PDA

View Full Version : Full List of Hillary’s Planned Tax Hikes



Peter1469
07-29-2016, 09:17 AM
Full List of Hillary’s Planned Tax Hikes (http://www.atr.org/full-list-hillary-s-planned-tax-hikes)

Assume she isn't a pos. This alone disqualifies her.


Hillary’s formally proposed $1 trillion net tax increase consists of the following:


Income Tax Increase – $350 Billion: Clinton has proposed (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/08/10/college-compact/) a $350 billion income tax hike in the form of a 28 percent cap on itemized deductions.


Business Tax Increase -- $275 Billion: Clinton has called for a tax hike of at least $275 billion through undefined business tax reform, as described in a Clinton campaign (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/infrastructure/) document.


“Fairness” Tax Increase -- $400 Billion: According to her published plan (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/01/12/investing-in-america-by-restoring-basic-fairness-to-our-tax-code/), Clinton has called for a tax increase of “between $400 and $500 billion” by “restoring basic fairness to our tax code.” These proposals include a “fair share surcharge,” the taxing of carried interest capital gains as ordinary income, and a hike in the Death Tax.
But there are even more Clinton tax hike proposals not included in the tally above. Her campaign has failed to release specific details for many of her proposals. The true Clinton net tax hike figure is likely much higher than $1 trillion.


For instance:


Capital Gains Tax Increase -- Clinton has proposed (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/24/encourage-long-term-growth/) an increase in the capital gains tax to counter the “tyranny of today’s earnings report.” Her plan calls for a byzantine capital gains tax regime with six rates. Her campaign has not put a dollar amount on this tax increase.


Tax on Stock Trading -- Clinton has proposed (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/10/08/wall-street-work-for-main-street/) a new tax on stock trading. Costs associated with this new tax will be borne by millions of American families that hold 401(k)s, IRAs and other savings accounts. The tax increase would only further burden markets by discouraging trading and investment. Again, no dollar figure for this tax hike has been released by the Clinton campaign.


“Exit Tax” – Rather than reduce the extremely high, uncompetitive corporate tax rate, Clinton has proposed (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/12/08/ending-inversions-and-investing-in-america/) a series of measures aimed at inversions including an “exit tax” on income earned overseas. The term “exit tax” is used by the campaign itself. Her campaign document describing this proposal says it will raise $80 billion in tax revenue, but claims some of the $80 billion will be plowed into tax relief. How much? The campaign doesn't say.


Read more: http://www.atr.org/full-list-hillary-s-planned-tax-hikes#ixzz4Fo6zjJLT
Follow us: @taxreformer on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=cNTREaBzmr37DZadbi-bpO&u=taxreformer)

Subdermal
07-29-2016, 09:33 AM
All to feed the monster which is Government, and starve its victims.

We didn't recover from the horrible Recession due to policies just like this. This doubles down.

Say NO.

DGUtley
07-29-2016, 09:40 AM
Remember, it's not your money, you didn't build that. It's their money. They decide what you get to keep.

Peter1469
07-29-2016, 09:41 AM
The vast majority of dem supporters are too poor to pay most taxes. That is why this platform works. Democracy kills itself when the people realize that they can vote themselves the content of the public treasury.

Cigar
07-29-2016, 09:52 AM
Looks good, it's about time we start getting some income for these infrastructure projects.

Looking forward to it.

Subdermal
07-29-2016, 09:55 AM
Looks good, it's about time we start getting some income for these infrastructure projects.

Looking forward to it.

What has stopped you from paying more all these years, Cigar? Had too many replacement seat skins to buy for an old Corvette?

Cigar
07-29-2016, 09:57 AM
What has stopped you from paying more all these years, Cigar? Had too many replacement seat skins to buy for an old Corvette?


:grin: Smooooooooth Roads

Chloe
07-29-2016, 09:59 AM
I think we can find a good balance between some new/updated taxes along with budget cuts. Eventually we will have to address our country's infrastructure. It will require money.

Subdermal
07-29-2016, 10:38 AM
I think we can find a good balance between some new/updated taxes along with budget cuts. Eventually we will have to address our country's infrastructure. It will require money.

That doesn't address what Hillary wants to do with people's money.

Peter1469
07-29-2016, 11:51 AM
I think we can find a good balance between some new/updated taxes along with budget cuts. Eventually we will have to address our country's infrastructure. It will require money.


Smart infrastructure investments boost the economy.

nic34
07-29-2016, 11:56 AM
That doesn't address what Hillary wants to do with people's money.

What, you don't think we've had enough Bush-style tax cuts for the rich folk?

What did you buy with YOUR $300 tax rebate check?

OGIS
07-29-2016, 12:24 PM
The vast majority of dem supporters are too poor to pay most taxes. That is why this platform works. Democracy kills itself when the people realize that they can vote themselves the content of the public treasury.

So let's demand that people vote against their economic self interest....

OGIS
07-29-2016, 12:29 PM
That doesn't address what Hillary wants to do with people's money.

We must continue privatizing profits and socializing costs.

Today's conservatives would freak the fuk out if they were asked to agree with total private property rights, across the board, and the FULL privatization of business costs. Property rights are just for the "right kind" of people.

No sir, you didn't build that on your own.

Peter1469
07-29-2016, 12:57 PM
So let's demand that people vote against their economic self interest....

That is a loaded term.

But it is a fact that if the people continue to vote for goodies for themselves we will go broke. The economy will collapse.

If people voted for their economic interests they would vote for policies that grow an economy, not smother it.

zelmo1234
07-29-2016, 01:25 PM
Looks good, it's about time we start getting some income for these infrastructure projects.

Looking forward to it.

I am guessing using History as our guide that revenue will go down. But only time will tell.

OGIS
07-29-2016, 01:29 PM
That is a loaded term.

But it is a fact that if the people continue to vote for goodies for themselves we will go broke. The economy will collapse.

That has been the battle cry ever since FDR decided to feed the Poors rather than letting them starve (or, more likely, stringing up the then-OnePercenters). It's getting a little old, by now, don't you think?


If people voted for their economic interests they would vote for policies that grow an economy, not smother it.

We've been waiting for that "trickle down" for a long time, now. Thirty years. Just how much more time will they need?

More likely, it's all just been one long Con. As in Con(artist)servative.

zelmo1234
07-29-2016, 01:29 PM
That is a loaded term.

But it is a fact that if the people continue to vote for goodies for themselves we will go broke. The economy will collapse.

If people voted for their economic interests they would vote for policies that grow an economy, not smother it.

What people don't understand is there are enough free trade agreements so that people don't have to pay those out of control taxes.

They can just off shore the profits and run personal expenses through the corporation, paying themselves a relatively low salary for some pocket money

There are about 4000 Wealthy people that are doing this a year now. that number would dramatically increase with that tax plan

zelmo1234
07-29-2016, 01:31 PM
That has been the battle cry ever since FDR decided to feed the Poors rather than letting them starve (or, more likely, stringing up the then-OnePercenters). It's getting a little old, by now, don't you think?

We've been waiting for that "trickle down" for a long time, now. Thirty years. Just how much more time will they need?

More likely, it's all just been one long Con. As in Con(artist)servative.

Here are a few things to remember, the 1% have done really well under Obama's leadership.

Next there have been 2 presidents in the last 40 years to really use supply side economics (trickle down) Reagan, and Bill Clinton? How would you compare their economies to Carter, Bush 1 & 2 and Obama

Peter1469
07-29-2016, 02:16 PM
That has been the battle cry ever since FDR decided to feed the Poors rather than letting them starve (or, more likely, stringing up the then-OnePercenters). It's getting a little old, by now, don't you think?



We've been waiting for that "trickle down" for a long time, now. Thirty years. Just how much more time will they need?

More likely, it's all just been one long Con. As in Con(artist)servative.

In case you didn't notice we are at $20T of debt. If interest rates rise to their historic average, the interest payments will take up almost the entire discretionary budget.

I am not sure what you mean by trickle down, that is a meme, not an economic term.

But we have seen that in the US tax cuts can increase tax revenue. That is unquestioned. But Congress just spends more. Spending is the problem. Not tax revenue.

Common Sense
07-29-2016, 02:21 PM
The US could use an infrastructure update. It helps facilitate trade and commerce. It will also create a lot of jobs.

Increasing taxes for the top 10% isn't a horrible thing.

Peter1469
07-29-2016, 04:14 PM
The US could use an infrastructure update. It helps facilitate trade and commerce. It will also create a lot of jobs.

Increasing taxes for the top 10% isn't a horrible thing.

Cut taxes and grow the economy. Get more in tax revenue like the other times it was tried.

hanger4
07-29-2016, 04:26 PM
The US could use an infrastructure update. It helps facilitate trade and commerce. It will also create a lot of jobs.

