Skip to main content

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

1965 to 1967, (0?) GDP increased 7.9% when the max tax on individuals was 70% and on business was 48 to 52 percent.

From 1981 to 1988, GDP increased by 5.8% and the max individual rate was from 70 to 38.6% and business was 34 to 46%

From 2001 to 2008, GDP increased by 4.7% and both rates was 35%

It appears that as tax rates go down, GDP goes down.  All these numbers come from posts on this page.

_____________________________________________________________________________

While, there is a direct correlation between the tax rates and revenue collected, the correlation between tax rates and GDP is more involved.  There are many more economic technological  geopolitical forces at play.  However, my point was and is that the present administration's record is miserable and the economists supporting the present economics have hit a stone wall. 

 

BTW, I see you carefully don't mention the increased revenue vs lower tax rates.

Last edited by direstraits
Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

Seeweed.

 

Per seeweed, "Wrong as usual. Yes ONE of the reasons for taxes is to provide revenue for investment in infrastructure , education , and other things that are necessary for the common good of a people, but there are other uses of it, one of which I explained before - use tax policy to increase corporate investment in their own business(es) "

 

So, you would rather add billions to the debt to satisfy a theoretical economic goal, rather than collect more taxes. Practically, that's called fanaticism -- beware the grape flavor-aid.

 

Yes, central planning – the socialist ideal that government can always be the wisest in the room. Really hasn’t worked out well.  Government isn’t very good at projecting what is best for any particular industry, let alone all of them. 

 

For the three low tax periods I cited earlier, the results were:

For the three years, 1965 to 197, the average GDP was 7.9 percent.

For the period 1981 to 1988, the average GDP was 5.8 percent.

For the period 2001 to 2008, the average GDP was 4.7 percent.

All beat the present average of 1.75 percent.

==============

All you have to do is remember the America, and the economy we had after WWll, and before Reagan, to see the difference. You don't have to read charts, you don't have to even argue, just remember. America was the world's best then. We have certainly fallen a long way since then.
However, like I said, we've been here before with the same economic policies, and if we keep going in the wrong direction (over decades- not president to president), that revolution I mentioned will happen again.
The current model of ending the social safety net (Republican idea), busting unions (Republican idea), ending work safety (Republican idea), and lifting environmental restraints on pollution (Republican obsession) will ultimately produce a surf, or near slave class . You will either be one of the top 10% (and you better believe if you work for a salary you WILL NOT BE ONE OF THOSE), or you will be little more than a serf because without a safety net, you will work foro little of nothing , disregard your safety, and turn a blind eye to the environment , because you will have to put some bread and beans on the table. 
The last Republican president that was worth a damm realized just that, and fought against it, 120 years ago. When did the Republican party give up fighting for the workers and decide to cater only to the rich and powerful ? What a damm mess we are in now.

 

__________________________________________________________________________

 

Pardon me, but the real reason for the great post war economy was the fact that we didn't have to fill in bomb craters, remove the rubble of our wreaked factories and infrastructure, and rebuild everything new. For a few decades without real competition, we could get by living in the unionist's dreamworld, but at some point competition started eating into our lifestyle. We also created tax laws after WW2 that favored foreign investment, laws that JFK wanted to change and repatriate the offsh-ore Kennedy fortune.

 

 ________________________________________________________

Over and over,that the immediate post WWII economy was an anomaly and not the norm.  Seem the Dems act like two Baptists in a liquor store and get amnesia when this is brought up. 

 

Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

Seeweed.

 

Per seeweed, "Wrong as usual. Yes ONE of the reasons for taxes is to provide revenue for investment in infrastructure , education , and other things that are necessary for the common good of a people, but there are other uses of it, one of which I explained before - use tax policy to increase corporate investment in their own business(es) "

 

So, you would rather add billions to the debt to satisfy a theoretical economic goal, rather than collect more taxes. Practically, that's called fanaticism -- beware the grape flavor-aid.

 

Yes, central planning – the socialist ideal that government can always be the wisest in the room. Really hasn’t worked out well.  Government isn’t very good at projecting what is best for any particular industry, let alone all of them. 

 

For the three low tax periods I cited earlier, the results were:

For the three years, 1965 to 197, the average GDP was 7.9 percent.

