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 hear some on here screaming how unjust it is that low earners should be exempt from Tax yet i do not hear the same people screaming that huge tax breaks are unjust.
To be honest there is no difference between huge tax breaks for the waelthy and tax exemption for the low earners but as soon as exemption is mentioned it's "Evil Socialism" but huge tax breaks are "great capitalistic economics"
So what really is the difference????????????
Please don't give me the usual B/S about the tax breaks for the rich increases employment because we can see with the current and past huge tax breaks...it clearly doesn't.....
All I know is that tax cuts don't help most low-income folks since they have nothing to itemize (unlike tax credits, which may help them).
What we mostly see from this administration is tax cuts.
That the wealthy can have a lower effective tax rate living off capital gains than the middle class shows that there is something inherently wrong with the supposedly progressive tax system.
How has this worked out the last 20 years? Wealth gap keeps growing but you guys continue to argue for the rich like they will struggle if they pay a little more.
*******s live and die by cherry-picking. You ought to know that by now.
I guess that's what happens when the *******s take grammar out of the curriculum.
How many jobs have you created?
If you are unhappy about the unemployment situation and lack of jobs, then you should blame Obama for that.
Obama the Leader failed to take an unequivocal stance on the Bush Tax Cuts. Understand, whether Obama wanted to allow them to expire, or extend them in whole or in part makes no difference.
The issue is Obama the Leader failed to take a stance until the very last minute when the Tax Cuts were set to expire.
Because Obama failed to exhibit any leadership, he created uncertainty.
He created further uncertainty with his ill-crafted Obamacare written by the IRS and American Hospital Association.
Aside from the uncertainty issue caused by a lack of leadership from Obama, you have major problem in that your global work-force cannot compete against the global work-force in other countries.
The primary problem is that your global work-force earns an average of about 125x more per hour than the global work-forces in other countries.
For someone who whines and cries like a sissy about the rich having so much money, surely you can understand this.
So you're just going to have to be content and sit and wait for about 4-5 decades until an equilibrium point is reached when the wages of your global work-force decline sufficiently to meet the rising wages of the global work forces in other countries.
Aside from that, recessions are about clearing out the dead weight with efficient operations and wastefulness, and that is accomplished by shifting capital and resources around, including money.
Instead of allowing the recession to run its course, Obama lied to you and said he could save you with his Stimulost plan which was nothing more than a big money give-away to the community action groups who backed Obama during the Election.
The community groups spent the Stimulost money on things like paying an attorney $14,000 to do a 2 hour review of a contract (and no, I'm not making that up) and on political lobbying.
Once Obama stops interfering with the economy by throwing money at it (assuming he ever does) and you have the recession and it runs its full course, then when the smoke clears the investors (the people that you hate) can see exactly where it is they need to put their money to create jobs.
Apparently neither is Santa Claus. If you beat that dead horse long enough, it just might get up and run the Kentucky Derby.
[/font][/color]
That's because the 95% who are too stupid to earn wealth are also too stupid to vote.
[/font][/color]
That was true in the 1950s and 1960s, but not since the Tax Code was over-hauled.
Why would he want to do that?
That gets my vote for the Herr Josef Göbbels daily Göbbeling Award.
Capitalism is a theory addressing ownership of capital. Since American businesses own and control their own capital, they are most certainly Capitalist.
You also might want to consider that US companies are taxed at a higher rate than their global competitors, and that their global competitors are subsidized by their governments.
A good example would be Conoco-Phillips seeking to purchase the oil and natural gas rights of fields in a foreign country. If Conoco-Phillips does not have enough cash from their profits, then they will need to obtain cash from investors and if they cannot, then they cannot purchase the rights to the fields.
On the other hand Statoil, the Norwegian State-owned oil company, simply says, "We need this much cash" and whooomp! There it is. The Norwegian government just coughs it up.
Obviously, many foreign companies have a clear advantage over US companies.
Okay, then stop living paycheck-to-paycheck. Doh!
What I'm hearing is that you would rather pay $80/month for cable and $60/month for cell-phone service instead of saving for retirement, because you think that you deserve cable and cell-phone service for free and that I should pay your retirement benefits for you.
Nearly all of the economic problems in the US can be resolved by simply adhering to the US Constitution.