Increasing taxes for the top 10% isn't a horrible thing.

Yup just like the Keystone Pipeline.

Wait ...... Obama put the kibosh to that.

del
07-29-2016, 04:29 PM
those 30 jobs would definitely be the difference maker

and that's not counting the strippers

Bethere
07-29-2016, 05:30 PM
Remember, it's not your money, you didn't build that. It's their money. They decide what you get to keep.

Watching you post such tripe makes me feel at home, counselor.

It is good to have your reactionary butt on this forum.

hanger4
07-29-2016, 05:35 PM
those 30 jobs would definitely be the difference maker

and that's not counting the strippers

Infrastructure jobs are beyond your comprehension I see.

Bethere
07-29-2016, 05:36 PM
Cut taxes and grow the economy. Get more in tax revenue like the other times it was tried.

Cutting taxes only yields more revenue on certain points on the laffer curve.

There as many points where it yields less revenue.

If that weren't true it wouldn't be a curve, it'd be the laffer condition instead.

When Kennedy cut taxes, the marginal rate was in the 90s! Of course it yielded more revenue!

We are on the other side of the curve now. If you want more revenue you are going to have to raise taxes.

15452

If we cut the marginal tax rate to zero would that increase or decrease tax revenue?

Common Sense
07-29-2016, 05:45 PM
Infrastructure jobs are beyond your comprehension I see.

Keystone wouldn't have created many permanent jobs. It would however make a bunch of rich Canadians richer.

hanger4
07-29-2016, 05:59 PM
Keystone wouldn't have created many permanent jobs. It would however make a bunch of rich Canadians richer.

The Keystone pipeline would create around 3500 infrastructure jobs.

Chloe
07-29-2016, 06:16 PM
The Keystone pipeline would create around 3500 infrastructure jobs.

I don't consider that an infrastructure job. All that pipeline is meant to do is give easier access to the Gulf of Mexico from Canada all while exposing a number of US states to possible environmental dangers. A real energy infrastructure job would be building more solar arrays and wind farms to continue weening us off of fossil fuels and alleviating the pressures on our energy grids. Not to mention an enhanced investment in bioenergy, geothermal and marine wave energy. That would dwarf any amount of job creation that keystone thinks it would provide, and would be looking forward with our energy resources and not backwards.

Private Pickle
07-29-2016, 06:22 PM
I don't consider that an infrastructure job. All that pipeline is meant to do is give easier access to the Gulf of Mexico from Canada all while exposing a number of US states to possible environmental dangers. A real energy infrastructure job would be building more solar arrays and wind farms to continue weening us off of fossil fuels and alleviating the pressures on our energy grids. Not to mention an enhanced investment in bioenergy, geothermal and marine wave energy.

Solar and wind are inefficient..

15453

Common Sense
07-29-2016, 06:25 PM
The Keystone pipeline would create around 3500 infrastructure jobs.

It actually would have created more temporary jobs than that. Probably 12-14,000. Then 35 full time jobs.

A full blown infrastructure investment would mean improving roads, bridges, ports, airports, the electrical grid etc... Much of the US needs modernization and it will create quite a few jobs.

Canada implemented a similar plan in 2009 to fight off the US recession.

hanger4
07-29-2016, 07:00 PM
It actually would have created more temporary jobs than that. Probably 12-14,000. Then 35 full time jobs.

A full blown infrastructure investment would mean improving roads, bridges, ports, airports, the electrical grid etc... Much of the US needs modernization and it will create quite a few jobs.

Canada implemented a similar plan in 2009 to fight off the US recession.

Agreed. Most if not all infrastructure jobs are temporary.

And more oil to the refineries at the gulf would have been a start.

Boris The Animal
07-29-2016, 08:45 PM
The US could use an infrastructure update. It helps facilitate trade and commerce. It will also create a lot of jobs.

Increasing taxes for the top 10% isn't a horrible thing.Sure is when they already cough up more than 70% of total tax revenue. You want them to foot the WHOLE bill, Communist?

OGIS
07-29-2016, 11:37 PM
Sure is when they already cough up more than 70% of total tax revenue. You want them to foot the WHOLE bill, Communist?

Yes.

Peter1469
07-30-2016, 05:54 AM
Cutting taxes only yields more revenue on certain points on the laffer curve.

There as many points where it yields less revenue.

If that weren't true it wouldn't be a curve, it'd be the laffer condition instead.

When Kennedy cut taxes, the marginal rate was in the 90s! Of course it yielded more revenue!

We are on the other side of the curve now. If you want more revenue you are going to have to raise taxes.

15452



If we cut the marginal tax rate to zero would that increase or decrease tax revenue?

When Bush cut taxes it yielded record revenues. See the chart above.

I agree about the Laffer curve.

Anyway, today we need to reform the tax code to make it simpler. We also need to ease the regulatory burden on business.


Cutting the tax rate to zero would result in zero tax revenue. The economy would skyrocket.

OGIS
07-30-2016, 10:11 AM
I think we can find a good balance between some new/updated taxes along with budget cuts. Eventually we will have to address our country's infrastructure. It will require money.

Here's an idea: At some point, we can simply re-institute slavery. If the Rethuglicans can turn back the pot legalization tide, a future AG Christie can empower the DEA to mass-arrest all 20 million medical marijuana smokers in the country. NOW we have a prisoner labor force to reckon with! We can put Sheriff Joe on the job and he can issue everyone pink jumpsuits. Then we put shackles on the otherwise-useless addicts and put them to work Rebuilding Murica! That will deal with our infrastructure issues at minimal cost to the billionaires.

Peter1469
07-30-2016, 10:28 AM
Here's an idea: At some point, we can simply re-institute slavery. If the Rethuglicans can turn back the pot legalization tide, a future AG Christie can empower the DEA to mass-arrest all 20 million medical marijuana smokers in the country. NOW we have a prisoner labor force to reckon with! We can put Sheriff Joe on the job and he can issue everyone pink jumpsuits. Then we put shackles on the otherwise-useless addicts and put them to work Rebuilding Murica! That will deal with our infrastructure issues at minimal cost to the billionaires.

That is a hard left tactic.

They even are doing it in Venezuela. Check out that thread.

R= zero government
L= total government.

Move from right to left adding government.

OGIS
07-30-2016, 10:41 AM
R= zero government
L= total government.


You keep posting that. Ever wonder what happens in a zero government environment when one person gathers a few thugs around him and starts bossing around everyone else (who have no government to protect them from him)? Poof! Instant government. Anarchy is impossible because the strongest thug will always form a new government.

And the right's obsession with government assaulting your rights ignores the very real assault on the rights of people every day by private actors. Government bureaucrats do not have a monopoly on plans to enslave the population.

Peter1469
07-30-2016, 12:02 PM
You keep posting that. Ever wonder what happens in a zero government environment when one person gathers a few thugs around him and starts bossing around everyone else (who have no government to protect them from him)? Poof! Instant government. Anarchy is impossible because the strongest thug will always form a new government.

And the right's obsession with government assaulting your rights ignores the very real assault on the rights of people every day by private actors. Government bureaucrats do not have a monopoly on plans to enslave the population.

Yes. It is a simple way of discussing positions. The commonly accepted way is based off a bad joke about French politics prior to the Great Terror.

OGIS
07-30-2016, 12:08 PM
Yes. It is a simple way of discussing positions. The commonly accepted way is based off a bad joke about French politics prior to the Great Terror.

Excellent. Weasel ad hom, pretentiousness, AND deflection all in two brief sentences.

Peter1469
07-30-2016, 12:57 PM
you don't feel comfortable in crowds, do you?

Boris The Animal
07-30-2016, 01:56 PM
Yes.Why? You want the government to take total control of all means of production, Bolshevik?

Oboe
07-30-2016, 01:58 PM
15481

donttread
07-30-2016, 03:38 PM
Full List of Hillary’s Planned Tax Hikes (http://www.atr.org/full-list-hillary-s-planned-tax-hikes)

Assume she isn't a pos. This alone disqualifies her.


Well the capital gains loophole needs to be closed, but a consumption tax would be much fairer, less complex, more corpoate friendly and much less controling. Of course the last part would be good for us, but bad for Washington , so it rarely evens gets dicussed much less changed.

Peter1469
07-30-2016, 04:47 PM
Well the capital gains loophole needs to be closed, but a consumption tax would be much fairer, less complex, more corpoate friendly and much less controling. Of course the last part would be good for us, but bad for Washington , so it rarely evens gets dicussed much less changed.

Long term capital gains should be taxed less than income. You put money at risk to grow the economy when you invest. We need to slap the hands of the Statists every time they try to grab our money.

OGIS
07-30-2016, 05:44 PM
Why? You want the government to take total control of all means of production, Bolshevik?

