Off Topic USA 2012 Elections Thread

[maryRS]

Corporations do pay taxes. Granted some don't pay a lot respective to their worth, but C Corporations all must file an 1120C. S corporations do not pay taxes, the net income is passed along to the shareholder.

Again, apples and oranges - Corporations don't pay taxes. They pass them on through increased prices of their products/services. The more you raise taxes on them, the higher the prices go, which affects the consumer, not the corporation.

For the record, I don't believe in taxing SSI, disability, or unemployment. That just defeats the purpose of the benefits.

Goofy, this is not directed to you personally. I don't know your situation. but since you put it in your note, I am touching on it. In the field in which I work, I come across many/many families on food stamps, welfare, unemployment and I just do not buy into the notion that a completely capable adult cannot find enough work to manage their basic bills. Is it hard? yes. Will the work be what one really wants to do all their life? no. Does that mean working more than 40-50 hours a week? maybe... but it can be done and frankly, if one wants to make a better life, he/she has to do everything in their power to make it work. Get roommates, work 3 jobs, sell all of your possessions you can do without.... It's just a different mentality than what most people today have. We all make choices... Sometimes you have to make the real tough ones in order to have more/better choices in the future.

 

[gymgal]

Corporations do pay taxes. Granted some don't pay a lot respective to their worth, but C Corporations all must file an 1120C. S corporations do not pay taxes, the net income is passed along to the shareholder.

Seriously, Mary... I didn't mean that literally.... Yes, I know that corporations "pay" taxes. But they really don't. They send money to the government. In that, they pay taxes. but where does this money come from? From their profits. And if taxes are raised on corporations, where does the money come from? shareholder profits? don't think so. It comes from increasing consumer prices. and who suffers the most? the low and middle class....

 

[Chocoholic]

And as for taxing the richest - give me a break - (no, I am not in this category - not by a long shot). $250,000 is not rich. But regardless, these folks (250K+) already pay more than their fair share in taxes. almost half their income, in fact. Paying a fair share would have EVERYONE (except those at/just above the poverty line) paying an equal rate - like in a National flat sales tax.

This isn't actually true. Most really rich people earn the bulk of their money through capital distribution which is why someone like Warren Buffet pays a lower percentage of his salary in taxes than his secretary. There is a great new book out by a Nobel prize winning economist who coined the term "the 1%." He really explains how huge the wealth gap is in our country and how it is increasingly growing.

 

[gymgal]

This isn't actually true. Most really rich people earn the bulk of their money through capital distribution which is why someone like Warren Buffet pays a lower percentage of his salary in taxes than his secretary. There is a great new book out by a Nobel prize winning economist who coined the term "the 1%." He really explains how huge the wealth gap is in our country and how it is increasingly growing.

already discussed.... we were talking about wage earnings, not capital gains earnings. comparing apples to oranges doesn't work... people would aregue that capitals gains should be taxed as wage earnings. I disagree. This money money already been taxed before it was invested. It should not be taxed again. Frankly, I don't think any earnings should be taxed at all... Seriously... what are we teaching our citizens? the more you earn, the more you have to pay to the government. We should be teaching the opposite - the more you spend, the more you pay to the government. Oh - look at that, we are back to a national sales tax debate... funny how that happens.... Maybe because it is they only reasonable and fair form of taxation!

 

[Andersonortho]

CoachGoofy--- Nearly all of our government officials are "financially advantaged" included the POTUS. Romney is not the only one. Pelosi's a white multimillionaire also. Many, many people -- today and in the past-- have overcome their financial circumstances and earned success. It requires work.

Good fortune may be unearned/ inheritied but success requires hard work.

A person should not be judged by the family/ financial circumstance into which he/she was born. A person should be judged by the content of their chararcter.

P.S. I guarantee that My America is different from your America also... I face different challenges and hardships than you. That does not mean that I could not have the intelligence, compassion and respect to understand and relate to you. We ARE different. Financial status. Gender. Race. It's diversity.

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

Whoah, somehow I missed this.

$250,000 is not rich.

I would LOVE to be that "not rich." And if I ever get that "not rich," I will go on record right now saying that I will not complain one bit about having to pay a larger portion of my "not rich"-ness back to the country that made me so "not rich."

