| Author | Message | ||
     Aussie2126 |
Sifo: OK how about a small coal mine operator when he is just getting started - try to accumulate capital. Same question. | ||
| Sifo |
Sifo: OK how about a small coal mine operator when he is just getting started - try to accumulate capital. Same question. Hey, I'm convinced! The tax rates SHOULD be lower. | ||
| Sifo |
I don't think there are any deductions allowed on capital gains. If you lose on your investments, you don't get to deduct, you just lose money. I could be wrong. You can deduct up to $3,000 in long term Cap. Gains losses. The rest can be carried forward to the next year where you can deduct $3K again, until those losses are used up/erased by gains. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Oh. Why is Exxon Mobil reporting record profits, if they're only passing on the tax? Exxon Mobil ISN'T reporting "record profits". http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/ 2010/snapshots/387.html The annual average return to investors for Exxon Mobile between 1999 and 2009 is 7.7%. Profits for Exxon Mobile for 2009 (last full reported year) were down 57.4% and overall revenues were down 35.7%. You can remove the subsidies if you'd like, but the removal of those subsidies will simply be reflected in higher prices at the pump. The Federal Government is subsidizing the price of gas at the pump by reducing the price you pay. Remove those subsidies and the price for EVERYTHING you buy goes up. Now let's look at the profit margin for Exxon Mobil for 2007, the last boom year before it all hit the fan: http://money.usnews.com/money/business-economy/art icles/2008/02/01/exxons-profits-measuring-a-record -windfall The profit margin for entire oil industry was 7.6% vs. 5.8% for the rest of manufacturing in the US. Don't be fooled by the nominal dollar amounts. | ||
| Blake |
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/content/pd f/individual_rates.pdf | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
OK how about a small coal mine operator when he is just getting started - try to accumulate capital. Same question. The same way that Sam Walton did in 1945: "In 1945, after leaving the military, Walton took over management of his first variety store at the age of 26. With the help of a $20,000 loan from his father-in-law, plus $5,000 he had saved from his time in the Army, Walton purchased a Ben Franklin variety store in Newport, Arkansas.[4] The store was a franchise of the Butler Brothers chain." The same way that DaveS did starting double lung archery. The same way that my wife started her business 5 years ago. We saved a little money, mortgaged the house, and started a business. The same way Truett Cathy did in 1946. The same way MANY of the sponsors here on Badweb did. If you are a coal miner who wants to become wealthy, do something worthy of becoming wealthy. Those with capital will bring it to your door. My wife's children's clothing company is nearing $500,000 in annual sales. We are working and hope and pray that we can continue to grow the business and top $1,000,000 in sales within the next 3 years. Our first season we sold $7,000 in clothes and spent $10,000 doing it. We started the business in 2006 and got our first paycheck in late 2009. So coal miner, what product or service are you going to provide that will make you and your business successful? It isn't the tax system's fault. It isn't Warren Buffet's fault. It isn't even the wealthy's fault. Who's fault is it? | ||
| Strokizator |
And when you make your first buck in profit, guess who'll be there with their hand out? The IRS is like your worthless brother-in-law who does nothing to earn it but still takes a big chunk of your money. | ||
| Dennis_c |
RNC + your money=  | ||
| Buellinmke |
Blake - corporations grease the palms of politicians through the use of lobbyists, PAC's, etc. The politicians then enact rules and regulations that are favorable to the corporations. It happens at all levels of government in this country. Small business owner grease the local politicians, large corporations grease the national politicians. The union-busting going on around the country is a result of anti-union business groups funding a winning political party. When the pro-union political party gets voted back into office as a result of the union thugs paying off politicians, the laws will be changed once again. | ||
| Reindog |
"The same way that...." Hey, let's not forget Buell Motorcycle Co. and Erik Buell Racing. I agree with Asjborn and Courtney that this is an interesting (and civil) thread. People's viewpoints do change, albeit at a glacial pace, when presented with a stream of cogent arguments. This applies to both sides of the argument. No one here hates working people. The hatred is aimed at disingenuous politicians who lie to the workers and make false promises that can't be kept and bankrupt the government and the taxpayers in the process. | ||
| Reindog |
PACs are essentially bad for our governance regardless of which side the PAC represents. Money gets an unfair audience to politicians whose only goal is to get re-elected. Occasionally, a politician rises above the trough and works to make the country better as they see fit rather than lining their pockets. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