For the period 1981 to 1988, the average GDP was 5.8 percent.

For the period 2001 to 2008, the average GDP was 4.7 percent.

All beat the present average of 1.75 percent.

==============

All you have to do is remember the America, and the economy we had after WWll, and before Reagan, to see the difference. You don't have to read charts, you don't have to even argue, just remember. America was the world's best then. We have certainly fallen a long way since then.
However, like I said, we've been here before with the same economic policies, and if we keep going in the wrong direction (over decades- not president to president), that revolution I mentioned will happen again.
The current model of ending the social safety net (Republican idea), busting unions (Republican idea), ending work safety (Republican idea), and lifting environmental restraints on pollution (Republican obsession) will ultimately produce a surf, or near slave class . You will either be one of the top 10% (and you better believe if you work for a salary you WILL NOT BE ONE OF THOSE), or you will be little more than a serf because without a safety net, you will work foro little of nothing , disregard your safety, and turn a blind eye to the environment , because you will have to put some bread and beans on the table. 
The last Republican president that was worth a damm realized just that, and fought against it, 120 years ago. When did the Republican party give up fighting for the workers and decide to cater only to the rich and powerful ? What a damm mess we are in now.

 

__________________________________________________________________________

 

Pardon me, but the real reason for the great post war economy was the fact that we didn't have to fill in bomb craters, remove the rubble of our wreaked factories and infrastructure, and rebuild everything new. For a few decades without real competition, we could get by living in the unionist's dreamworld, but at some point competition started eating into our lifestyle. We also created tax laws after WW2 that favored foreign investment, laws that JFK wanted to change and repatriate the offsh-ore Kennedy fortune.

 

 ________________________________________________________

Over and over,that the immediate post WWII economy was an anomaly and not the norm.  Seem the Dems act like two Baptists in a liquor store and get amnesia when this is brought up. 

 

===========

No, it is an absolute fact, but it dosen't account for 50 years of a constantly increasing middle class in numbers, and wealth, not to mention the power and prestige of the United States back when we were number one in everything, however, the New Deal POLICIES do.

All you have to do is remember the America, and the economy we had after WWll, and before Reagan, to see the difference. You don't have to read charts, you don't have to even argue, just remember. America was the world's best then. We have certainly fallen a long way since then.

 

This is addressed again and again, but once more –  when you are the last man standing, you prosper.  We had no competition.  Of course, you ignore charts and facts – the truth is most inconvenient.  Just trust in your feelings  feelings.  Lord, stop me before I channel Barbara Streisand.


However, like I said, we've been here before with the same economic policies, and if we keep going in the wrong direction (over decades- not president to president), that revolution I mentioned will happen again.


The current model of ending the social safety net (Republican idea), busting unions (Republican idea), ending work safety (Republican idea), and lifting environmental restraints on pollution (Republican obsession) will ultimately produce a surf, or near slave class . Dam, a surf class,  that sounds radical dude!

 

Busting unions – not private sector unions, workers have done that on their own as they see little benefit from belonging.  It’s the Obama administration that declared war on construction unions, coal miners and the IBEW.  Now, government workers unions, yes, Republicans have insisted upon accountability – billions poured into education with no improvement. VA hospitals actually caring for patients and not making them wait until they died – they claim they are no-shows.  Nor, do Republicans believe union membership must be a requirement for a government job – that’s close to NSDAP/Fascist/Communist party requirements.  Unions certainly aren’t  medieval guilds who’s members are the only ones that may practice an occupation. 

 

Republicans have not advocated ending the safety net, They have advocated welfare to work – a Clinton/Republican congress compromise that worked well, until Democrats altered it. Yes, Republicans do insist that EPA regulations be based on hard science and that they disclose their studies, that cost-benefit studies be done (as required by law),

 

 

Union membership is one of the elemental human rights.” – Ronald Reagan   Reagan was the only president who was also a union president – Screen Actors Guild.  It’s a myth that Reagan ended collective bargaining.  He did refuse to allow a government union to strike – quoting FDR who had the same view – that government unions should exist, but never be allowed to strike.

 

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

Seeweed.