Because, you see, people who get this "not rich" don't do it in a vacuum. Most of them started out with an education that we all pay for. They and their employees get to and from work on roads that we all pay for. They are secure in their homes and businesses because of a police force, a fire-fighting force, a legal system, and a military that we all pay for.

So, yes, I DO think that all those "not rich" people making over $250,000/year owe it to the rest of us to pay a big chunk of that forward.

 

[Andersonortho]

[/QUOTE] So, yes, I DO think that all those "not rich" people making over $250,000/year owe it to the rest of us to pay a big chunk of that forward.[/QUOTE]



Some small business owners make >$250K as a result of their hard work, diligence, and financial self-control. They make intelligent business decisions and are cautious with expenditures. I can testify that "they" already pay a hugh "chunk of that forward"! Shall we punish these people by taxing them more? Is 36% not enough?

How much is a "big chunk" and why is it OWED to you? How much more?

Why does a person who invested their time and effort to be successful owe anything to someone who had nothing to do with his/her success? Did "the rest of us" wake that person up every morning to go work in order to pay for their college education? Did "the rest of us" help them study for their doctoral exams? Did "the rest of us" take their board exams for them? Did "the rest of us" eat the cheap, homemade meals instead of going out to dinner in order to save money? Did "the rest of us" take out the business loans (and pay them back early!!) and risk bankrupcy to start their business? Did "the rest of us" wake at 5 am every morning with them to prepare for work and contantly think about ways to improve te service they provide? Did "the rest of us" monitor the market for new services and attend edcuational seminars to learn those services? Did "the rest of us" make the difficult business decisions about who to hire or fire to make the business more efficient and productive? Did "the rest of us" do the hard work it required to make that person financially successful? I think not.

Maybe a gymnast who earned a 9.75 on floor "owes it to the rest of" her team to give .5 of her score to the lower scoring teammates.

 

[gymgal]

Whoah, somehow I missed this.



I would LOVE to be that "not rich." And if I ever get that "not rich," I will go on record right now saying that I will not complain one bit about having to pay a larger portion of my "not rich"-ness back to the country that made me so "not rich."

Because, you see, people who get this "not rich" don't do it in a vacuum. Most of them started out with an education that we all pay for. They and their employees get to and from work on roads that we all pay for. They are secure in their homes and businesses because of a police force, a fire-fighting force, a legal system, and a military that we all pay for.

So, yes, I DO think that all those "not rich" people making over $250,000/year owe it to the rest of us to pay a big chunk of that forward.

Straight from Obama's speech files....

EVERYONE benefits from those same opportunities and protections. Obviously the people who "make it" give/have something more - whether it be higher drive, motivation, willingness to work longer hours, a little bit of extra luck, more smarts... whatever it is, they made it happen when others have not.... Sorry, but no one should have the right to tell these people that they built what the built because of the rest of us... If that was true, 85% of America would own their own businesses and have a sizable net worth - obviously that's not true.

The word "rich" is relative and should never have been put into the conversation. The original premise was that the democrats said that they were going to only increase taxes on the millionaires. When they realized that this would not generate enough income, the number came down to those making $500k and then $250k.

 

[maryRS]

Ok, I didn't first get that you weren't serious about corps not paying taxes. Given all the misconceptions out there on all sides I just didn't know.

As far as Capital gains being taxed twice, really it's not the same principal being taxed, it's just the income earned on the previously taxed and invested dollars, so I don't see that as being taxed twice. I know many people do though

already discussed.... we were talking about wage earnings, not capital gains earnings. comparing apples to oranges doesn't work... people would aregue that capitals gains should be taxed as wage earnings. I disagree. This money money already been taxed before it was invested. It should not be taxed again. Frankly, I don't think any earnings should be taxed at all... Seriously... what are we teaching our citizens? the more you earn, the more you have to pay to the government. We should be teaching the opposite - the more you spend, the more you pay to the government. Oh - look at that, we are back to a national sales tax debate... funny how that happens.... Maybe because it is they only reasonable and fair form of taxation!

