Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you were againstadditional money paid FROM the Federal Government TO those who already pay NO Federal Income Tax?
you're tiring, i'm not playing into your frame here that it matters who pays income tax or not.
i pay income tax , and that's what important, and i would rather have corporations and billionaires paying a flat 25% with no more exceptions for anybody, than I would the current system. Currently we have a nominal corporate rate of 35% but an effective rate of something like 13%, with different corporations all over the map (many of them in the negative, AKA on welfare) for different reasons... perhaps reasons like these jets depreciation schedules, i don't know.
you're tiring, i'm not playing into your frame here that it matters who pays income tax or not.
Aren't you the same le roi who posted this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
well, for one, I blame the Democrats as well as the GOP. The GOP is culpable because a good chunk of that spending was to cover bad bets made during the bush administration. For example: Unfunded wars, unfunded medicare expansion, income tax cuts, capital gains tax cuts
Seems it DOES matter to you who pays income tax or not.
So, answer the question... Were you againstadditional money paid FROM the Federal Government TO those who already pay NO Federal Income Tax?
if as you say the accelerated depreciation schedule for business jets will have no effect on the deficit either way, which in fact is quite correct, then why not leave the schedules, that obama himself championed in the stimulus package, as they are now?
and again, who cares what some rich private citizen decides to do with their money? they CANT write off a jet purchase, or depreciate the jet on their personal taxes. the depreciation schedules are for BUSINESSES that buy the jets for business purposes.
Actually, many are fractional owners and they create an LLC to have a 'business' with which they can use tax write offs meant for 'regular' business. In addition, a lot of single owners use their name as a 'brand' and can also claim tax write offs. I dont think I know an individual owner that isn't a part of f a 'business' that owns a private Plane. Basically all of them do it.
was i against what, paid to who? I don't understand the question.
Not only are there those who pay NO Federal Income Tax, there is a rather large percentage of filers who GET money FROM the Federal Government in the form of refundable tax credits. The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation reports that 30% of tax filers received a refundable tax credit in 2009. http://finance.senate.gov/newsroom/r...1-ffc00b5c00ef
So... answer the question. Were you in favor of those who already pay NO Federal Income Tax getting additional money FROM the Federal Government? That ADDS to the deficit.
Not only are there those who pay NO Federal Income Tax, there is a rather large percentage of filers who GET money FROM the Federal Government in the form of refundable tax credits.
what does this spiel about income taxes have to do with the depreciation schedule for jets?
Were you saying the same thing when George W. Bush Jr. started a totally unecessary war in Iraq that cost over $1 TRILLION DOLLARS,
I was against Iraq..I felt we should have finished in Afgan first...then gone into Iraq done the job properly, then after it was DONE, gone into Iran...but bushy was incompetent....now the superior incompetent of obamy is spreading us into 5 to 7 different wars,,costing lots more than bush ever could have
and btw the TOTAL for the TWO (both iraq AND afgan) is just over 1 trillion...so saying 1 trill on one was is a LIE
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy
while at the same time passing out tax breaks that overwhelmingly benefitted high income people?
overwhelingly benefited the rich????
the rich got nothing in reality..only a few percents off the top
the poor and middleclass got MOST of the 01/03 ("bush") cuts/CREDITS
the 01/03 (aka "bush' ) tax cuts/credits were for EVERYONE..with the poor and middleclass getting the biggest part of the cuts/credits.....prior to the 'bush' tax cuts there was not a 10% bracket..it was 15%....the rich was cut from 39% to 36%
the BIGGEST part of the 2001/2003 tax cuts/credits was not the tax rates, it was THE CREDITS....which ONLY could be gotten if the HOUSEHOLD income was less than 175K(NOT THE RICH)... the child CARE credit,,,,the child credit....the EDUCATION (tuition) CREDIT.....the retirement (401k) credit.....the energy (insulation/energystar) credit....and the HEALTH CARE CREDIT.
what does this spiel about income taxes have to do with the depreciation schedule for jets?
Tax cuts. You were against them, remember? Are you also against INCREASING the already too high deficit by paying refundable tax credits to people who don't even pay any Federal Income Tax at all?
No I'm not. I'm against tax cuts for people who are undertaxed, and I'm against tax increases on people who are overtaxed. Much of the debate centers on facts regarding who is undertaxed and who is overtaxed, and it is on those margins where I find you missing the big picture.
Quote:
Are you also against INCREASING the already too high deficit by paying refundable tax credits to people who don't even pay any Federal Income Tax at all?
No, not really. I don't like the idea of negative tax liability for anyone. However I generally accept that there will be an underclass that will need to be supported, and I don't want my particular class of worker (people who earn their money through wages, not dividends and capital gains) to provide the majority of that support. I would also like to see larger contributions from the "capital owners" and large institutions of society, as I do not think they are paying the same share of their spending power in taxes as a highly productive individual worker is.
I think there's much more complexity to the problem, though, than just taxes. I tend to look at taxation and monetary policy together, as well as spending, rather than obsessively focusing on one measure, as you do.
No I'm not. I'm against tax cuts for people who are undertaxed, and I'm against tax increases on people who are overtaxed.
Wow. Your posts communicate exactly the opposite.
Quote:
I would also like to see larger contributions from the "capital owners" and large institutions of society, as I do not think they are paying the same share of their spending power in taxes as a highly productive individual worker is.
We have an income tax, not a 'spending share' tax. A 'spending share' tax would penalize savers and the investors that fuel economic growth. Additionally, no one would ever save for retirement under your preferred method of taxation. There'd be no point; they'd be taxed on it.
Quote:
I tend to look at taxation and monetary policy together, as well as spending, rather than obsessively focusing on one measure, as you do.
And yet your espoused preferences would wreak both individual and national economic devastation. Back to the drawing board with you; you've got it all wrong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