 

Per seeweed, "Wrong as usual. Yes ONE of the reasons for taxes is to provide revenue for investment in infrastructure , education , and other things that are necessary for the common good of a people, but there are other uses of it, one of which I explained before - use tax policy to increase corporate investment in their own business(es) "

 

So, you would rather add billions to the debt to satisfy a theoretical economic goal, rather than collect more taxes. Practically, that's called fanaticism -- beware the grape flavor-aid.

 

Yes, central planning – the socialist ideal that government can always be the wisest in the room. Really hasn’t worked out well.  Government isn’t very good at projecting what is best for any particular industry, let alone all of them. 

 

For the three low tax periods I cited earlier, the results were:

For the three years, 1965 to 197, the average GDP was 7.9 percent.

For the period 1981 to 1988, the average GDP was 5.8 percent.

For the period 2001 to 2008, the average GDP was 4.7 percent.

All beat the present average of 1.75 percent.

==============

All you have to do is remember the America, and the economy we had after WWll, and before Reagan, to see the difference. You don't have to read charts, you don't have to even argue, just remember. America was the world's best then. We have certainly fallen a long way since then.
However, like I said, we've been here before with the same economic policies, and if we keep going in the wrong direction (over decades- not president to president), that revolution I mentioned will happen again.
The current model of ending the social safety net (Republican idea), busting unions (Republican idea), ending work safety (Republican idea), and lifting environmental restraints on pollution (Republican obsession) will ultimately produce a surf, or near slave class . You will either be one of the top 10% (and you better believe if you work for a salary you WILL NOT BE ONE OF THOSE), or you will be little more than a serf because without a safety net, you will work foro little of nothing , disregard your safety, and turn a blind eye to the environment , because you will have to put some bread and beans on the table. 
The last Republican president that was worth a damm realized just that, and fought against it, 120 years ago. When did the Republican party give up fighting for the workers and decide to cater only to the rich and powerful ? What a damm mess we are in now.

 

__________________________________________________________________________

 

Pardon me, but the real reason for the great post war economy was the fact that we didn't have to fill in bomb craters, remove the rubble of our wreaked factories and infrastructure, and rebuild everything new. For a few decades without real competition, we could get by living in the unionist's dreamworld, but at some point competition started eating into our lifestyle. We also created tax laws after WW2 that favored foreign investment, laws that JFK wanted to change and repatriate the offsh-ore Kennedy fortune.

 

 ________________________________________________________

Over and over,that the immediate post WWII economy was an anomaly and not the norm.  Seem the Dems act like two Baptists in a liquor store and get amnesia when this is brought up. 

 

===========

No, it is an absolute fact, but it dosen't account for 50 years of a constantly increasing middle class in numbers, and wealth, not to mention the power and prestige of the United States back when we were number one in everything, however, the New Deal POLICIES do.

_________________________________________________________________

 

As if the Keynesian economists can predict anything. Those people were predicting a great economic bust post WW2 and wanted to keep the economic controls in place after the war. They forgot that there would be pent up demand for consumer goods to be bought with the saved overtime and military pay.

 

In the 1945 symposium Financing American Prosperity, several prominent economists discussed the financial and other economic problems of the transition after World War II and suggested solutions. With the exception of Benjamin Anderson, who called for "drastic economies in the postwar period" and insisted that "proposals for expanding federal expenditures after the war must be fought all along the line", the contributors all advocated a scope of federal expenditures much larger than that before the war.[5]

 

The "Depression of 1946" may be one of the most widely predicted events that never happened in American history. As the war was winding down, leading Keynesian economists of the day argued, as Alvin Hansen did, that "the government cannot just disband the Army, close down munitions factories, stop building ships, and remove all economic controls." After all, the belief was that the only thing that finally ended the Great Depression of the 1930s was the dramatic increase in government involvement in the economy. However, the government canceled war contracts, and its spending fell from $84 billion in 1945 to under $30 billion in 1946. By 1947, the government was paying back its massive wartime debts by running a budget surplus of close to 6 percent of GDP. The military released around 10 million Americans back into civilian life. Most economic controls were lifted, and all were gone less than a year after V-J Day. In short, the economy underwent what the historian Jack Stokes Ballard referred to as the "shock of peace."