 

[gymgal]

So, yes, I DO think that all those "not rich" people making over $250,000/year owe it to the rest of us to pay a big chunk of that forward.[/QUOTE]



Some small business owners make >$250K as a result of their hard work, diligence, and financial self-control. They make intelligent business decisions and are cautious with expenditures. I can testify that "they" already pay a hugh "chunk of that forward"! Shall we punish these people by taxing them more? Is 36% not enough?

How much is a "big chunk" and why is it OWED to you? How much more?

Why does a person who invested their time and effort to be successful owe anything to someone who had nothing to do with his/her success? Did "the rest of us" wake that person up every morning to go work in order to pay for their college education? Did "the rest of us" help them study for their doctoral exams? Did "the rest of us" take their board exams for them? Did "the rest of us" eat the cheap, homemade meals instead of going out to dinner in order to save money? Did "the rest of us" take out the business loans (and pay them back early!!) and risk bankrupcy to start their business? Did "the rest of us" wake at 5 am every morning with them to prepare for work and contantly think about ways to improve te service they provide? Did "the rest of us" monitor the market for new services and attend edcuational seminars to learn those services? Did "the rest of us" make the difficult business decisions about who to hire or fire to make the business more efficient and productive? Did "the rest of us" do the hard work it required to make that person financially successful? I think not.

Maybe a gymnast who earned a 9.75 on floor "owes it to the rest of" her team to give .5 of her score to the lower scoring teammates.[/QUOTE]

Very well said......

 

[gymgal]

Ok, I didn't first get that you weren't serious about corps not paying taxes. Given all the misconceptions out there on all sides I just didn't know.

As far as Capital gains being taxed twice, really it's not the same principal being taxed, it's just the income earned on the previously taxed and invested dollars, so I don't see that as being taxed twice. I know many people do though

Yes, it is just the income from the investment being taxed. My contention is that this is wrong. The money used to make that investment was already taxed (original wage income). The government should not be allowed to then go ahead and tax the income that results from that investment.
But that's just me... Heck. I don't believe the federal government has any constitutional right to tax ANY income at all. Federal taxes should only be levied through use-taxes. Unfortunately, that boat sailed long ago and likely will never reverse course.

 

[Chocoholic]

Let's talk about US tax policy. The tax rate on capital gains was lowered first under Clinton and then again under Bush, making the rate now only 15%. What people don't seem to realize is that the very rich receive most of their income in capital gains. The US now has the highest level of wealth inequality among advanced industrial countries, and the level of its inequality is increasing in absolute terms relative to that in other countries. The inequality in capital gains is greater than the inequality in any other form of income so giving a tax break to capital gains is giving a tax break to the very rich. The net effect is that the megarich pay on average a lower tax rate than those less well off. The very rich also often use corporations to shelter their income because the corporate income tax rate is low and the tax code is riddled with loopholes. Just ask Romney! The very rich are not paying more than their share, they are not being taxed twice, they are being taxed less.

 

[Andersonortho]

Why the fixation on a small percentage of the population? What percentage do you think is fair? How much? Smart investors will find the field that provides the greatest return be it in the US or abroad. Raise it too high and the investors will go elsewhere.

My 9 years old's "simplistic" opinion on the wealth inequality... "Well maybe the people with not a lot of money need to try hard to save. Like the people in our town who are on Medicaid but have new pick-ups (trucks), 4 wheelers and the really expensive, cool phones. How did your grandparents do it, mom?" Me: "Just like that, dear. Worked hard. Spent little. Saved a lot."

The "megarich" will always be here... they have a right to be "megarich". It is their money. They have the right to manage it with any and all legal methods. Don't like the methods? Vote for tax reform.

Simple. I know.

 

[gymgal]

Let's talk about US tax policy. The tax rate on capital gains was lowered first under Clinton and then again under Bush, making the rate now only 15%. What people don't seem to realize is that the very rich receive most of their income in capital gains. The US now has the highest level of wealth inequality among advanced industrial countries, and the level of its inequality is increasing in absolute terms relative to that in other countries. The inequality in capital gains is greater than the inequality in any other form of income so giving a tax break to capital gains is giving a tax break to the very rich. The net effect is that the megarich pay on average a lower tax rate than those less well off. The very rich also often use corporations to shelter their income because the corporate income tax rate is low and the tax code is riddled with loopholes. Just ask Romney! The very rich are not paying more than their share, they are not being taxed twice, they are being taxed less.