PACs are irrelevant when the Federal Government is restrained within the strict constructionist limitations of the enumerated powers contained in the Constitution. Our government existed and survived for 135 years without worry about the "undue influence of corporate money" in the governance of our country. It wasn't until Wilson and thereafter that the Federal Government grew beyond the scope intended by the framers. We MUST return the genie to the bottle. It's going to be painful and many promises will be broken, but we MUST return the Federal Government to it's limited scope and return the main corpus of the governance to the states. (No this doesn't mean a return to Jim Crow so don't even try it.) | ||
| Aussie2126 |
Jeremy, All great examples. I could also go on forever with examples. If I remember correctly, this is your quote: <<<The tax rate is structured to prevent people from being able to move up. To which I responded: <<<Your last statement we also agree...} although I would say that the tax code makes it MUCH more difficult but does not prevent - We agree!!! I think It appears that you are now stipulating that it doe not prevent it. WE DO AGREE! Can we now agree that there is probably not much reason for the government to use the tax code to pick winners or slow down the next Sam Walton. Corporations and big dogs are much more likely to have income that is called capital gains. Are they afraid of people like your wife. Why do the big dogs get an advantage is all I ask. Not hating, just asking... | ||
| Blake |
I guess I can't disagree with that Joe. You forgot the trial lawyers though. I think they are bad news too. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
No, you take my statement out of context. Buffet advocates a higher tax rate because he was able to accumulate wealth under a much more favorable tax environment. He took advantage of every loophole that was available and now advocates a much higher tax rate behind him. I don't agree that the current tax system is a barrier, but I do agree that many, even here, are advocating a system that WOULD be a barrier to upward mobility. You yourself advocate for a higher capital gains tax rate. This in and of itself is a significant barrier to upward mobility. A higher income tax rate for the "wealthy" would also be a barrier to upward mobility. If that aspiring coal miner produced a product or service that the market felt was valuable and were willing to pay for it, the length of time that it would take for that coal miner to create a profitable business becomes protracted because each and every time there is forward momentum the government comes in to pilfer the first fruits of that effort. We have the most favorable tax system we've had in quite a while. You can look at the significant market run up even during a time of war on the heels of the 2000 recession as proof that it works (as it did for Reagan, Clinton, and Kennedy). The issue is that there is no certainty beyond 2012. That is where the tax sidewalk ends. Those with capital have no way of knowing what the tax situation is going to look like 2013 and beyond. If I make 12% on my capital pre-tax after expenses by my marginal tax rate is 50%, then I've really only earned 6% (not what you make but what you keep). If I needed 9% on my capital in order to pay my bills and make a living, I can't make it. Unless I can invest my money and get all my money back with the rate of return I require on my money (to pay bills or service the debt) in two years, I pull the trigger. If that investment is going to take 5-10 years, then I'm sitting on the money and waiting until the tax rate is extended permanently or until 2012 when it must be addressed again. This is precisely what is happening in the market today. So you aspiring coal miner has a great idea that will make himself (and any investor) a great return, but the person with the capital isn't investing, they aren't growing a business, they aren't hiring new people. They are simply sitting on their money. Tax uncertainty will KILL investment because you can not predict what the Federal Government is going to do to the fruits of your labor. Obama simply doesn't understand this simple fact. He continually demonstrate that he lacks the skills to run a lemonade stand: (See 29:29) Wages don't just come out of thin air. I pay you to produce. If I can't sell what you produce, paying you to produce those goods is a waste of capital. Business people understand this. Obama doesn't. | ||
| Aussie2126 |
OK, so we have the most favorable tax rate in years BUT we are running deficits that are financed by our enemies. "We must put the genie back in the bottle." YET.... <<<<Profits for Exxon Mobile for 2009 (last full reported year) were down 57.4% and overall revenues were down 35.7%. You can remove the subsidies if you'd like, but the removal of those subsidies will simply be reflected in higher prices at the pump. The Federal Government is subsidizing the price of gas at the pump by reducing the price you pay. Remove those subsidies and the price for EVERYTHING you buy goes up.>>> Sooo... We can't get rid of the subsidies to my friends in the oil industry because it will affect the prices for the fuel and other things that I buy. It will affect my job. It may even affect my motorcycle ride time. Does this make me a looter and a moocher? Can I still vote, or must I give a full accounting of what I have paid and what I have gotten before I can. To quote Pogo "I have met the enemy and he is me!!" (Message edited by aussie2126 on March 25, 2011) | ||