 

If the wartime government stimulus had ended the Great Depression, its winding down would certainly lead to its return. At least that was the consensus of almost every economic forecaster, government and private. In August 1945, the Office of War Mobilization and Reconversion forecast that 8 million would be unemployed by the spring of 1946, which would have amounted to a 12 percent unemployment rate. In September 1945, Business Week predicted unemployment would peak at 9 million, or around 14 percent. Leo Cherne of the Research Institute of America and Boris Shishkin, an economist for the American Federation of Labor, forecast 19 and 20 million unemployed respectively — rates that would have been in excess of 35 percent!

 

After the Second World War, unemployment rates, artificially low because of wartime conscription, rose a bit, but remained under 4.5 percent in the first three postwar years — below the long-run average rate of unemployment during the 20th century. Some workers voluntarily withdrew from the labor force, choosing to go to school or return to prewar duties as housewives. But, many who lost government-supported jobs in the military or in munitions plants found employment as civilian industries expanded production—in fact civilian employment grew, on net, by over 4 million between 1945 and 1947. Household consumption, business investment, and net exports all boomed as government spending receded.[6]

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Austrian_predictions

 

It no longer matters to me, which is why I kinda quit doing much posting on this forum. Either you are bright enough to look at long term consequences of political policies, or you aren't ; either you vote for your economic best interest , or you don't . Whatever !
Personally, I will do ok, but if this country  keeps believing the lie that the Republicans are putting out (and as we can see, they put it out !!!!!!!), or you will look at history with an open mind and see which policies help or hurt the average person, which ones favor the uber rich at the expense of every one else.
If you believe that someday, if you work hard and save, you will be one of the 10% wealthy elate , there ain't enough tin foil for your hat.
We are close, but we haven't hit bottom yet. However, there are just so many more years we can take of the rich getting richer, and everybody else getting the shaft, before that "revolution" I discussed will happen. You can either see the collapse coming  and try to prevent it, or you can help it along, all depends on which political philosophy you accept.
Screw it, I don't even know anymore why I care.

 

"No, it is an absolute fact, but it dosen't account for 50 years of a constantly increasing middle class in numbers, and wealth, not to mention the power and prestige of the United States back when we were number one in everything, however, the New Deal POLICIES do."

 

_______________________________________________________

The growth of the American middle class after WWII, was a resumption of the  middle class growth that was ongoing since the onset of the nation, if not before.  Rom Europe, originally, people settled the nation.  With no smothering bureaucracy or aristocracy, their natural talents blossomed.  Since the war for independence, if not before, Americans lived better than their brethren in whatever Old Country.  they originated.  This accelerated with the Industrial Revolution.  To claim the New Deal caused the growth is akin to claiming that wet sidewalks cause rain.  The one thing I will give the Dems credit for is the GI Bill, although Republicans supported it as well.

Originally Posted by seeweed:

WOW !
I bet you believe slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War  and the US was founded on the principals of the Bible to be a Christian nation as well.

Just WOW!

________________________________________________

This is the left's method of indirect warfare -- innuendo, character assassination and deflection when they are out of intelligent, logical arguments -- happens early in their arguments. 

 

Of course, slavery was an item, didn't Lincoln address Harriet Beecher Stowe as the woman who started the war.  Planters and others who benefited from the trade were for the war.  Yankee trader's had made their money from the now illegal importation of slaves were against slavery.  About 90 percent of the Southern troops fought because the Yankees were in the South.  Most Union troops didn't care and many were racist.  Lee was an abolitionist, who never purchased a slave in his lifetime.  Grant owned slaves until the passage of the 13t amendment.

 

The founders, most were religious, had the shade of Cromwell over their shoulder.  They were careful to limit religion in the national government.  But, allowed some states to continue with their official state religious sects.  However, religious leaders, including Jewish, were major local supporters of the war. 

 

Next thing, you'll claim religion had nothing to do with ending slavery -- ignoring Wilbur Wilberforce and his religious conversion that set  him on the course of abolition.

 

Its the left's use of innuendo and character assassination one should find disturbing.  In power, they will claim one is an enemy of the state/party or whoever has the power they support. Never ends well.

 

 

Originally Posted by mad American:

From what I am reading from the left, the government should be able to take ninety percent of what I earn, in order to keep that from happening I have to spend My money the way that the Government says.  How is that right?