Here are some figures for you to think about

- the top 1% (anyone making over $350k, approximately) of wage earners pay 35% of all federal taxes collected in the US.
- the top 10% (making over $115k) pay over 70% of taxes collected.
- There are approximately 77,500,000 wage earners in the US. and approx. 350 million people in the nation.
- Approx. 8 million people (top 10% of wage earners) are paying 70% of the nations taxes. 8 million is only *2%* of our total population. So 2% is floating 70%of the tax bill...
- Now tell me - How are the wealthy not paying their fair share?

There is no doubt the tax policy in the US is severely in need of reform. There is nothing fair about 50% of households not paying anything into the system - yes, that's the lower 50%, whom I might add are the ones who disproportionately use the services that the taxes pay for: public education, student grants and loans, housing/mortgage assistance, public transportation, health services... the list goes on....

And personally, I am tired of hearing about the income divide. I really don't care how we stack up to other nations. We have different social and economic systems than other nations. It's not a relevant comparison. Besides - just because the rich are getting richer doesn't mean the poor have to get poorer. That's a defeatist mentality. One that the left has propagated for far too long.

Want to get ahead? Do something about it. Pick a career that will get you there, take a financial risk and hope it pays off, work 80 hours a week (that's the average for future millionaires), don't waste your money on non-essentials like cable, car loans, restaurants, new clothes, fancy phones, etc. Don't have babies until you can afford to take care of them. And whatever you do, do not take public assistance - that puts the wheels in motion to adopt the victim mentality and once you are there, it is a mighty climb to get out. This is a reason why we have generations of families on public assistance. Not willing to do all that? then don't complain that you're not getting ahead....

 

[iwannacoach]

I'm puzzled here. It seems some of us want to tax a small percentage of the population. For me it's a matter of semantics to say the wealthy are shouldering the tax burden, while I see it as a matter of taxing the money. I don't care to determine how it happens and how to stop it, but the fact is that many of the family wage jobs are dissappearing in the US which is decimating the tax paying middle class. At the same time the bulk of our wealth is being accumulated by a small percentage of the population.

So I guess my question is how will it be 10 or 20 years from now when the middle class shrinks even further. Who will support the small businesses when so few of us can afford make any but the most urgent purchases. Creating more jobs would be nice, but to whom are the employers going to sell their wares. So as Al says with Tim and Elfi listening in rapture, "who will be in the conversation" in 2022/32 with more small businesses crumbling. And when they do crumble the cause won't be taxes, it will be a rapidly vanishing pool of customers to pass those tax costs on to.

And just as a side note...When businesses pass their tax burdens on to their middle class customers it would seem then that businesses have become taxing agencies in their own right. I'm reminded of a phrase that escapes me for the moment, but it has something to do with a pot, a kettle and words spoken between them.......

If you ask me the wealthy will be paying an even greater share of this country's bills because like it or not the trend is toward fewer people holding the bulk of the money. If things continue as they are we'll see a middle class half the size it is today, with fewer dollars in their pockets. How are you going to pay the bills then.

So if the job creators think they can figure out a way to increase revenue, bring it on!!! But remember that phrase was worn just a little thin by the last president to lower the tax rates for the job creators. So where's the jobs???

I'll leave you to ponder if you can open your collective minds fiscons and soclibs alike. Imagine an event that wipes out every bridge, sea port, airport and rail line ever funded through gov money or give aways. Who will suffer the most....The people who need those venues to ship and receive goods to maintain a commercial enterprise. So lets consider who truely benifits the most from all the bridges, shipping venues, highways, surface streets, schools and universities. Not me in 2032, because I won't be able to afford the use of any of them anyway. That is I'm afraid the definition of the new middle class for 2032.


So don't ask me to join the debate and choose sides. I'd rather have you tell me things will go back to where they were in the 90's......

