sector is investing tens of billions off shore. The labor laws, safety laws. and environmental laws have allowed the American corporatists to flouurish, all the while sliding the 12 inch blade deep inside the backs of Americans. It has very little to do with tax law advantages.
Look up the tax rates. -
general94
I think someone has all ready listed the tax rates, and as they show, the bottom 50% of wage earners pay nothing or next to nothing in federal taxes.Footwedge wrote:
Not even remotely accurate. Old talking point that just doesn't pass the smell test.The private sector is not growing because of these dumbass policies and our tax code that discourages success and rewards laziness and incompetence.
Much of the private sector is investing tens of billions off shore. The labor laws, safety laws. and environmental laws have allowed the American corporatists to flouurish, all the while sliding the 12 inch blade deep inside the backs of Americans. It has very little to do with tax law advantages.
Look up the tax rates.
As far as talking points, what would you call your last post? I think I have heard this same nonsense from the left for all of my adult life. The biggest "12 inch blade" is coming from our government, who has much more power to do this to someone than any corporation.
What do you think a "fair" tax rate would be for the so called "richest 2% of Americans?" Or otherwise known as the people who create jobs. And no, I am not talking about large corporations, but small business which generates 80% of the private sector jobs in this country. They pay a 33% federal tax rate presently. What do you think they should pay? 35%? 50%? or higher? Would you like to give 33% of your income to the Feds before you see a dime? You don't think this, and other things like the 3rd highest corporate tax rate in the developed world have contributed to any company large or small moving their business out of the country? The same people who push for this kind of a tax code, choking labor and environmental laws, and endless regulation and litigation, are the first ones to bitch about the "evil corporations" moving all of the jobs out of the country. If you owned a business, what would you do? If these policies worked, then Western Europe would have been booming the last thirty years, instead of becoming the welfare, socialist state that it we are fast becoming. -
FootwedgeMy point is that the tax rates in the US (corporate) are similar to that of other developed countries. We have a progressive corporate tax rate...ranging between 15 and 39%
As for income tax, the US is probably at the low end of the scale. I know we have lower income tax rates in comparison to virtually all European countries and a lot less than Canada.
So again, taxes have very little to do with America's corpoartions going offshore...but more to do with the other factors I listed abave.
As for your 33% federal rate....again...lower than other countries. And lower than it's been in probably over a century.. But the real money makers, this is Corporate America CEO's and pther tycoons,, the ones woth 8 figures in their yearly comp, pretty much pay the Capital Gains rate of 15%. That is pretty cheap in the big scheme of things. And...it is wrong...a horrible loophole if you will. -
general94Again I ask, what do you think a "fair" tax rate would be on Income, Corporations, or Capital Gains. Having a 15% Capital Gains tax rate may or may not be a "horrible loophole" I guess it depends on your philosophy. But I do know that 40% of the population not paying one red cent in federal taxes is a horrible loophole.
Just the difference in philoshophies I guess. I would rather put up with the greedy corporations, CEO's, etc., etc. anyday than have big brother step in and decide who earns too much, who earns too little, who gets the breaks, etc., etc. Even with all it's flaws, true Capitalism still works the best of all the economic models tried throughout history. The CEO making 8 figures may be a greedy prick bastard, but I would still trust him more than our "compassionate" federal government that chooses to try and redistribute wealth, and in turn drags everyone down to mediocrity. -
irish_buffalo
That may be true but either one is right.general94 wrote:The CEO making 8 figures may be a greedy prick bastard, but I would still trust him more than our "compassionate" federal government that chooses to try and redistribute wealth, and in turn drags everyone down to mediocrity.
In this country we have been led to believe we have to chose between one or the other. Capitalism is the answer, no doubt, but constraints please because it is human nature to be greedy and feel that wealth is owed.
Most CEO's, many of whom are worth only a fraction of their salary firmly believe they are worth every penny.