| Cowboy |
simple fact is when your goverment cant survive on sale tax you have to damn much goverment. | ||
| Court |
Perfect example of part of the problem . . . the air traffic controller who fell asleep the other day . . and had planes landing without benefit of air traffic control. The guy get fired? Nope . . the union, of course, contends that more controllers are required to keep each other awake. Whenever you are dumb and stupid at the same time . . . well, there will be consequences. Toss lazy into the mix and it adds an element of comedy. | ||
| Crackhead |
I do think that back up is required for air traffic controllers, shit happens and back ups prevent it from hitting the fan. But to fall asleep, that is unacceptable. Unfortunately it is common for alone night night shift workers. The military knows night ops is an issue and provides plenty of caffeine in various forms. Why doesn't the FAA do the same. (Message edited by crackhead on March 25, 2011) | ||
| Cowboy |
I wish the plane had been full of business agents. I bet you would have seen a different out come. | ||
| Sifo |
Aussie, I'm really having a difficult time with what you are advocating for. Do you think cap gains should be taxed more? Income taxed less? I'm not clear if the problem is my not understanding your points, or if you simply don't understand the system. When you talk about how it makes it easier for the big guys because they are taxed less on cap gains you have to keep something else in mind. The low income guy gets that same low rate on his investments, AND probably pays even a lower rate on his income. The facts fly in the face of what you are saying about it being stacked against lower earners. The big problem with not making much money is that you don't make much money. The solution to that is to figure out how to make money. Making money is only part of the formula for wealth though. I know someone who was making over $300K per year and went bankrupt. This happened with no loss of jobs, big medical expenses, or any other unforeseen circumstances. They simply spent more than they took in. You see the exact same problem with government right now too. It's simply a matter of scale. There is another side to the wealth formula too. You need to invest. That means not doing what the guy making over $300k did. You have to make hard choices about not spending everything and follow a serious investment plan. Few people ever manage to do well in all three areas (earning, saving, investing) but it is to building wealth to do well at all three. Despite what most people typically think, I don't have them listed in the order of importance. The least important thing quickly becomes your earnings if you save and invest well. I say this from personal experience, not from hypothetical reasoning. It's funny how people complain about the earnings of oil companies, EXXON specifically. It's true that a few years ago they did set a record for corporate earning. Nobody seemed to cry for them a few years before when they were losing money though. That's business though, you take the ups with the downs. The point I would like to make though is that when the set a new record for all time earnings, they also set an all time high for corporate taxes. That's a simple fact that many people never choose to look at. EXXON also just happens to be the corporation that seems to exemplify the "right wing" corporation. Ready for some irony. I was just watching Varney & Co. on the business channel. They were just talking about the company that exemplifies a "left wing" corporation... GE. GE, despite having $14 billion in profits has managed to pay zero taxes. Nothing illegal going on, just taking advantage of tax incentives that seem to be set up in such a way that it benefits them greatly. I'm not aiming this comment at you personally, you can decide if the shoe fits better than I can (I have no history discussing politics with you). I do find it very ironic when I hear left wingers complaining about corporations lobbying for favorable legislation, claiming that it's a right wing problem. When looking at the two big corporations that are typically associated with political leanings, when they do well, one paid more taxes than any corporation ever has in history, the other paid zero. I think it worth noting when looking for where the corporate/political corruption exists.  | ||
| Sifo |
Perfect example of part of the problem . . . the air traffic controller who fell asleep the other day . . and had planes landing without benefit of air traffic control. The guy get fired? Nope . . the union, of course, contends that more controllers are required to keep each other awake. Whenever you are dumb and stupid at the same time . . . well, there will be consequences. Toss lazy into the mix and it adds an element of comedy. I understand that this guy was a supervisor too. Is this the work ethic that moves people up the chain of responsibility in the union environment? Yes it is. | ||
| Court |