No. I want the government to totally enforce, 100%, the complete and total private property rights of every single individual citizen.

Now you be careful there, boy. The implications of that above sentence - what it would actually mean in practice - are far, far above your pay grade. Here's a hint: eliminating the socialization of private cost.

OGIS
07-30-2016, 05:47 PM
Long term capital gains should be taxed less than income. You put money at risk to grow the economy when you invest. We need to slap the hands of the Statists every time they try to grab our money.

Is it actually "your" money?

To a certain extent, I don't think so. A certain (and increasing) amount of that money is earned through the socialization of what should be private costs. It therefore seems quite fair to get part of that money BACK to cover the costs of dealing with the fallout of dealing with those socialized costs.

Peter1469
07-30-2016, 06:10 PM
Is it actually "your" money?

To a certain extent, I don't think so. A certain (and increasing) amount of that money is earned through the socialization of what should be private costs. It therefore seems quite fair to get part of that money BACK to cover the costs of dealing with the fallout of dealing with those socialized costs.

For the sake of argument agree- all that I am saying is that long term capital gains should be taxes at a lower rate than income for the reasons provided above.

donttread
07-30-2016, 09:53 PM
The vast majority of dem supporters are too poor to pay most taxes. That is why this platform works. Democracy kills itself when the people realize that they can vote themselves the content of the public treasury.


Yes, but capitalism dies when the super rich can buy influence this openly.

Subdermal
07-30-2016, 10:14 PM
Cutting taxes only yields more revenue on certain points on the laffer curve.

There as many points where it yields less revenue.

If that weren't true it wouldn't be a curve, it'd be the laffer condition instead.

When Kennedy cut taxes, the marginal rate was in the 90s! Of course it yielded more revenue!

We are on the other side of the curve now. If you want more revenue you are going to have to raise taxes.

15452

If we cut the marginal tax rate to zero would that increase or decrease tax revenue?

What an abuse of the facts.

When the top marginal rate was 90+%, how many people paid it? At what level of income was that 90% paid?

Let's get you nailed down here, and I'll proceed from there. Answer those first two questions. They're simple questions, and I expect very short answers to both of them.

Subdermal
07-30-2016, 10:30 PM
Bethere

Bethere
07-31-2016, 04:24 AM
What an abuse of the facts.

When the top marginal rate was 90+%, how many people paid it? At what level of income was that 90% paid?

Let's get you nailed down here, and I'll proceed from there. Answer those first two questions. They're simple questions, and I expect very short answers to both of them.
15495

hanger4
07-31-2016, 05:30 AM
15495

:thumbsdown21:

donttread
07-31-2016, 08:25 AM
Long term capital gains should be taxed less than income. You put money at risk to grow the economy when you invest. We need to slap the hands of the Statists every time they try to grab our money.


Disagree, one of our major wrong turns was taxing investment income lower that earned income, fueling the transfer of wealth to the super rich and disrespecting the American work ethic. We've been doing this for a long time and our economy shits the bed, so there goes the" capital gains being taxed at a lower rate is good for the economy theory."
However, a consumption tax with a higher bracket for big time luxary purchases and zero loopholes ( except exclusion of your first 30,000 or whatever number works best in purchases) could go a long ways towards fixing things over night.

OGIS
07-31-2016, 09:28 AM
Disagree, one of our major wrong turns was taxing investment income lower that earned income, fueling the transfer of wealth to the super rich and disrespecting the American work ethic. We've been doing this for a long time and our economy $#@!s the bed, so there goes the" capital gains being taxed at a lower rate is good for the economy theory."
However, a consumption tax with a higher bracket for big time luxary purchases and zero loopholes ( except exclusion of your first 30,000 or whatever number works best in purchases) could go a long ways towards fixing things over night.

A consumption tax is inherently regressive, as poor people pay a greater percentage of their income on life necessities. Sales and consumption taxes actually fit in quite nicely with the Prosperity Gospel and Social Darwinist concepts of punishing the Poors for being poor.

It's what Jesus would want.

zelmo1234
07-31-2016, 09:32 AM
A consumption tax is inherently regressive, as poor people pay a greater percentage of their income on life necessities. Sales and consumption taxes actually fit in quite nicely with the Prosperity Gospel and Social Darwinist concepts of punishing the Poors for being poor.

It's what Jesus would want.

When everyone pays the same percentage that is fair. Poor people don't spend as much money.

And I would be OK with putting NO tax on Whole Foods, and Home energies. Now the poor are covered in their major expenses, as long as they purchase the right items.

OGIS
07-31-2016, 10:07 AM
When everyone pays the same percentage that is fair.

Why? Please justify your ethical statement.


Poor people don't spend as much money.

They do on the true life necessities. And that spending is a far-larger percentage of their total.


And I would be OK with putting NO tax on Whole Foods, and Home energies.

LOL, but whole foods are (more often than not) more expensive than more industrially-prepared food, and (at least at this moment)home-based energy systems generally require quite a bit of investment. For example, solar cells are still quite expensive.

So poor people can spend more of their scarce money on more expensive food, and take out home loans (oh, wait, most Poors live in apartments and can't do that) on spend top dollar on home-based energy extraction systems (which they can't do anyway, as it is not their property they would be modifying).

And I suspect that you would be opposed to government subsidies to buy that food and those energy systems.


Now the poor are covered in their major expenses, as long as they purchase the right items.

So let me see if I've got this right: a proponent of being able to live free of excessive restraint by the State is wanting to create a system that tells people what they must eat? Do as I say, not as I do? Liberty for me but not for you?

What you propose, sir, is a system where liberty is contingent on the amount of wealth you possess.

We pretty much decided that was a bad idea back when we decided to replace feudalism with universal private property rights.

Peter1469
07-31-2016, 10:07 AM
Disagree, one of our major wrong turns was taxing investment income lower that earned income, fueling the transfer of wealth to the super rich and disrespecting the American work ethic. We've been doing this for a long time and our economy shits the bed, so there goes the" capital gains being taxed at a lower rate is good for the economy theory."
However, a consumption tax with a higher bracket for big time luxary purchases and zero loopholes ( except exclusion of your first 30,000 or whatever number works best in purchases) could go a long ways towards fixing things over night.

Yes best case is to eliminate all taxes on income and tax consumption.

But if we are going to tax income, I agree that investments ought to be taxed at a lower rate because of the risk involved- unless you are going to allow a tax setoff for lost investment. Which I don't agree with- that would create much malinvestment.

Crepitus
07-31-2016, 10:24 AM
So let's demand that people vote against their economic self interest....
The vast majority of conservative supporters do every time. Most of them don't pay many taxes either.

Peter1469
07-31-2016, 10:40 AM
When people use the phrase "vote against their economic interests," they tend to be supporters of tax increases.

Crepitus
07-31-2016, 11:14 AM
Well the capital gains loophole needs to be closed, but a consumption tax would be much fairer, less complex, more corpoate friendly and much less controling. Of course the last part would be good for us, but bad for Washington , so it rarely evens gets dicussed much less changed.
The last thing we need is a more "corporate friendly" tax system.

hanger4
07-31-2016, 11:20 AM
The last thing we need is a more "corporate friendly" tax system.

Corporations/businesses don't pay taxes. Their customers do.

Crepitus
07-31-2016, 11:26 AM
Corporations/businesses don't pay taxes. Their customers do.
Neither do you, your boss does.

Peter1469
07-31-2016, 11:52 AM
Corporations/businesses don't pay taxes. Their customers do.

Their customers and employees.

Bethere
07-31-2016, 02:45 PM
Corporations/businesses don't pay taxes. Their customers do.

Nonsense.

If corporations don't pay taxes then why do they whine so much?

If corporation 1 is taxed, and their competitors 2 and 3 are taxed as well, then the tax affects them all and is not an influence on the competitive nature of that market.

Peter1469
07-31-2016, 02:48 PM
Nonsense.

If corporations don't pay taxes then why do they whine so much?

If corporation 1 is taxed, and their competitors 2 and 3 are taxed as well, then the tax affects them all and is not an influence on the competitive nature of that market.

The point is that the corporation does not bear the vast portion of the tax. Consumers and employees do. Higher prices and lower salaries.

gamewell45
07-31-2016, 02:53 PM
Full List of Hillary’s Planned Tax Hikes (http://www.atr.org/full-list-hillary-s-planned-tax-hikes)

Assume she isn't a pos. This alone disqualifies her.

The link is from a conservative based web site; how about a non-partisan link which gives the good and bad points?

Peter1469
07-31-2016, 03:15 PM
The link is from a conservative based web site; how about a non-partisan link which gives the good and bad points?

I posted one last week.

Bethere
07-31-2016, 06:32 PM
The point is that the corporation does not bear the vast portion of the tax. Consumers and employees do. Higher prices and lower salaries.