____________________________________________________
Leftists have no problem making people the slave of an all powerful state.

The radical liberals want to regulate the market place and seize capital in an effort to "protect the consumer".

 

However, the best protection the consumer has is a free market place with low barriers to entry where many businesses can compete for the consumers business.

 

This is what insures that we get the best possible product for the best possible price. 

Originally Posted by seeweed:

WOW !
I bet you believe slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War  and the US was founded on the principals of the Bible to be a Christian nation as well.

Just WOW!

______________________________________________________

 

WOW!

 

I bet you believe that government is the solution for everything and the US was founded so that government could tax and control everything under the sun.

 

Just WOW!

Originally Posted by seeweed:

It no longer matters to me, which is why I kinda quit doing much posting on this forum. Either you are bright enough to look at long term consequences of political policies, or you aren't ; either you vote for your economic best interest , or you don't . Whatever !
Personally, I will do ok, but if this country  keeps believing the lie that the Republicans are putting out (and as we can see, they put it out !!!!!!!), or you will look at history with an open mind and see which policies help or hurt the average person, which ones favor the uber rich at the expense of every one else.
If you believe that someday, if you work hard and save, you will be one of the 10% wealthy elate , there ain't enough tin foil for your hat.
We are close, but we haven't hit bottom yet. However, there are just so many more years we can take of the rich getting richer, and everybody else getting the shaft, before that "revolution" I discussed will happen. You can either see the collapse coming  and try to prevent it, or you can help it along, all depends on which political philosophy you accept.
Screw it, I don't even know anymore why I care.

 

So it is ok to steal more money from me to pay people who largely did nothing to improve themselves or save for retirement?  I already pay 33% of everything I make to the Government how much is enough?  Before others start you know I am not talking about SS that older guys like you have earned over a lifetime "you earned that".   I am talking about Illegals and others who milk the system so they do not have to work and come from families who have never worked.

 

If you live by only buying what you can truly afford and within your means you can be well off and not dependent on the Government.  Many stories like this where someone dies who people though were not well off and guess what they a millionaires by saving and not living for the day.

http://www.mhpbooks.com/columb...ift-back-to-library/

Originally Posted by Quaildog:

wul Hi, we are on your side. if you fly that plane 24 hrs per day you ain't gonna get in the top %5 that don't pay the %33 you claim you pay. I think you need a new accountant and quit filling out your own forms on your knee.

If Hi is a captain he would be close to being in the top5%. If his wife works then he is definitely in the top 5%

 

  1. The top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers (AGI equal to or greater than $154,643), however, still paid far more than the bottom 95 percent. The top 5 percent earned 31.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes.
Originally Posted by Quaildog:

wul Hi, we are on your side. if you fly that plane 24 hrs per day you ain't gonna get in the top %5 that don't pay the %33 you claim you pay. I think you need a new accountant and quit filling out your own forms on your knee.

I have a great accountant but regardless of what you say there is no legal way for a high earner who gets paid only by a paycheck "not a business owner or paid via stock options etc." to avoid paying the tax man.

Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:
Originally Posted by Quaildog:

wul Hi, we are on your side. if you fly that plane 24 hrs per day you ain't gonna get in the top %5 that don't pay the %33 you claim you pay. I think you need a new accountant and quit filling out your own forms on your knee.

I have a great accountant but regardless of what you say there is no legal way for a high earner who gets paid only by a paycheck "not a business owner or paid via stock options etc." to avoid paying the tax man.

