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.
I like the consumption tax with an additional luxury tax on crap people don't really need, but just have to go buy. All houses above 2K sq. feet would apply, all cars above $30K or that don't get a predetermined gas mileage would apply. That wedding that Kim Kardashian and her fiance just had that cost over $10 million. The price just doubled with my luxury tax plan. I refer to it as the U.S. Get Out of Debt Plan.
The reason being that the only potential for it to benefit the economy would be in investors that receive dividends. .
this is the error in your thinking. you must be shocked that people invest in companies that dont pay any dividend. the more profitable a company, the more valuable it is. they also will use that money to hire more employees, invest in more r&d, invest in more growth. we want corporations to have profits because that fuels economic growth. taxing corporate profits is stupid.
this is the error in your thinking. you must be shocked that people invest in companies that dont pay any dividend. the more profitable a company, the more valuable it is. they also will use that money to hire more employees, invest in more r&d, invest in more growth. we want corporations to have profits because that fuels economic growth. taxing corporate profits is stupid.
You must take me for a fool . Obviously people invest in companies that do not pay dividends at a certain point in time. But that is a temporary definition. By definition, a stock pays dividends all the time except when it is in expansion. When you plot a company out 200 years, you'll notice that the company only spent 25 to 50 years in expansion (not necessarily consecutive), and the rest paying dividends. It's in the definition of valuation of stock.
First, we need to understand what corporations do with their profits. They have two options:
Save it
Invest it
If they save it then it just stays in the bank and the bank issues loans based off of the capital in the bank. People spend the money, creates jobs etc etc. If they invest it, then they hire people to build stuff, do research etc. Creates jobs.
So if we eliminate the corporate tax the money that would have been paid in taxes either gets saved or invested. Corporations are more efficient at creating jobs with that money which is why I advocate no corporate tax. Also we also get the added benefits of foreign investors putting their money into the US. Why would you want to waste your money investing in foreign companies with corp tax? I wouldn't. We would also get foreign corporations moving to the US to do business. Also eliminating the corporate tax is actually pretty cheap idea to implement since we only collect around 200$ billion in corp tax. Just cut subsidies or military spending to pay for it. That's a bargain.
Exactly right.
The entire bank loan thing is out the window for the near term and potentially the long term since federal reserve has low interest rates (0% for the near term). Banks have no problem getting their hand on cheap money.
Foreign investment makes sense and I overlooked it. Thanks for pointing it out. It was nice for you to step up to the plate and explain what my fellow neighbor (captain NJ) could not. Again thanks.
I'm not sure about "increasing" taxes, but how about letting the temporary(?) tax cuts on capital gains expire?
I guess there are lots of people in the US who don't know what they are...I won't explain... OK, well if you have a lot of money to invest...say from an inheritance or being in movies or because you work on Wall Street and get paid 2 million per year...you can get lots of money...for free and safely.
By investing in certain types of dividend-paying securities. Those are a little difficult to find for the average investor... At any rate, you can make a pretty high percentage in dividends...for doing nothing...and at times...with free money.
To top it all off, while working stiffs who don't have family money or immense wealth have to pay let's say 25% a year in taxes...you (the rich person) only pay 15% if you pick your investments correctly.
And NOT even 15%, because nobody who has a decent accountant pays the max tax rate. Nope, you pay a much smaller percentage...for what's essentially free money.
The reason capital gains taxes are considered for the "rich" is that a lot of wealthy people earn their money passively...by investments, collecting rent*...stuff like that. ON the other hand most normal people can only get money by actively working. So the "Wealthy" ...whoops!...the JOB CREATORS...are usually the ones for whom the capital gains rate really matters.
But if the government wants to continue giving me and others these tax breaks...what else can I say?
Thanks!
*Not capital gains, but I'm trying to illustrate the difference between the way a lot of really rich people get income and the way normal people do...
nope, which is why it surprises me that you are supporting taxes on corporate profits. seems pretty clear to me that the better corportations and their investors can do, the more jobs will be created here.
nope, which is why it surprises me that you are supporting taxes on corporate profits. seems pretty clear to me that the better corportations and their investors can do, the more jobs will be created here.
I don't understand why, since all business expenses (including salaries for jobs) are tax deductible. Thus corporations and investors don't pay any taxes on funds used for this purpose anyways. Removing taxes on corporate profits won't give them more buying power for expanding business.
If we doubled our tax revenue today, we would spend it all and go back to operating at a deficit within 10 or 20 years.
Let's address how we spend our money, legislate that our government must keep to a budget, then i'm willing to talk about revenue. Raising taxes on anyone without holding the politicians responsible for spending it wisely is throwing good money after bad.
We had surplus revenue at one point. But then Greenspan cited concerns.... and all went haywire.
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.
