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.
What an odd reply
No Id like government spending to decline a commensurate amount, as my post indicated.
Actually its not as odd as you might think, its realistic. Notice we have a deficit? Yeah. Government spending is not going to go down based upon lower revenue from one side. Now taxes might go up...and deficit spending hurts us all in the long term.
If you want spending to go down you need to attack the spending directly, because as long as deficit spending occurs you are just going to make things worse by attacking revenue. You need to attack spending directly.
You do know that in exchange we are paying the differential? Business's have gone from being 30% of tax revenue for the country to 10......
Here's a tip: back when businesses were paying 30% of tax revenue, they actually collected every penny of their tax (and 100% of all other costs) from us customers.
The fact that the corporate burden has fallen to 10% merely means that there is 2/3rd less hidden tax on consumers, shunted through corporations.
In the final analysis, corporations do not pay tax, they only collect tax.
Your OP, though, is right on. The tax code should be scrapped wholesale and replaced with something of no more than 100 pages.
Here's a tip: back when businesses were paying 30% of tax revenue, they actually collected every penny of their tax (and 100% of all other costs) from us customers.
The fact that the corporate burden has fallen to 10% merely means that there is 2/3rd less hidden tax on consumers, shunted through corporations.
In the final analysis, corporations do not pay tax, they only collect tax.
Your OP, though, is right on. The tax code should be scrapped wholesale and replaced with something of no more than 100 pages.
Fair enough response. In the end it does come from the customers.
The world would go insane if we set a 0% tax on 51% American owned businesses. Im going to have to think that one through some. Thank you for your response.
Hard to do anything .. because the parties at the moment wouldn't be able to agree on how to do it (Republicans would want it to be revenue neutral at the least, Democrats would want a net tax hike, end result is nothing happens).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest
What an odd reply
No Id like government spending to decline a commensurate amount, as my post indicated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Actually its not as odd as you might think, its realistic. Notice we have a deficit? Yeah. Government spending is not going to go down based upon lower revenue from one side. Now taxes might go up...and deficit spending hurts us all in the long term.
You do know that in exchange we are paying the differential? Business's have gone from being 30% of tax revenue for the country to 10.
Your tax is not based on a formula whereby you must pay a higher percentage because someone else pays less - what taxing someone less means (directly) is that government simply gets less money. Assuming spending stays constant, what actually happens in exchange is that government borrows more money or debases the currency more than it otherwise would have, which means that either someone in exchange is taxed more in the future to pay the debt (which may or may not be you) or you (and everyone else) in exchange pay in the future with a decrease in your money's value.
As mass and energy are equivalent, so are taxation and spending - spending is taxation, either now or in the future, if in the future either in the form of currency debasement or higher tax than otherwise would be the case. Considering all time periods, the burden of government is determined by spending plus accumulated interest on debt and/or the injury from currency debasement.
You do know that in exchange we are paying the differential? Business's have gone from being 30% of tax revenue for the country to 10.
The American public has always paid the tax bill for corporations no matter what percentage you want to assign. The comedy is you think that number is relevant.
Dunno, I think Frank would be perfectly happy with spending being reduced. Its a bi-partisan effort
I suspect we could even have compromises in whats cut or effected. Possibly even finding areas we both agree on.
For example:
Hey Frank, I think having both a FBI and a DHS department is duplication of effort, how about we merge them together for better efficiency, and lay off 10% of them?
The American public has always paid the tax bill for corporations no matter what percentage you want to assign. The comedy is you think that number is relevant.
Please read post #14.
I do think it is relevant in some ways, the tax loophole is being horribly abused for a truly unfair competitive purpose for example.
Loopholes like these that are used by megacorporations are completely insane.
The worst offender is General Electric.
CEO is Jeff "double irish" Immelt
He's the head of Obama's jobs council.
What have you got to say to that?
Were these loopholes closed back in 2009? Why not?
I keep waiting for some of you to figure out the truth....the two parties are NOT different in action. Just words.
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.