There was a day in this country when CEO's or owners actually KNEW their employees and came from similar backgrounds as they do. -
HitsRus
I could care less about comparing us with other countries....or how it compares historically. What is important is to start with the premise that ALL people deserve to pay the least tax possible, and that government should leave the smallest tax 'footprint' possible. No one should have money that they have earned taken away from them...not by a thief and not by their government. At the very least the government owes it to the taxed to take as little as possible or to spend it in such a way that the taxed derive some benefit. That is not what has been going on in Washington lately. In particular, one party uses tax policy to redistribute income from the productive to the not so productive...and hence buy votes and political power by taking from the rich and giving to the poor in the name of 'fairness'.
Tax policy should not be set by slandering our corporations and our CEO's...or by villifying those who entreprenurial skills are successful.
If you want fair tax policy then enact a value added or a national sales tax...and get rid of the political football that dominates Washington and hamstrings our national interests. Get rid of the so callled 'progressive' income tax that is no fair for anyone. -
Footwedge
When a guy is making 40 million a year has a tax rate that is 60% less than a guy making 400K a year, then that is a terrible loophole.general94 wrote: Again I ask, what do you think a "fair" tax rate would be on Income, Corporations, or Capital Gains. Having a 15% Capital Gains tax rate may or may not be a "horrible loophole" I guess it depends on your philosophy. But I do know that 40% of the population not paying one red cent in federal taxes is a horrible loophole.
Just the difference in philoshophies I guess. I would rather put up with the greedy corporations, CEO's, etc., etc. anyday than have big brother step in and decide who earns too much, who earns too little, who gets the breaks, etc., etc. Even with all it's flaws, true Capitalism still works the best of all the economic models tried throughout history. The CEO making 8 figures may be a greedy prick bastard, but I would still trust him more than our "compassionate" federal government that chooses to try and redistribute wealth, and in turn drags everyone down to mediocrity. -
2quik4u
Are you talking about laws in off shore countries?Footwedge wrote:
Not even remotely accurate. Old talking point that just doesn't pass the smell test.The private sector is not growing because of these dumbass policies and our tax code that discourages success and rewards laziness and incompetence.
Much of the private sector is investing tens of billions off shore. The labor laws, safety laws. and environmental laws have allowed the American corporatists to flouurish, all the while sliding the 12 inch blade deep inside the backs of Americans. It has very little to do with tax law advantages.
Look up the tax rates. -
believer
HitsRus wrote: I could care less about comparing us with other countries....or how it compares historically. What is important is to start with the premise that ALL people deserve to pay the least tax possible, and that government should leave the smallest tax 'footprint' possible. No one should have money that they have earned taken away from them...not by a thief and not by their government. At the very least the government owes it to the taxed to take as little as possible or to spend it in such a way that the taxed derive some benefit. That is not what has been going on in Washington lately. In particular, one party uses tax policy to redistribute income from the productive to the not so productive...and hence buy votes and political power by taking from the rich and giving to the poor in the name of 'fairness'.
Tax policy should not be set by slandering our corporations and our CEO's...or by villifying those who entreprenurial skills are successful.
If you want fair tax policy then enact a value added or a national sales tax...and get rid of the political football that dominates Washington and hamstrings our national interests. Get rid of the so callled 'progressive' income tax that is no fair for anyone.
[size=x-large]Standing "O"![/size] -
Footwedge
Yes I am. A subject for a different thread I think. There are sovereignty rites and then their are international considerations regarding free competition business wise playing on a level field.2quik4u wrote:
Are you talking about laws in off shore countries?Footwedge wrote:
Not even remotely accurate. Old talking point that just doesn't pass the smell test.The private sector is not growing because of these dumbass policies and our tax code that discourages success and rewards laziness and incompetence.
Much of the private sector is investing tens of billions off shore. The labor laws, safety laws. and environmental laws have allowed the American corporatists to flouurish, all the while sliding the 12 inch blade deep inside the backs of Americans. It has very little to do with tax law advantages.
Look up the tax rates.