 

[BlairBob]

- the top 1% (anyone making over $350k, approximately) of wage earners pay 35% of all federal taxes collected in the US.
- the top 10% (making over $115k) pay over 70% of taxes collected.
- There are approximately 77,500,000 wage earners in the US. and approx. 350 million people in the nation.
- Approx. 8 million people (top 10% of wage earners) are paying 70% of the nations taxes. 8 million is only *2%* of our total population. So 2% is floating 70%of the tax bill...
- Now tell me - How are the wealthy not paying their fair share?

This sounds fine and dandy. The point is all the tax shelters and loopholes that are used by the mega rich and corporations. Making money off americans and keeping it in the Cayman's or Swiss.

Oil Corporations making record profits and paying nothing in taxes. Same with other corporations.

It has become very prevalent over the years in many corporations to increase profits by cutting it's labor force back. Those people who make their company work building and repairing the systems while management gives themselves raises and puts more work on their own labor force by cutting back hours and positions. A great way to make a quarterly statement look grand. Very prevalent in the Communications Field (ATT, Sprint, etc).

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

The entire conservative approach to economics seems to be built on two assumptions:

1) That there is a direct correlation between how hard you work and how much money you make

2) That when rich people and corporations make more money, they invest it and/or hire more people


Neither assumption is even remotely accurate.

 

[Andersonortho]

The entire conservative approach to economics seems to be built on two assumptions:

1) That there is a direct correlation between how hard you work and how much money you make

2) That when rich people and corporations make more money, they invest it and/or hire more people


Neither assumption is even remotely accurate.

Life is not fair. No one promised that.

(1) above is true in life as well as athletics. I have heard many coaches (not just gymnastics) say "Work hard, give 100% and winning/scoring will take care of itself."

Success does not require financial wealth.

It is tough to learn to be content. No allowing the desire to accumulate tangible wealth OR the desire to see others lose wealth to consume our thoughts.

 

[pt coach]

I don't usually comment on issues of politics. I know what I believe, and vote accordingly. I am a public employee...you know, one of those evil high paid ones that crashed the economy? I live in a state that has voted in public officials who have demonized public employees and have slashed funds for cities and schools making it next to impossible to provide necessary services for citizens. (and while amazingly still providing themselves with lifetime health insurance..)

I personally do not mind paying taxes. I like roads, I like public water and sewer, I like social programs - especially ones that offer services to children, I like cops, I like firemen, I like the judicial system (flaws and all), I like libraries, I like public education, and all of these things cost money. I guess I think the people should proportionally share the cost of these services...

And I have heard over and over that we have to give the "job creators" these tax breaks so they can create jobs. Well they have had these breaks for many many years now...so where are the jobs?

 

[gymcoach26]

This mentality that anyone struggling just isn't working hard enough is baffling to me. Sure there are some people that work the system, get handouts and help when they don't need it, but there are others who legitimately need the assistance. The only thing wrong with that is that the government doesn't drug test these people or follow up on whose taking advantage of the system. If you legitimately need assistance there is nothing wrong with that. If help is there, take it. People will judge you either way- "she's not working hard enough and if she really wanted to overcome these struggles she would take every opportunity available to do so". Well there is an opportunity (public assistance), yet if you take that to try and overcome your struggles you suddenly are labeled as "having a victim mentality"

Things are never just black and white, so while it is very easy for some to sit and say "work harder, relocate if there are no jobs in your area, work 3 jobs if you have to, go back to school after all everyone has the same opportunity" is bogus. As a college educated person who went to school as a full time student holding down a full time job and also nannying part time, carpooled when possible to save on all the driving, rented textbooks instead of buying, lived off campus with a roomate and survived eating ramen noodles (don't even get me started on why healthy food is so much more expensive!) I don't have much to show for that other than a massive student loan debt and a car that is falling apart, yet I can't afford to get a new one. Why? because college does not guarantee a job. I live paycheck to paycheck and In order to get a "high paying job", one that would still not put me at the "very not rich 250,000+" bracket, requires even more schooling, which will cost even more money.

Times have changed drastically, so while people say "that's how our grandparents did it- with hard work", unfortunately it's not the same era and sadly hard work does not guarantee success any longer.