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.
Tax breaks for the wealthy seem like a key talking point for both sides. My view: I am 100% in support of huge massive tax breaks for the wealthy...IF...they can prove that money went to creating sustainable jobs here. Why do they need the tax breaks (which proponents of said tax breaks will say is for creating jobs) if they don't use them to create jobs? Why should they be angry about having to prove it?
What is the current unemployment rate? Job creators already buckled in and not hiring and laying people off because Obama is going to increase taxes. Don't believe me? I guess we will never know because you voted to raise their taxes.
With a Wall St. sales tax of 1%, you'd be taking in at least $15 trillion annually in tax revenue. There would be no need for an income tax at all on any level of government, why would there be? Of course, you can keep the income tax for the top 0.1% of society so that people like Soros, David and Charles Koch, and Buffet have their undue influence reduced.
Tax breaks for the wealthy seem like a key talking point for both sides. My view: I am 100% in support of huge massive tax breaks for the wealthy...IF...they can prove that money went to creating sustainable jobs here. Why do they need the tax breaks (which proponents of said tax breaks will say is for creating jobs) if they don't use them to create jobs? Why should they be angry about having to prove it?
Well if you look tha btax breaks if totoally cut will end up cuttting non-rich aerican more than the rich. One has to be careful when talkig taxbreak that it does not come back on you. Just the same as Democrats said since they were put in place the Bush taxcuts were only taxcuts for the rich. Now they say elimantig them for all will be a huge increase on middle class taxpayers. They can't have it both ways.
Tax breaks for the wealthy seem like a key talking point for both sides. My view: I am 100% in support of huge massive tax breaks for the wealthy...IF...they can prove that money went to creating sustainable jobs here. Why do they need the tax breaks (which proponents of said tax breaks will say is for creating jobs) if they don't use them to create jobs? Why should they be angry about having to prove it?
You really are drinking the kool-aid. Jobs are created based on market demand, nothing else. I am a conservative before you charge up your flamethrower btw.
and I'd add businesses should be taxed at the same rates, based on gross revenue. Not profit. We need to stop subsidizing inept businesses by taxing on profits only. That is who would wither away, and die, via changing the tax basis. It would leave the strong in better competitive positions than ever.
So business expenses are no longer deducted? Unless I misunderstand you, that would be a huge disincentive to put money back into the business. It would slow the growth of businesses and destroy jobs, not create them.
Gasoline tax? It doesnt even raise enough revenue's to pay for upkeep of roads.
You dont pay income tax. You pay a pittance and selfishly borrow the rest.
But its a tax. Yes we go into debt, but you said the wealthy only pay taxes, and that was wrong. Everyone, rich and poor, pay taxes
You really are drinking the kool-aid. Jobs are created based on market demand, nothing else. I am a conservative before you charge up your flamethrower btw.
Ok, if that's the case why do the wealthy get tax breaks if their having extra money has no effect whatsoever on the market demand?
Let my try a different way of putting this from my own personal experience:
George has a job at a fast food place. He makes $7.25/hour. His employer (a small business) employs 50 employees per store (about 20 are full-time) and has 3 stores. He makes $30,000/week per store. Take out the 90% for expenses (common restaurant rule: you make a dime on every dollar) that leaves him with $9,000/week for all three stores (PURE PROFIT).
That equals $468,000 of PROFIT per year. If the employer were to give a $2.75 raise/hour to each full-time employee (making their wage $10/hour) he would still make $800/week per store while dramatically increasing the amount of disposable income for his employees. You don't think that would dramatically help the local economy of a small metro area if everyone were to do that. And the employer still makes $124,000 per year in PROFIT.
This is why I dislike tax breaks for the wealthy. They have the money to change things but they don't entirely based on pure unadulterated greed. I won't reward that behavior.
Ok, if that's the case why do the wealthy get tax breaks if their having extra money has no effect whatsoever on the market demand?
Let my try a different way of putting this from my own personal experience:
George has a job at a fast food place. He makes $7.25/hour. His employer (a small business) employs 50 employees per store (about 20 are full-time) and has 3 stores. He makes $30,000/week per store. Take out the 90% for expenses (common restaurant rule: you make a dime on every dollar) that leaves him with $9,000/week for all three stores (PURE PROFIT).
That equals $468,000 of PROFIT per year. If the employer were to give a $2.75 raise/hour to each full-time employee (making their wage $10/hour) he would still make $800/week per store while dramatically increasing the amount of disposable income for his employees. You don't think that would dramatically help the local economy of a small metro area if everyone were to do that. And the employer still makes $124,000 per year in PROFIT..
$124k pretax, which is around $100k post tax. That 10% rule is operating profit before taxes, the more commonly reported number.
On average, a fast food restaurant is a $750k investment. So this owner gets 100k on a 2.25 million risk. That is a pithy 4.4% ROI. He'd be better off buying stocks, and forgoing opening restaurants. George's job would than not exist.
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.
and I'd add businesses should be taxed at the same rates, based on gross revenue. Not profit. We need to stop subsidizing inept businesses by taxing on profits only. That is who would wither away, and die, via changing the tax basis. It would leave the strong in better competitive positions than ever.