And THAT is what I tried to say. If you work for a living (with emphasis on the word WORK) , you will never be in that top rung. You will pay 33% or 35 % or whatever in taxes. That top rung on the ladder does NOT work for their money. They use their money (some in good ways , and some in bad ways) to make more money. They are the ones payin 15% or less of their vast income in taxes.
And Hi, ole buddy, you seem concerned about stealing from you at 33% to give to people who don't work, or don't plan and save for retirement, basically some form of welfare. But , do you realize that welfare is only about 12% of the entire US budget, and the largest "takers" of those funds are people who actually work, work hard, stocking the shelves at Walmart, so we can save a buck or two, cleaning your room and making your bed when you travel, flipping your burgers when you don't have time for a decent meal. These people work hard for pennies.
The biggest welfare queen on the continent is Wal Mart., but what to me is even worse, is companies like Exxon who (SCOTUS now says they are a person, so can't use the word "which" ) makes more money than any other company and pays zero taxes. Worse yet, they get subsidies from your tax dollars. GE, much the same, and on and on. 
While you appear to worry about roughly 3% fraud rate on 12% of the budget, Lockheed is still selling the Pentagon billions of dollars of airplanes that frankly just don't work , and congress is forcing the Pentagon to buy tanks , ships, and planes they don't need that are basically shipped to the Arizona desert and mothballed , brand new.  There is way more of your tax dollars wasted on the Pentagon than is ever even spent on the thing you resent the most. While the rest of the world, mostly our allies , are improving the living and working conditions for their citizens, we continue to squander some 60% of our money on the military.
IMHO, I call that picking fly chet outta pepper, Scripture describes it as "gagging at a gnat and swallowing a camel"
Either way, the Pentagon wants to thank you .

 

Seeweed  as usual the devil is in the details and how the Government classifies spending.  Spending for low income "means tested" not necessarily earned like your situation means illegals and others who have never worked as well as people who have worked or are U.S. citizens was around 746 billion.  This amount eclipses Medicare, Social Security, Defense or anything else in the federal budget.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/1103...Low-Income-FY08-FY11

I have a great accountant but regardless of what you say there is no legal way for a high earner who gets paid only by a paycheck "not a business owner or paid via stock options etc." to avoid paying the tax man.

 

Hi, you're right.  You draw a paycheck and pay 33%, Bill Gates don't get a paycheck, he tries to survive on 350 million dollars of dividends and pays 15%

 

Who in congress has a big enough set to try to remedy this?

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

I have a great accountant but regardless of what you say there is no legal way for a high earner who gets paid only by a paycheck "not a business owner or paid via stock options etc." to avoid paying the tax man.

 

Hi, you're right.  You draw a paycheck and pay 33%, Bill Gates don't get a paycheck, he tries to survive on 350 million dollars of dividends and pays 15%

 

Who in congress has a big enough set to try to remedy this?

This is the problem Warren, Gates, Clintons, Bushes etc all set up multiple trusts and other scams to avoid the taxes the want us to pay!  Make no mistake when Buffett and Gates complain about what they pay compared to their secretary they want US to pay more not them!

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

I have a great accountant but regardless of what you say there is no legal way for a high earner who gets paid only by a paycheck "not a business owner or paid via stock options etc." to avoid paying the tax man.

 

Hi, you're right.  You draw a paycheck and pay 33%, Bill Gates don't get a paycheck, he tries to survive on 350 million dollars of dividends and pays 15%

 

Who in congress has a big enough set to try to remedy this?

What is the appropriate tax rate for money that has already been taxed once by the gov't?

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:
Originally Posted by Quaildog:

wul Hi, we are on your side. if you fly that plane 24 hrs per day you ain't gonna get in the top %5 that don't pay the %33 you claim you pay. I think you need a new accountant and quit filling out your own forms on your knee.

I have a great accountant but regardless of what you say there is no legal way for a high earner who gets paid only by a paycheck "not a business owner or paid via stock options etc." to avoid paying the tax man.

And THAT is what I tried to say. If you work for a living (with emphasis on the word WORK) , you will never be in that top rung. You will pay 33% or 35 % or whatever in taxes. That top rung on the ladder does NOT work for their money. They use their money (some in good ways , and some in bad ways) to make more money. They are the ones payin 15% or less of their vast income in taxes.
And Hi, ole buddy, you seem concerned about stealing from you at 33% to give to people who don't work, or don't plan and save for retirement, basically some form of welfare. But , do you realize that welfare is only about 12% of the entire US budget, and the largest "takers" of those funds are people who actually work, work hard, stocking the shelves at Walmart, so we can save a buck or two, cleaning your room and making your bed when you travel, flipping your burgers when you don't have time for a decent meal. These people work hard for pennies.
The biggest welfare queen on the continent is Wal Mart., but what to me is even worse, is companies like Exxon who (SCOTUS now says they are a person, so can't use the word "which" ) makes more money than any other company and pays zero taxes. Worse yet, they get subsidies from your tax dollars. GE, much the same, and on and on. 
While you appear to worry about roughly 3% fraud rate on 12% of the budget, Lockheed is still selling the Pentagon billions of dollars of airplanes that frankly just don't work , and congress is forcing the Pentagon to buy tanks , ships, and planes they don't need that are basically shipped to the Arizona desert and mothballed , brand new.  There is way more of your tax dollars wasted on the Pentagon than is ever even spent on the thing you resent the most. While the rest of the world, mostly our allies , are improving the living and working conditions for their citizens, we continue to squander some 60% of our money on the military.
IMHO, I call that picking fly chet outta pepper, Scripture describes it as "gagging at a gnat and swallowing a camel"
Either way, the Pentagon wants to thank you .