So, you can't really bill a corporation for expenses either can you, as expenses are presumably passed on to the consumer in the same fashion.

Everything is free! Gosh the world is a groovy place while I am wearing your rosy glasses!

hanger4
07-31-2016, 06:37 PM
Nonsense.

If corporations don't pay taxes then why do they whine so much?

If corporation 1 is taxed, and their competitors 2 and 3 are taxed as well, then the tax affects them all and is not an influence on the competitive nature of that market.

Except in the increased cost of goods and services.

hanger4
07-31-2016, 06:39 PM
Neither do you, your boss does.

I and all pay higher costs.

Bethere
07-31-2016, 06:41 PM
Except in the increased cost of goods and services.

Your competitors would be experiencing the same increased costs.

The market would be no more or less competitive.

hanger4
07-31-2016, 06:43 PM
Your competitors would be experiencing the same increased costs.

The market would be no more or less competitive.

Correct, it's a across the board.

Bethere
07-31-2016, 06:44 PM
Correct, it's a across the board.

Very good, move to the head of the class.

Taxation doesn't affect market competitiveness.

Crepitus
07-31-2016, 06:46 PM
I and all pay higher costs.
My point is that it's a chicken and egg kinda thing.

hanger4
07-31-2016, 06:59 PM
Very good, move to the head of the class.

Taxation doesn't affect market competitiveness.

Never said it did, but it does affect the cost of goods and services.

Bethere
07-31-2016, 07:12 PM
Never said it did, but it does affect the cost of goods and services.

Which in most cases would endow said product with a higher contribution margin.

OGIS
07-31-2016, 11:40 PM
So, you can't really bill a corporation for expenses either can you, as expenses are presumably passed on to the consumer in the same fashion.

Everything is free! Gosh the world is a groovy place while I am wearing your rosy glasses!

I abase myself before a Mechanic. And kick myself for not thinking of that. That is absolutely correct, and absolutely awesome. Totally demolishes their argument like a lightning bolt to the heart.

Subdermal
07-31-2016, 11:53 PM
Nonsense.

If corporations don't pay taxes then why do they whine so much?

If corporation 1 is taxed, and their competitors 2 and 3 are taxed as well, then the tax affects them all and is not an influence on the competitive nature of that market.

It certainly does if one of their competitors is not located in their same country - and how many markets have solely domestic competitors?

Bethere
07-31-2016, 11:55 PM
I abase myself before a Mechanic. And kick myself for not thinking of that. That is absolutely correct, and absolutely awesome. Totally demolishes their argument like a lightning bolt to the heart.

But you need to set it up. They need to willingly say certain things. If they are preaching it to you then they are about to be in trouble.

15512

Bethere
08-01-2016, 12:03 AM
It certainly does if one of their competitors is not located in their same country - and how many markets have solely domestic competitors?

15513

Subdermal
08-01-2016, 12:08 AM
So, you can't really bill a corporation for expenses either can you, as expenses are presumably passed on to the consumer in the same fashion.

Everything is free! Gosh the world is a groovy place while I am wearing your rosy glasses!

:facepalm:

I did notice you picked up a groupie. Don't be too impressed though. OGIS is easily enthralled by progressives. He knows nothing about business, and neither, apparently, do you.

You're attempting to equate a bill for services rendered with a tax? Services which has a cost which is constantly tested against market competitors as a check against waste and inefficiency?

Services that create wealth, jobs and productivity?

Of course the cost of such services - such bills for expenses - are passed onto the consumer as one of the variables that determines final price. The cost of doing business, however, increases with the injection of a tax - and that means a couple of things.

1. There is additional expense, without additional private productivity incurring it, and without additional wealth-producing work to create it. One business's expense is another business's revenue - but one business's tax is NOT another business's revenue. That means it's an inefficiency. It also means that any competitors who are spared that expense are given a major advantage.

2. Bills are money which stays in the private sector. Taxes are money controlled by Government.

Do you need it broken down better than that to understand the difference?

Subdermal
08-01-2016, 12:09 AM
15513

Is that supposed to be some sort of answer?

Bethere
08-01-2016, 12:15 AM
:facepalm:

I did notice you picked up a groupie. Don't be too impressed though. OGIS is easily enthralled by progressives. He knows nothing about business, and neither, apparently, do you.

You're attempting to equate a bill for services rendered with a tax? Services which has a cost which is constantly tested against market competitors as a check against waste and inefficiency?

Services that create wealth, jobs and productivity?

Of course the cost of such services - such bills for expenses - are passed onto the consumer as one of the variables that determines final price. The cost of doing business, however, increases with the injection of a tax - and that means a couple of things.

1. There is additional expense, without additional private productivity incurring it, and without additional wealth-producing work to create it. One business's expense is another business's revenue - but one business's tax is NOT another business's revenue. That means it's an inefficiency. It also means that any competitors who are spared that expense are given a major advantage.

2. Bills are money which stays in the private sector. Taxes are money controlled by Government.

Do you need it broken down better than that to understand the difference?

15514

Bethere
08-01-2016, 12:15 AM
Is that supposed to be some sort of answer?

Yes.

Subdermal
08-01-2016, 12:19 AM
What an abuse of the facts.

When the top marginal rate was 90+%, how many people paid it? At what level of income was that 90% paid?

Let's get you nailed down here, and I'll proceed from there. Answer those first two questions. They're simple questions, and I expect very short answers to both of them.


15495

I just went back on this thread to discover that you deflected with this same gif once before by never answering my question.

Are you afraid to discuss the truth of these matters, Progressive?

My questions are clear. Answer them.

Subdermal
08-01-2016, 12:22 AM
A consumption tax is inherently regressive, as poor people pay a greater percentage of their income on life necessities. Sales and consumption taxes actually fit in quite nicely with the Prosperity Gospel and Social Darwinist concepts of punishing the Poors for being poor.

It's what Jesus would want.

So what? What document guarantees equal outcomes? So you're poor, and pay a higher percentage of your income for staples.

And?

I pay a higher percentage of my income for a vehicle than someone wealthier than me. Why does that need to be equalized?

Upon what rational basis?

If you want to help out someone who is poor, help them out! Stop growing a tumor like Government to do it!

Subdermal
08-01-2016, 12:24 AM
The vast majority of conservative supporters do every time. Most of them don't pay many taxes either.

:facepalm:

You can say that with a straight face, and ignore that the majority of taxes paid are paid by the top 5%?

How can you reconcile that fact with your statement?

Subdermal
08-01-2016, 12:26 AM
The last thing we need is a more "corporate friendly" tax system.

BS. You leftists have built a Venus Flytrap of corporate tax nastiness, and are clueless why our system is failing to return prosperity across the board. Our corporate taxes are the highest in the world, IIRC.

Corporations shouldn't be taxed at all.

Subdermal
08-01-2016, 12:29 AM
I abase myself before a Mechanic. And kick myself for not thinking of that. That is absolutely correct, and absolutely awesome. Totally demolishes their argument like a lightning bolt to the heart.

You'd better reassess. Your 'mechanic' is responding with hamsters, as he did the first time in this thread when I called him on his BS.

Bethere
08-01-2016, 01:08 AM
Our corporate taxes are the highest in the world, IIRC.

Our corporate rates are the among the highest, but our corporate taxes are not.

Lol.


I just went back on this thread to discover that you deflected with this same gif once before by never answering my question.

You are, like, a genius!

zelmo1234
08-01-2016, 01:24 AM
Very good, move to the head of the class.

Taxation doesn't affect market competitiveness.

Please Explain? Clearly it does effect the market place. Because if I off shore, I can move profits to a lower Tax base.

So if you are paying 28% and I am paying 11% I have a much Higher profit margin.

zelmo1234
08-01-2016, 01:28 AM
Disagree, one of our major wrong turns was taxing investment income lower that earned income, fueling the transfer of wealth to the super rich and disrespecting the American work ethic. We've been doing this for a long time and our economy $#@!s the bed, so there goes the" capital gains being taxed at a lower rate is good for the economy theory."
However, a consumption tax with a higher bracket for big time luxary purchases and zero loopholes ( except exclusion of your first 30,000 or whatever number works best in purchases) could go a long ways towards fixing things over night.

First keep in mind that it was Bill Clinton that chopped the Capital Gains tax, and he was right.

Here is why adding 13% back into capital gains is bad???? You just cut the income of about half of your senior Citizens by 13%

Investment income is double taxation. This money has already been taxed once. now the Government is coming back for a Double dip.

Crepitus
08-01-2016, 01:31 AM
:facepalm:

You can say that with a straight face, and ignore that the majority of taxes paid are paid by the top 5%?

How can you reconcile that fact with your statement?

I thought you guys are always bitching that the democrats were the party of the rich?

