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.
Writing off the cost of doing business keeps prices down.
that's why I said LOWER the RATES
why should we say a small business (like your drilling operation) should be taxed at 35+% (just because you go over a THRESHHOLD of 250k????) but get 20% write offs....why not just tax at the 10-15% rate to begin with
Its like here the country gives breaks to "some' businesses....yet if they just LOWER the rate for ALL, it would still work out to be the same...just EASIER
a (very general) example....you make $100(taxable)...your tax rate is 50%...but you get a 25% exemption...you pay $25......or you make 100 your rate is 25, you pay 25
Big money is NOT made by hard work and wise investment but by choosing the right parents and living off them until the inheritance is collected. Then you can hire excellent investment advisors and live the real life of leisure. The rest are on a well paid power trip and make money no matter what their decisions do to stockholder wealth.
We should be taxing all income from all sources above the 90th percentile and not taxing any income below that level.
That's a small portion of today's millionaires, and for those you describe, how did the parents get the money? It's also contradictory to the claim that the rich are getting richer. You don't do that by waiting for what would be a declining balance of inheritance.
why should we say a small business (like your drilling operation) should be taxed at 35+% (just because you go over a THRESHHOLD of 250k????) but get 20% write offs....why not just tax at the 10-15% rate to begin with
Its like here the country gives breaks to "some' businesses....yet if they just LOWER the rate for ALL, it would still work out to be the same...just EASIER
a (very general) example....you make $100(taxable)...your tax rate is 50%...but you get a 25% exemption...you pay $25......or you make 100 your rate is 25, you pay 25
That's a small portion of today's millionaires, and for those you describe, how did the parents get the money? It's also contradictory to the claim that the rich are getting richer. You don't do that by waiting for what would be a declining balance of inheritance.
Yep, and keep in mind a million is not what it used to be.
How about capital gains? There are many different ways to cut your capital gains, from 'depreciating values' of rented property to 'depreciating' the values of assets. Most of those 'lower earning individuals' you mention don't have property they rent out, nor do they have other 'assets' to depreciate. Most of those 'lower earning individuals' barely have enough income to pay rent, buy food to eat and clothing to wear. I should know - I'm now one of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV
Currently, my income is so low that after personal exemption, I pay less than $100/year in income taxes. So I give up a night out every month to ensure I have that $100 in my checking account to pay taxes with come April.
Forgive me, I am not understanding your complaint. Do you think you are paying too much?
Here we go again with the total misunderstanding of Smith's writings.
:
Smith also noted that the 'rich' should pay taxes "in proportion to their revenue." That's not what's happening now. The 'rich' are paying federal income taxes that are grossly disproportionate to their share of the revenue. They're paying nearly twice that of their percentage of the income.
I think you need help in understanding Smith's writing. Let us look, not at a part of the sentence, but the whole sentence first:
"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"
Why do you think he said that? What do you think he implies there? In proportion of their revenue? Or in proportion and then some?
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.....
The difference is, an exemption negates, (or in the even oF EITC, pays in excess to the low income earner), all taxes, where as a tax break, reduces the total tax load paid.
Since all parties share equally in the protection of these United States, and share equally in the cost of government, why should some people not only contribute nothing, but actually receive monies over and above what they have paid, while the top 50% of wage earners/business/etc pay over 97% of the nation's total tax load, (Which includes EITC which has given money back in EXCESS to the taxes paid)?
I have no idea what you are talking about. All tax breaks (deductions ???) are available to everyone.
What "tax breaks" are you talking about?
OK...Let me give you just one example of tax breaks for the wealthy.
Municipal bonds. This is something that the Wealthy love using to park their excess money to recieve tax free interest income. Put in $1,000,000 or more into municipal bonds and your money will give you a handsome tax free return. Ask people like the Heinz-Kerry's what they do with their inherited wealth...... Municipal Bonds.... They aren't doing it to improve the infrastructure but to get tax breaks on their wealth.
If you aren't wealthy you cannot get this break.
If not, I would have to pass more on to the customers.
100% of your costs are writen off...very good...but that is still not the income rate
you make 100k...you have costs of 50k (which are writen off at 100%...your tax rate is 50%...so you pay 50% of 50k or 25k....meanwhile we could simple cost the RATE in half...you make 100k rate is 25%...you pay 25%...no worries about costs or wtite offf of costs
much simpler...yes/no???
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.
Do you think you are paying too much?
tax breaks