 

Much of your post is a prime example of why we need complete and total corporate tax reform.

 

We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. However, special interests own our politicians and create loopholes for certain industries.

 

This means some industries and companies get preferential treatment compared to others. 

 

What we need to do is lower the tax rate and cut the loopholes, thus creating a level playing for field for all businesses, not just the big ones. 

 

 

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:
Originally Posted by Quaildog:

 

Much of your post is a prime example of why we need complete and total corporate tax reform.

 I agree

 

We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. However, special interests own our politicians and create loopholes for certain industries.

 Well, maybe ... As listed but it is only by a couple of prectntage points for countries in the developed world. But it is difficult to get less than 0% which many companies pay, unless it is for the people (corporations are people now) who receive tax dollars and don't pay for their stock like the oil (people)  for example. You can only get better than free if you are paid to take it.

This means some industries and companies get preferential treatment compared to others. 

 Yes

What we need to do is lower the tax rate and cut the loopholes, thus creating a level playing for field for all businesses, not just the big ones. 

 Maybe better put, we need a more competitive tax rate for corporations (who are now people), and cut the loopholes. However, I should add, that we need a much higher tax rate on companies (people)  that outsource their production capacity , and then sell their product here in the US. That cheats us all.
In addition, corporate (persons) tax policy should encourage re-investment back into the corporation rather than take the money and run to the Islands for tax havens. That is what we had prior to the 80s.

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

ummm.. the 12 years we've spent in iraq has cost us an estimated 6 TRILLION dollars.. i'm gonna say we've spent more than the figures on that website.. i'm just sayin.

CRASH, WE AGREE ON SOMETHING! 

_____________________________________________________________________________

______

Actual costs for Wars:

http://costsofwar.org/article/economic-cost-summary

http://costsofwar.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/infographics/articles/20/infographics/economic-costs.jpg

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by mad American:

So a company or person should spend their money, that has already been taxed, the way the government says, or the government takes more?

Freedom is an overrated concept for many people on this board. LOL

___________________________________________________________________

 FDR did model the New Deal after Fascist Italy, and it seems we've been going down hill ever since.

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:
Originally Posted by Quaildog:

wul Hi, we are on your side. if you fly that plane 24 hrs per day you ain't gonna get in the top %5 that don't pay the %33 you claim you pay. I think you need a new accountant and quit filling out your own forms on your knee.

I have a great accountant but regardless of what you say there is no legal way for a high earner who gets paid only by a paycheck "not a business owner or paid via stock options etc." to avoid paying the tax man.

And THAT is what I tried to say. If you work for a living (with emphasis on the word WORK) , you will never be in that top rung. You will pay 33% or 35 % or whatever in taxes. That top rung on the ladder does NOT work for their money. They use their money (some in good ways , and some in bad ways) to make more money. They are the ones payin 15% or less of their vast income in taxes.
And Hi, ole buddy, you seem concerned about stealing from you at 33% to give to people who don't work, or don't plan and save for retirement, basically some form of welfare. But , do you realize that welfare is only about 12% of the entire US budget, and the largest "takers" of those funds are people who actually work, work hard, stocking the shelves at Walmart, so we can save a buck or two, cleaning your room and making your bed when you travel, flipping your burgers when you don't have time for a decent meal. These people work hard for pennies.
The biggest welfare queen on the continent is Wal Mart., but what to me is even worse, is companies like Exxon who (SCOTUS now says they are a person, so can't use the word "which" ) makes more money than any other company and pays zero taxes. Worse yet, they get subsidies from your tax dollars. GE, much the same, and on and on. 
While you appear to worry about roughly 3% fraud rate on 12% of the budget, Lockheed is still selling the Pentagon billions of dollars of airplanes that frankly just don't work , and congress is forcing the Pentagon to buy tanks , ships, and planes they don't need that are basically shipped to the Arizona desert and mothballed , brand new.  There is way more of your tax dollars wasted on the Pentagon than is ever even spent on the thing you resent the most. While the rest of the world, mostly our allies , are improving the living and working conditions for their citizens, we continue to squander some 60% of our money on the military.
IMHO, I call that picking fly chet outta pepper, Scripture describes it as "gagging at a gnat and swallowing a camel"
Either way, the Pentagon wants to thank you .