Crepitus
08-01-2016, 01:33 AM
BS. You leftists have built a Venus Flytrap of corporate tax nastiness, and are clueless why our system is failing to return prosperity across the board. Our corporate taxes are the highest in the world, IIRC.

Corporations shouldn't be taxed at all.

I thought you guys were always saying corporations do pay taxes, consumers do?

zelmo1234
08-01-2016, 01:48 AM
Why? Please justify your ethical statement.

They do on the true life necessities. And that spending is a far-larger percentage of their total.

LOL, but whole foods are (more often than not) more expensive than more industrially-prepared food, and (at least at this moment)home-based energy systems generally require quite a bit of investment. For example, solar cells are still quite expensive.

So poor people can spend more of their scarce money on more expensive food, and take out home loans (oh, wait, most Poors live in apartments and can't do that) on spend top dollar on home-based energy extraction systems (which they can't do anyway, as it is not their property they would be modifying).

And I suspect that you would be opposed to government subsidies to buy that food and those energy systems.

So let me see if I've got this right: a proponent of being able to live free of excessive restraint by the State is wanting to create a system that tells people what they must eat? Do as I say, not as I do? Liberty for me but not for you?

What you propose, sir, is a system where liberty is contingent on the amount of wealth you possess.

We pretty much decided that was a bad idea back when we decided to replace feudalism with universal private property rights.

Fair is when everything is the same.

For example, on many occasion I have shared a progressive flat tax were everyone is taxed exactly the same on the amount they make for example nobody is taxed on the first 30K from 30 to 80 everyone pays the same, and it continues to go up. That is fair.

But If I have to pay taxes on my first 50K but you don't that is not fair. 2 sets of rules is never fair.


#2 Of course they spend more on necessities. Disposable income is higher as you make more money. If you want more toys, then you work harder, longer, or smarter. Everyone gets a Trophy is not a fair system it is a system that rewards laziness and incompetence. However. even the necessities are different. For example, ground Beef, Ground Chuck, and Kobe Beef are 3 very different prices. But if you did not tax food and energy at all? Then you have a system that does not punish that.

#3 Processed foods are a large reason for most of the health issues that we have today. And Whole foods don't have to me a lot more expensive. So if the poor have subsidized insurance, which of course under the ACA, they do. Then the people that are paying for that subsidy have a say in keeping costs low. So by REWARDING people for buying healthy food you are subsidizing the cost of eating healthy. Not punishing people for eating unhealthy. You are looking at it wrong. I am trying to lower the cost of healthy food for the less fortunate.

AND LAST! We no longer have a free system. For example I had 3% added to my taxation base by the ACA. The government said that because I make more money I have to pay for the healthcare of others. We as a country Force people to purchase health insurance. So if you want money from others to subsidize the lives of others, then others have a say in those livers. If you as a person don't like others having a say in your business, then you bust your ass, and increase your income so you don't have to live by those rules.

And Freedom is being able to choose. For example I could have chose to stay in Furniture Sales. I really liked doing that. I had a lot more free time. But I would not live where I do today, and have the lifestyle that I have today. It was a choice that I made.

zelmo1234
08-01-2016, 01:51 AM
Neither do you, your boss does.

What if your boss chooses to pay most of his or her taxes in a country that has a much lower tax rate?

zelmo1234
08-01-2016, 01:58 AM
Nonsense.

If corporations don't pay taxes then why do they whine so much?

If corporation 1 is taxed, and their competitors 2 and 3 are taxed as well, then the tax affects them all and is not an influence on the competitive nature of that market.

OK so if corporation #1 is Taxed with the US Corporate Tax Code plus the 3% ACA tax, they are paying 28%

So if they have an after deduction profit of 100,000.00 then they pay 28,000.00

If corporation #2 off shores 90% of their profits to say Grand Cayman with an 11% tax rate it would look like this

100K in after deduction profits 10K in the USA

They pay 2800.00

90K in grand Cayman 9,900.00

For a total Tax burden of 12,700.00 less than half of what corporation #1 paid.

I can offer the same product for less money and gain a greater market share

zelmo1234
08-01-2016, 02:04 AM
The link is from a conservative based web site; how about a non-partisan link which gives the good and bad points?

It would be up to you to post the good things that come with higher taxation, not Peter. Don't ask others to do your work for you.

If you want to shot the good side of off shoring feel free But don't ask others to do your work for you.

zelmo1234
08-01-2016, 02:18 AM
So if you vote for your bosses taxes to go up 2 or 3% and you end up not getting a Raise?

Don't Bitch, your money went to your beloved government.

Where liberals and Democrats make there mistake is the really belieive that when they raise taxes, they wealthy persons is going to take the money out of his or her income???

Nothing could be further from the truth. As a business owner I have risked everything I own on that business or businnesses. I am going to be conpensated for that risk. And I am not taking one nickle less to pay for free stuff for others people.

I make Charitable donations to people and Groups that I choose, the government is the most expensive way to try and help anyone, and in truth they don't want to help people they want to trap people.

So if you think that the income gap is bad, Remember my wages are going to stay the same, yours are subject to the profitability of the company.

Bethere
08-01-2016, 02:51 AM
15515

Lol!

Run, zelmo1234, run!

Peter1469
08-01-2016, 04:41 AM
So, you can't really bill a corporation for expenses either can you, as expenses are presumably passed on to the consumer in the same fashion.

Everything is free! Gosh the world is a groovy place while I am wearing your rosy glasses!

First you demonstrate that nothing is free then you say everything is free. Which is it?

Peter1469
08-01-2016, 04:42 AM
But you need to set it up. They need to willingly say certain things. If they are preaching it to you then they are about to be in trouble.

15512

You guys demonstrate why some corporations move to Mexico or China.

Subdermal
08-01-2016, 10:02 AM
I thought you guys were always saying corporations do pay taxes, consumers do?

You mean do not.

How does that change the objection? Do you think I want consumers to pay higher amounts for products? It too is a tax!

Do you think I want our corporations to lose market share to foreign competitors, and cost the US jobs?

Do you think I want our corporations to have incentive to move out of the country - as so many have done - to avoid these taxes?

So tell me exactly: why do YOU want corporate taxes to remain high?

Subdermal
08-01-2016, 10:05 AM
Our corporate rates are the among the highest, but our corporate taxes are not.

Lol.

Nonsense. Where is your documentation?


You are, like, a genius!

You proudly admit you're refusing to answer easy questions, and you think you should have any credibility on this topic at all?

Subdermal
08-01-2016, 10:07 AM
I thought you guys are always $#@!ing that the democrats were the party of the rich?

They are. As proof, look which group is the only one who financially thrived under Obama. You, too, are obfuscating.

You didn't answer my question!

OGIS
08-01-2016, 10:17 AM
Corporations shouldn't be taxed at all.

I agree. Let's pass all profits through to the investors, and have them taxed on their share of the profits.

And while we are at it, let's remove the whole concept of Corporations as People.

And, yes, let's get rid of the minimum wage. And standardize, simplify and increase the ability of poor people working at literal starvation wages to get supplemental cash from the government. Index those amounts to the true cost to a consumer of living in whatever area of the country they are in. These payments are, in effect, a pass-through subsidy to the business owner, who is not making enough to pass his employees enough money to live on.

Truth Detector
08-01-2016, 10:26 AM
Full List of Hillary’s Planned Tax Hikes (http://www.atr.org/full-list-hillary-s-planned-tax-hikes)

Assume she isn't a pos. This alone disqualifies her.

I just love the term “Fairness” Tax. It doesn't get much dumber than that. :biglaugh:

Truth Detector
08-01-2016, 10:28 AM
The vast majority of dem supporters are too poor to pay most taxes. That is why this platform works. Democracy kills itself when the people realize that they can vote themselves the content of the public treasury.

^Spot on; and I would add that it also is the greatest threat to our Republic.....when fools realize they can vote for corrupt politicians who pander to them promising them free stuff on the backs of those who actually create jobs and opportunity.

Nothing can be dumber than a platform that believes it can tax it's way into prosperity.

Truth Detector
08-01-2016, 10:28 AM
Looks good, it's about time we start getting some income for these infrastructure projects.

Looking forward to it.

:rofl:

Truth Detector
08-01-2016, 10:33 AM
I think we can find a good balance between some new/updated taxes along with budget cuts. Eventually we will have to address our country's infrastructure. It will require money.

I am amused by the illogical claim that the Government does not have enough revenue. The current 2017 estimate is $4,147 trillion. That isn't enough? The Government needs more???

What budget cuts do you think Democrats would make?? :biglaugh:

Infrastructure is not a Federal issue, it is a State Issue. Most infrastructure is funded at the local level when the wealthy/Businesses construct apartments, housing, shopping centers and high rise office buildings.