Survival is all relative.
You don't think you can survive without Netflix.
That is absolutely correct, and for anyone who wants proof, just look at those countries that have VATs. I've lived in such countries for years.
Uh, I'd have to think about that one, but I believe you're basically right. It would decrease a lot of the cost of doing business and provide for an increase in margin. I think the issue here is that over time, the cost of some facets of business has decreased due to productivity, ie automation, electronic funds transfers, better software etc etc. In other words in some areas, like accounting, and specifically tax accounting is less today than it was say 20 years ago or so. I'm not sure the decrease in costs would be that significant (not as compared to years ago), but it would be a decrease nonetheless.
That is exactly right. You'd recover at least something from them which is a helluva lot more than what is being recovered now, which is ZERO.
Nice propaganda from Stalin Jr. Rents are exempted in all countries that have VATs. Not only is rent exempted, but so are many other things, like medical care in all forms (that means doctor's office visits, emergency room visits etc etc), medication (sometimes non-prescription medication is taxed), legal services, and many other things.
Many countries exempt infant items, that is clothing and other items, like cribs, strollers, child-safety restraints and devices and such for infants under 3 years or so.
You might want to actually do some research before flapping your lips.
But of course, since that would destroy your thesis.
The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion
He's looking at housing rents, as in rental income from housing, and he's arguing for a progressive tax on rental income and beyond "proportion."
From Smith's point of view, you aren't producing anything, rather you're providing a service. The housing is "excess" to you, that is you have all this housing but you can't use it, because you cannot occupy more than one housing unit at a time. Still, you have all of this excess housing, so how do you put it to good use? You rent it out. If don't own the rental units free and clear, you will out at some point in the future when you pay off the mortgage(s).
Smith is also looking at opportunity costs here. You could let the housing units sit vacant, or sell them or rent them out. If you're looking for a long-term source of income with the possibility of selling at anytime, then clearly renting them out makes the most sense.
In considering all of those factors, Smith believes a progressive tax on income from housing-rents is not only warranted, but perhaps also a bit beyond a progressive tax. Part of the reason he comes to that conclusion is because the tenants are doing you a favor by renting the units and partly because in any economy, your work force needs to be housed and housing is a basic need.
Smith's progressive tax scheme on rents is designed in part to discourage high rents, especially rents above market rates, while simultaneously providing for the "public expense" by offering reasonable rents to tenants. The landlord who has few rental units and low rents pays little in taxes, modest rents pays a little more, while the landlord who has many units and/or charges excessive rents should forfeit a greater portion of his rental income.
And under that scheme, everyone still benefits.
Smith does not say that people who earn income through sources other than rents should be overly burdened with taxes to "contribute to the public expense."
Even if one could twist and turn and misconstrue it in the most liberal interpretation, Smith does not say that tax the rich so that people can have free cable, free cell-phones, free housing, free roads, free bridges, free health care, free retirement benefits, free music and movie downloads or free food.
You need an editor. No one is try to read all that.
A progressive tax system is one of the cornerstones of capitalism. Just read Adam Smith.
There is a difference between people being taxed who can't afford the basics, food, housing and health care and those who can afford them. There are certain things that are necessary to a stable society.
In addition, keep in mind the wealthy don't pay their nominal tax rate. By the time their CPA is through, many payer a lower real tax rate than those earning less than $50,000.
What we have in this nation now is not an income tax, but a salary tax. Income for the wealthy when capital gains is included is taxed at a lower rate than a tax on wages for the middle class.
Incorrect. Adam Smith never advocated for a progressive tax system. He advocated for a flat tax system (everyone pays the same tax rate). Here are his words from The Wealth of Nations:
"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities."
and...
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable."
The owner of a "magnificent house" pays a higher property tax bill than the owner of an average value house, even though they're both paying the exact same tax rate.
Adam Smith advocates a flat tax rate, "in proportion to," one's earnings and the value of their house, recognizing that those who earn more and own expensive homes will pay higher tax bills than others for the exact same government services.
I hope we don't need to go over what "in proportion to" is. It's 9th grade math:
Quote:
Example: Rope
A rope's length and weight are in proportion when 20m of rope weighs 1kg, then:
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.