 _____________________________________________________________

The biggest welfare queen on the continent is Wal Mart., but what to me is even worse, is companies like Exxon who (SCOTUS now says they are a person, so can't use the word "which" ) makes more money than any other company and pays zero taxes. Worse yet, they get subsidies from your tax dollars. GE, much the same, and on and on. 

 

As to Wal Mart , proof please as to your claim.  And, please don’t quote “studies” show 80 percent of their employees are on food stamps.  Human Events researched this and found no such study.  http://humanevents.com/2013/07...rent-on-food-stamps/

 

Actually, a corporation is a business formed by a number of investors in a manner to avoid liability beyond the assets of the company.  IOW, it is a collective enterprise of individuals.  Nowhere in the constitution does it say that if persons come together to act as one entity do they forfeit their rights.  A corporation as a person for legal reasons is over 250 years old in Anglo/American law. It gives corporations the right to sign contracts and be held responsible for actions.  Anyone who states this is a new thing is either ignorant or being disingenuous.

 

Seeweed, do you actually research any of your posts, or just take a leftie blogger’s statement.   

Exxon Income Tax Paid 2010 -- $21.561.000  2011 -- $31.051,000  2012 -- $31,045,000  2013 --$24,263, http://investing.businessweek....ls.asp?ticker=XOM000


While you appear to worry about roughly 3% fraud rate on 12% of the budget, Lockheed is still selling the Pentagon billions of dollars of airplanes that frankly just don't work while there are aircraft with problems, its amazing that ours keep out flying anyone else’s and are desired by most other nations' military.  , and congress is forcing the Pentagon to buy tanks , ships, and planes they don't need that are basically shipped to the Arizona desert and mothballed , brand new.  There is way more of your tax dollars wasted on the Pentagon than is ever even spent on the thing you resent the most. While the rest of the world, mostly our allies , are improving the living and working conditions for their citizens, we continue to squander some 60% of our money on the military.The 2013 federal budget shows 19 percent for defense.  Seeweed, you flunked math, right! http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258


IMHO, I call that picking fly chet outta pepper, Scripture describes it as "gagging at a gnat and swallowing a camel"


Either way, the Pentagon wants to thank you .

First, you blame the overspending on politicians buying things the Pentagon doesn’t want (this I agree with). Then, apparently shift the blame to the Pentagon Warning! Warning!  Logic shift to null think!

 

While railing against the high costs of wars, don't forget the the fifty year old "War on Poverty".

 

Fifty years ago today, President Lyndon Johnson delivered his first State of the Union address, promising an “unconditional war on poverty in America.” Looking at the wreckage since, it’s not hard to conclude that poverty won.

 

If we are losing the War on Poverty, it certainly isn’t for lack of effort.

 

In 2012, the federal government spent $668 billion to fund 126 separate anti-poverty programs. State and local governments kicked in another $284 billion, bringing total anti-poverty spending to nearly $1 trillion. That amounts to $20,610 for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per poor family of three.

 

Spending on the major anti-poverty programs increased in 2013, pushing the total even higher.

Over, the last 50 years, the government spent more than $16 trillion to fight poverty.

 

Yet today, 15 percent of Americans still live in poverty. That’s scarcely better than the 19 percent living in poverty at the time of Johnson’s speech. Nearly 22 percent of children live in poverty today. In 1964, it was 23 percent.

http://www.cato.org/publicatio...ns-spent-poverty-won

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×