Truth Detector
08-01-2016, 10:33 AM
Smart infrastructure investments boost the economy.

Which excludes the Federal Government. ;)

Truth Detector
08-01-2016, 10:34 AM
What, you don't think we've had enough Bush-style tax cuts for the rich folk?

What did you buy with YOUR $300 tax rebate check?

:rofl:

Truth Detector
08-01-2016, 10:36 AM
So let's demand that people vote against their economic self interest....

That is exactly what the DNC wants; where does your confusion seem to come from? :biglaugh:

I am amused by the moronic argument that allowing the Federal Government to confiscate even greater sums of American labor is a good thing for everyone and the economy. Further proof of the massive failure of our Liberally controlled educational establishment.

Truth Detector
08-01-2016, 10:36 AM
We must continue privatizing profits and socializing costs.

Today's conservatives would freak the fuk out if they were asked to agree with total private property rights, across the board, and the FULL privatization of business costs. Property rights are just for the "right kind" of people.

No sir, you didn't build that on your own.

:rofl: @ this leftist rant.

Truth Detector
08-01-2016, 10:40 AM
That has been the battle cry ever since FDR decided to feed the Poors rather than letting them starve (or, more likely, stringing up the then-OnePercenters). It's getting a little old, by now, don't you think?

What is getting older still is this leftist stupidity that argues giving the Government more revenue is the panacea for economic malaise.


We've been waiting for that "trickle down" for a long time, now. Thirty years. Just how much more time will they need?

Wrong; we have been committed to the "war on poverty" for almost five decades now at the tune of $22 trillion with absolutely NOTHING to show for it except MORE poverty. Now in most intelligent people's dictionary that is considered a failure. Yet here Liberals are arguing for more of the same; that is the definition of retarded.


More likely, it's all just been one long Con. As in Con(artist)servative.

The BIG cons are Liberal programs like "welfare" which does nothing for one's welfare, or Social Security which is nothing more than a deficit funding Ponzi scheme. Throw in a few devastating wars as the result of Democratic leadership and you have a plethora of fail.

:biglaugh:

Truth Detector
08-01-2016, 10:41 AM
Cut taxes and grow the economy. Get more in tax revenue like the other times it was tried.

Better yet; abolish the current tax code and supplant it with a Fair Tax.

Truth Detector
08-01-2016, 10:42 AM
those 30 jobs would definitely be the difference maker

and that's not counting the strippers

:rofl: When it comes to laughably stupid talking points; you're the King!

Truth Detector
08-01-2016, 10:42 AM
I don't consider that an infrastructure job. All that pipeline is meant to do is give easier access to the Gulf of Mexico from Canada all while exposing a number of US states to possible environmental dangers. A real energy infrastructure job would be building more solar arrays and wind farms to continue weening us off of fossil fuels and alleviating the pressures on our energy grids. Not to mention an enhanced investment in bioenergy, geothermal and marine wave energy. That would dwarf any amount of job creation that keystone thinks it would provide, and would be looking forward with our energy resources and not backwards.

:rofl:

Truth Detector
08-01-2016, 10:43 AM
Here's an idea: At some point, we can simply re-institute slavery. If the Rethuglicans can turn back the pot legalization tide, a future AG Christie can empower the DEA to mass-arrest all 20 million medical marijuana smokers in the country. NOW we have a prisoner labor force to reckon with! We can put Sheriff Joe on the job and he can issue everyone pink jumpsuits. Then we put shackles on the otherwise-useless addicts and put them to work Rebuilding Murica! That will deal with our infrastructure issues at minimal cost to the billionaires.

Absurdity; the last refuge for ignorance. :rofl:

nic34
08-01-2016, 10:44 AM
Which excludes the Federal Government. ;)

You sure you can treat your own water, and create more without crossing state lines....? Really?

How about power and transmission lines? In your state only?

Go back to school homer....

Truth Detector
08-01-2016, 10:44 AM
Is it actually "your" money?

To a certain extent, I don't think so. A certain (and increasing) amount of that money is earned through the socialization of what should be private costs. It therefore seems quite fair to get part of that money BACK to cover the costs of dealing with the fallout of dealing with those socialized costs.

:rofl:

Truth Detector
08-01-2016, 10:46 AM
The vast majority of conservative supporters do every time. Most of them don't pay many taxes either.

:rofl:

Truth Detector
08-01-2016, 10:46 AM
Nonsense.

If corporations don't pay taxes then why do they whine so much?

If corporation 1 is taxed, and their competitors 2 and 3 are taxed as well, then the tax affects them all and is not an influence on the competitive nature of that market.

How do corporations pay taxes? Let's examine your depth of knowledge in economics.

zelmo1234
08-01-2016, 10:47 AM
15515

Lol!

Run, @zelmo1234 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=588), run!

I want everyone to notice what Liberals do when they can't argue the FACTS Which is always because in the history of the world the socialist policies that they support have never succeeded.

So they post something that is off the wall nothing to do with the subject. So here is your big chance. Other than it happens to be the current economic policies of Obama and Hillary?

What does a Hamster have to do with the topic

Truth Detector
08-01-2016, 10:48 AM
So, you can't really bill a corporation for expenses either can you, as expenses are presumably passed on to the consumer in the same fashion.

How do corporations pay taxes? Aren't ALL of their costs passed on to their customers? How would they make a profit if they didn't pass them on.

Corporations are tax collectors.


Everything is free! Gosh the world is a groovy place while I am wearing your rosy glasses!

That is a Liberal leftist talking point. I see you are very confused by facts and reality.

Truth Detector
08-01-2016, 10:49 AM
Your competitors would be experiencing the same increased costs.

The market would be no more or less competitive.

This is false; not all companies are treated the same under the tax code. Foreign companies often have advantages due to their favorable tax treatments and the fact that they can exploit their people and resources.

Truth Detector
08-01-2016, 10:50 AM
Very good, move to the head of the class.

Taxation doesn't affect market competitiveness.

It does affect business and consumer decisions. Many times it encourages the wrong behavior.

Truth Detector
08-01-2016, 10:51 AM
My point is that it's a chicken and egg kinda thing.

No it is not; corporations are tax collectors. Passing a higher corporate tax merely increases the cost for the businesses consumers and the cost of doing business. Both have negative consequences.

Of course, dullards on the left think that Government is smarter at spending than private enterprises. This too is moronic and false.

Truth Detector
08-01-2016, 10:52 AM
Which in most cases would endow said product with a higher contribution margin.

:rofl: I see you did fail economics in high school. I doubt you took anything beyond pottery in College; assuming you even made it that far.

Truth Detector
08-01-2016, 10:53 AM
Our corporate rates are the among the highest, but our corporate taxes are not.

Lol.

You are, like, a genius!

It is ironic that you apparently think you are one. :biglaugh:

Truth Detector
08-01-2016, 10:54 AM
I thought you guys are always $#@!ing that the democrats were the party of the rich?


I thought you guys were always saying corporations do pay taxes, consumers do?

So now we enter a new phase of the debate where the Liberal, once cornered with the idiocy of their remarks, now engages in the never ending circle of stupidity. So predictable.

nic34
08-01-2016, 10:55 AM
:rofl:

Actually she's right.

Electricity is the lifeblood of modern society, and for the vast majority of people that electricity is obtained from large, interconnected power grids. However, the grid that was developed in the 20th century, and the incremental improvements made since then, including its underlying analytic foundations, is no longer adequate to completely meet the needs of the 21st century. The next-generation electric grid must be more flexible and resilient. While fossil fuels will have their place for decades to come, the grid of the future will need to accommodate a wider mix of more intermittent generating sources such as wind and distributed solar photovoltaics.


http://www.nap.edu/catalog/21919/analytic-research-foundations-for-the-next-generation-electric-grid


Fossil fuels are so 19th century....


I don't suppose you are for going back to horse and buggy days are you?


Might be a YUGE market in buggy whips?

Truth Detector
08-01-2016, 11:00 AM
I agree. Let's pass all profits through to the investors, and have them taxed on their share of the profits.

That is already being done; why do you foolishly think it isn't? DUH


And while we are at it, let's remove the whole concept of Corporations as People.

The only ones making that moronic claim are idiots on the left. Why do you pretend anyone else has made such a specious claim?


And, yes, let's get rid of the minimum wage.

How do you think the minimum wage has helped anyone? There is no tangible evidence that it can or ever will move someone out of poverty and into prosperity. Why do liberals think it will of only increased all the time?


And standardize, simplify and increase the ability of poor people working at literal starvation wages to get supplemental cash from the government.

Very few, if any, people starve in this country. The poorest neighborhoods have the most obesity. But what is incredibly stupid is this Liberal group think that suggests that people are too stupid to make it on their own without Government handouts and redistribution schemes.