>>>Is this the work ethic that moves people up the chain of responsibility in the union environment? Yes it is. The pinnacle is what's known as the "no show job". These are legendary in NYC and just 2 weeks ago we had to start requiring photo ID on our projects for any extra work. It's an art form . . the guy who works more hours than there are in a year. I say "guy" when last year it was 3 female librarians who wracked up the big six-figure overtime amounts and became the highest paid public workers in NYC. | ||
| Aussie2126 |
Sifo: what I am saying Forbes Magazine Feb. 9, 2011 "Business in the Beltway" excerpt <<<<Indeed, even though the U.S. corporate rate is the second highest in the world, corporate tax revenues amounted to only about 1.3 percent of Gross Domestic Product last year–less than half the average among major industrialized countries. Because the corporate tax in only a piece of the U.S. revenue system, it is important to think more broadly about all taxes. And when you do, it is clear that Americans are hardly overtaxed, at least compared to the rest of the developed world. One reason is that the U.S. is about the only major industrialized nation that does not also have a Value-Added Tax or national sales tax. For instance, advocates for low corporate taxes love to talk about Ireland’s 12.5 percent combined corporate rate. But they usually don’t say much about Ireland’s VAT, which has a top rate of 21 percent. Indeed, those countries with the lowest corporate rates, such as the Slovak Republic and Poland, raise a big chunk of their tax revenue though a VAT, where their rates tend to be among the world’s highest. The money, they have learned, has to come from somewhere. Add it all up and the U.S. collects far less in taxes than most of our trading partners. In 2008, for instance, Americans paid about 26 percent of GDP in total taxes. The average among developed countries was 35 percent. Ireland collected 29 percent, Canada 32 percent, and Germany 37 percent. Only Turks and Mexicans paid less than Americans.>>> From the last sentence in this article, what I am saying is that cutting teachers salaries, snow plow drivers salaries, road construction, while maintaining the highest defense spending in the world (as much as the #2 and #3 spenders combined) will leave us where? With an infrastructure and schools somewhere south of Mexico and Turkey? Or are we just that much smarter that we can have it all? Cut costs till the cows come home, we still expect the best military. Ireland did not shoot off a billion dollars worth of fireworks last week (and two current wars)and they still have higher tax collection rates. | ||
| Court |
>>> Ireland did not shoot off a billion dollars worth of fireworks last week Nor could they. If Ireland's ass was in a sling . . guess who they'd call? | ||
| Blake |
>>> maintaining the highest defense spending in the world You like to compare tax revenue to GDP, how about do the same with defense spending? The question that needs asked is not what will happen if we cut the budgets, but how do you pay for all of it if we don't? | ||
| Blake |
>>> In 2008, for instance, Americans paid about 26 percent of GDP in total taxes. The average among developed countries was 35 percent. Ireland collected 29 percent, Canada 32 percent, and Germany 37 percent. Only Turks and Mexicans paid less than Americans. Call me skeptical; where's the graph and source for that? | ||
| Doerman |
I've seen that data in WSJ some time back. The percentage accounts for every fraction of a unit currency that visits a state or federal till. So it includes taxes like: - corporate - personal income - excise - state fees - sales - vat .... the list is long! | ||
| Aussie2126 |
¡öAmong OECD countries only Mexico, Turkey, Korea, and Japan had lower taxes than the United States as a percentage of GDP. In many European countries taxes exceeded 40 percent of GDP, but those countries generally provide much more extensive government services to their citizens than the United States does. ¡öThe United States relies less on consumption taxes¡ª17 percent of total 2006 tax receipts¡ªthan any other OECD country. Revenue from such taxes averaged 32 percent of total taxes among the 30 OECD countries. Mexico, in contrast, collected 56 percent of its 2006 tax revenue from consumption taxes. ¡öPersonal income taxes made up 36 percent of U.S. tax revenue in 2006, more than in most other OECD countries, where such taxes averaged 25 percent of the total. However, individual taxpayers paid a larger share of tax revenue in Denmark (50 percent), New Zealand (41 percent), and Australia (37 percent). ¡öCorporate income taxes accounted for a slightly larger share of U.S. tax revenue, 12 percent in 2006, than the OECD average of 11 percent. ¡öU.S. employees, on average, contributed more in taxes for retirement and disability insurance¡ª10 percent of total tax receipts¡ªthan many of their OECD counterparts, where such taxes accounted for 9 percent of total receipts on average. U.S. employers, however, contributed less: 12 percent of the total compared with OECD employers¡¯ average of 15 percent.  The article was from Forbes (usually not a leftist agenda) the chart above confirms that the data has not changed much, but the chart is from 2006. | ||
| Aussie2126 |
We have ten aircraft carriers. How many does Switzerland have??? |