Index those amounts to the true cost to a consumer of living in whatever area of the country they are in. These payments are, in effect, a pass-through subsidy to the business owner, who is not making enough to pass his employees enough money to live on.

I don't understand why Liberals don't just pony up to the bar and increase their share of the handouts. The wealthiest people in the country are Liberals. Why can't they just all hand out more of their wealth; problem solved right?

zelmo1234
08-01-2016, 11:02 AM
I agree. Let's pass all profits through to the investors, and have them taxed on their share of the profits.

And while we are at it, let's remove the whole concept of Corporations as People.

And, yes, let's get rid of the minimum wage. And standardize, simplify and increase the ability of poor people working at literal starvation wages to get supplemental cash from the government. Index those amounts to the true cost to a consumer of living in whatever area of the country they are in. These payments are, in effect, a pass-through subsidy to the business owner, who is not making enough to pass his employees enough money to live on.

What you don't understand is that with these policies, the economy would explode and people would actually be making more money.

When these policies were in effect the USA was the first country in the world to actually have a thriving middle class.

Company's would flock to the USA to get an educated workforce and high profit margins.

Truth Detector
08-01-2016, 11:04 AM
You sure you can treat your own water, and create more without crossing state lines....? Really?

Who is making an argument that citizens should treat their own water? Let me help you with the answer; NO ONE.


How about power and transmission lines? In your state only?

Who is making an argument that citizens should maintain their own power? Let me help you with the answer; NO ONE.

By the way, another inconvenient fact: an estimated 90% of the 3,200 U.S. utilities are in private hands.


Go back to school homer....

Ironic coming from an uneducated know-nothing like you. :biglaugh:

zelmo1234
08-01-2016, 11:07 AM
You sure you can treat your own water, and create more without crossing state lines....? Really?

How about power and transmission lines? In your state only?

Go back to school homer....

Well We could let those that want to go back to drilling wells and having septic systems. That would ease the burden on the Current systems. Now inner cities could not do this but clearly it is possible in many suburbs.

Electric companies can take care of the lines that they need to sell there products. Just as they did in the late 1800's and early 1900's.

When the government gets involved it is not about helping people or making products cheaper, it is about control

Truth Detector
08-01-2016, 11:09 AM
Actually she's right.

Electricity is the lifeblood of modern society, and for the vast majority of people that electricity is obtained from large, interconnected power grids. However, the grid that was developed in the 20th century, and the incremental improvements made since then, including its underlying analytic foundations, is no longer adequate to completely meet the needs of the 21st century. The next-generation electric grid must be more flexible and resilient. While fossil fuels will have their place for decades to come, the grid of the future will need to accommodate a wider mix of more intermittent generating sources such as wind and distributed solar photovoltaics.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/21919/analytic-research-foundations-for-the-next-generation-electric-grid

Fossil fuels are so 19th century....

I don't suppose you are for going back to horse and buggy days are you?

Might be a YUGE market in buggy whips?

The only one's arguing for the buggy whip are leftTards who think that solar and wind are new technology. They are ancient and inefficient technologies abandoned in the 19th century.

FACT: you will NEVER ever achieve energy independence with solar or wind. You cannot support a massive modern industrial society with it. You will starve it into oblivion and then turn the nation into a third world country like Zimbabwe.

Lastly, the blight that represents solar and wind power is not merely ugly, but an environmental catastrophe that only brain dead clueless liberals can celebrate.

Crepitus
08-01-2016, 12:36 PM
What if your boss chooses to pay most of his or her taxes in a country that has a much lower tax rate?

IMHO that should be a nonstarter. Do biz in the US, pay tax in the US .

Crepitus
08-01-2016, 12:38 PM
You mean do not.

How does that change the objection? Do you think I want consumers to pay higher amounts for products? It too is a tax!

Do you think I want our corporations to lose market share to foreign competitors, and cost the US jobs?

Do you think I want our corporations to have incentive to move out of the country - as so many have done - to avoid these taxes?

So tell me exactly: why do YOU want corporate taxes to remain high?

Our corporate entities are already dodging taxes, why make it easier for them to do?

Crepitus
08-01-2016, 12:39 PM
They are. As proof, look which group is the only one who financially thrived under Obama. You, too, are obfuscating.

You didn't answer my question!

You can't have it both ways bud. Either the republicans pay most of the taxes or the democrats are the party of the rich.

Which is it?

Peter1469
08-01-2016, 03:57 PM
Which excludes the Federal Government. ;)

I thought the interstate highway system was a good project.

Bethere
08-01-2016, 04:23 PM
I thought the interstate highway system was a good project.

So was the TVA.

OGIS
08-01-2016, 05:32 PM
It would be up to you to post the good things that come with higher taxation, not Peter. Don't ask others to do your work for you.

If you want to shot the good side of off shoring feel free But don't ask others to do your work for you.

Because actual Truth must always be partisan. {/sarcasm}

You should take care regarding the intangible quality of reputation. It is a small and fuzzily-defined conceptual step from refusing to include so-called "facts" (i.e.: interpretations) as preferred by the other side, to actively excluding inconvenient facts that are, indeed, incontrovertible facts. It is in this way that history is always written by the victors. And it is on this way that movements eventually founder because all the smart people have figured out that movement spokespersons are lying sacks of chit.

This happened to the liberals 20 years ago; it is happening now with the conservatives.

OGIS
08-01-2016, 05:39 PM
I thought the interstate highway system was a good project.

IIRC the Interstate Highway System was a military/defense measure. Eisenhower wanted it both for coast-to-coast troop and logistics movements, and for the US road equivalent of the railway car launch system the Soviets were starting to build for their the nuke forces.

In today's environment, there is actually a LOT of spending that you can justify by military requirement.

Peter1469
08-01-2016, 05:41 PM
IIRC the Interstate Highway System was a military/defense measure. Eisenhower wanted it both for coast-to-coast troop and logistics movements, and for the US road equivalent of the railway car launch system the Soviets were starting to build for their the nuke forces.

In today's environment, there is actually a LOT of spending that you can justify by military requirement.

Yes. That is how the federal government justified spending federal money on roads.

Subdermal
08-01-2016, 08:30 PM
You can't have it both ways bud. Either the republicans pay most of the taxes or the democrats are the party of the rich.

Which is it?

No, it is not binary - and you're attempting to project something others say onto me. My position is plain and consistent: Big Government Establishment politicians are the party of the rich.

When Democrats push policy, the upper incomes do the best.

And I also said that the top 5% pay most of the tax.

Stop twisting the topic.

OGIS
08-01-2016, 08:34 PM
I thought the interstate highway system was a good project.


IIRC the Interstate Highway System was a military/defense measure. Eisenhower wanted it both for coast-to-coast troop and logistics movements, and for the US road equivalent of the railway car launch system the Soviets were starting to build for their the nuke forces.

In today's environment, there is actually a LOT of spending that you can justify by military requirement.


Yes. That is how the federal government justified spending federal money on roads.

Hmmm... Perhaps I am wrong, but I detect a hint of disapproval in that use of the word "justified." As if it really wasn't. Do you think it was justified?

I do. Ever since WWII, wars these days are won by industrial infrastructure. And that includes the ability to quickly move material and people from place to place. So, yes, the Interstate Highway System is a legitimate national defense system.

Which, BTW, has provided over the decades trillions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies to "job creators" who would otherwise have had to pay for their plant access all by themselves.

I have some actual knowledge of this: my father owned a small manufacturing plant (but the largest in Southern California, by far) that made surveyor stakes. Everyone else supplied stakes to the industry from their garages, re-tooling scrap wood. My dad created a business that received entire semi-trailers of 2x4 and 2x6 lumber and turned them into thousands (rather than dozens) of stakes of various sizes. He once investigated getting Union Pacific to build a 300 yard rail spur to deliver the lumber; the cost to do that was far, far beyond his reach, so he abandoned the idea. Our vaunted industrial base, had they had to pay their own way for the Interstate Highway System that sped their goods to buyers all over the country, would not be nearly as wealthy.

Similar arguments apply for other benefits: electricity generated by government-built dams, for example.

Crepitus
08-01-2016, 08:45 PM
No, it is not binary - and you're attempting to project something others say onto me. My position is plain and consistent: Big Government Establishment politicians are the party of the rich.

When Democrats push policy, the upper incomes do the best.

And I also said that the top 5% pay most of the tax.

Stop twisting the topic.

I'm not. You said republicans pay the most taxes. Are the top earners republicans or democrats?

Subdermal
08-01-2016, 08:51 PM
Our corporate entities are already dodging taxes, why make it easier for them to do?

You are nonresponsive.

There is only one entity which doesn't legally dodge taxes.

Idiots.

This isn't about 'dodging' taxes. This is about realizing that we're cutting our own throat in having taxes too high, and in having tax code so complicated that only cronies thrive in the environment.

Now get back to the point.

We don't support eradicating corporate tax because we think they pay too much. They don't pay in the manner you insinuate. They pay by not providing our economy their maximum potential: potential in jobs and productivity; potential as a source of charitable giving; potential in domestic growth.

Corporate taxes are incredibly damaging to an economy while granting those who levy said taxes enormous power over both them, and citizenry.

We want to eradicate corporate taxation to stop the economic strangulation which is taking place.

You're so in love with the need for Government that you no longer possess the capacity to truly understand how much economic vitality it has sucked out of us.

Subdermal
08-01-2016, 08:53 PM
I'm not. You said republicans pay the most taxes. Are the top earners republicans or democrats?

No, I didn't. I said the top 5% paid the most taxes, and I objected to your claim that conservatives mostly don't pay taxes, which is an asinine and unsupported claim.

del
08-01-2016, 08:54 PM
only derpie sees through the lies and deceit

Subdermal
08-01-2016, 10:23 PM
Which leftist wants to demonstrate that they're not partisan idiots and challenge the 90% top marginal rate meme?

1. How much revenue did the 90% top rate collect?

2. At what level of income was it triggered?

3. What options were available to avoid it if you were subject to it?

Bethere
08-01-2016, 10:27 PM
Which leftist wants to demonstrate that they're not partisan idiots and challenge the 90% top marginal rate meme?

1. How much revenue did the 90% top rate collect?

2. At what level of income was it triggered?

3. What options were available to avoid it if you were subject to it?

15535

Subdermal
08-01-2016, 10:29 PM
Besquare makes assertion; doesn't back assertion; brands his leftist card as genuine.

Subdermal
08-01-2016, 10:34 PM
Cutting taxes only yields more revenue on certain points on the laffer curve.

There as many points where it yields less revenue.

If that weren't true it wouldn't be a curve, it'd be the laffer condition instead.

When Kennedy cut taxes, the marginal rate was in the 90s! Of course it yielded more revenue!

We are on the other side of the curve now. If you want more revenue you are going to have to raise taxes.

15452

If we cut the marginal tax rate to zero would that increase or decrease tax revenue?

There was your claim. Your entire argument is based upon the claim that the top marginal rate of 90% put the US on a different point in the Laffer Curve than we are now, at present.

All that anyone has to do to 100% refute you is compare tax collections from those paying the current top marginal rate of 39.6% with what was collected when the top marginal rate was 90%.

But you're afraid to go there, aren't you? That's because you're a liar.

del
08-01-2016, 10:36 PM
there's a reason it's called the laffer curve.

see if you can suss it out

Bethere
08-01-2016, 10:43 PM
There was your claim. Your entire argument is based upon the claim that the top marginal rate of 90% put the US on a different point in the Laffer Curve than we are now, at present.

All that anyone has to do to 100% refute you is compare tax collections from those paying the current top marginal rate of 39.6% with what was collected when the top marginal rate was 90%.

But you're afraid to go there, aren't you? That's because you're a liar.

You moron, I said the cuts worked for jfk. The rate was in the 90s, he cut bigtime, and it generated more revenue.

Your question should have been how much was raised at 90+% vs. 70%--the rate after his cuts.

If he would have raised the rate to 100% he would have collected virtually no tax.

If he dropped the rate to zero he would have raised virtually no tax.

At some place in between there is a POINT OF DIMINISHING RETURNS.

Most economists believe that is around 40 points.

Republicans believe that no matter how much they cut taxes they will increase revenue. They've never heard of a point of diminishing returns, which exposes the fact that they never took economics 101.

There's no need for you to respond. It is improbable that you could earn my respect.

Subdermal
08-01-2016, 10:58 PM
You moron, I said the cuts worked for jfk. The rate was in the 90s, he cut bigtime, and it generated more revenue.

Yes - you twit - I know that. I'm challenging your popular leftist meme about the 90%, and the fact that you claimed that such a scenario exemplified your claim that "we are now on the other side of the Laffer Curve".

I'm going to prove to you that we're not.


Your question should have been how much was raised at 90+% vs. 70%.

If he would have raised the rate to 100% he would have collected virtually no tax.

:facepalm:

Yes, brain stem. I asked you to show us how much he collected from the 90% which was in place. Are you unable to do so?


If he dropped the rate to zero he would have raised virtually no tax.

At some place in between there is a POINT OF DIMINISHING RETURNS.

Most economists believe that is around 40 points.

:facepalm:

Most liberal economists. I call them asshøles. You provided no cite for your claim here either. Here's a hint: the rates are only one aspect of this equation. Major considerations also include:

1. Tax deductions and shelters
2. The income level at which each rate takes effect
3. Alternative Minimum Tax, and other confiscatory policies

Why have you ignored these clearly critical variables?


Republicans believe that no matter how much they cut taxes they will increase revenue. They've never heard of a point of diminishing returns, which exposes the fact that they never took economics 101.

Strawman much?

You made that up because you're unwilling to actually engage in the discussion. You are afraid to engage me, which is why you've spent the last three days with a hamster.

Since you claim that "republicans never took Econ 101" - even though I have never been a republican, I should be easy to handle for you. Let's start with this easy question for you.

If you weren't FOS, how is it that - regardless of our wildly gyrating marginal rate adjustments - over the past 50 years, we've historically collected always between 15% - 20% of total GDP in taxes?

Subdermal
08-01-2016, 11:01 PM
there's a reason it's called the laffer curve.

see if you can suss it out

Art Laffer.

It really has nothing to do with the fact that you're so ignorant that all you can add to a conversation is 'laffing'.

Bethere
08-01-2016, 11:06 PM
Yes - you twit - I know that. I'm challenging your popular leftist meme about the 90%, and the fact that you claimed that such a scenario exemplified your claim that "we are now on the other side of the Laffer Curve".

I'm going to prove to you that we're not.



:facepalm:

Yes, brain stem. I asked you to show us how much he collected from the 90% which was in place. Are you unable to do so?



:facepalm:

Most liberal economists. I call them asshøles. You provided no cite for your claim here either. Here's a hint: the rates are only one aspect of this equation. Major considerations also include:

1. Tax deductions and shelters
2. The income level at which each rate takes effect
3. Alternative Minimum Tax, and other confiscatory policies

Why have you ignored these clearly critical variables?



Strawman much?

You made that up because you're unwilling to actually engage in the discussion. You are afraid to engage me, which is why you've spent the last three days with a hamster.

Since you claim that "republicans never took Econ 101" - even though I have never been a republican, I should be easy to handle for you. Let's start with this easy question for you.

If you weren't FOS, how is it that - regardless of our wildly gyrating marginal rate adjustments - over the past 50 years, we've historically collected always between 15% - 20% of total GDP in taxes?

That's a different question.

We collect taxes with a wide variety of mechanisms. The top marginal rate has nothing to do with tarrifs, or fines, or capital gains, or people who don't reach the top margin, or estate taxes, or corporate taxes.

We were talking about revenue derived from just the pool of taxpayers who must pay the top marginal rate.

You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Crepitus
08-01-2016, 11:47 PM
You are nonresponsive.

There is only one entity which doesn't legally dodge taxes.

Idiots.

This isn't about 'dodging' taxes. This is about realizing that we're cutting our own throat in having taxes too high, and in having tax code so complicated that only cronies thrive in the environment.

Now get back to the point.

We don't support eradicating corporate tax because we think they pay too much. They don't pay in the manner you insinuate. They pay by not providing our economy their maximum potential: potential in jobs and productivity; potential as a source of charitable giving; potential in domestic growth.

Corporate taxes are incredibly damaging to an economy while granting those who levy said taxes enormous power over both them, and citizenry.

We want to eradicate corporate taxation to stop the economic strangulation which is taking place.

You're so in love with the need for Government that you no longer possess the capacity to truly understand how much economic vitality it has sucked out of us.
Corporate taxation is not the cause of our current stagnation, corporate greed is. Big corporations already pay little to no taxes.

I do agree the tax code is ridiculously overcomplicated though.

Crepitus
08-01-2016, 11:49 PM
No, I didn't. I said the top 5% paid the most taxes, and I objected to your claim that conservatives mostly don't pay taxes, which is an asinine and unsupported claim.
No it isn't, any more than the claim that democrats mostly don't pay taxes.

I live in Kansas, surrounded by a sea conservatives who are mostly sucking off the government teat.

Subdermal
08-01-2016, 11:53 PM
That's a different question.

We collect taxes with a wide variety of mechanisms. The top marginal rate has nothing to do with tarrifs, or fines, or capital gains, or people who don't reach the top margin, or estate taxes, or corporate taxes.

We were talking about revenue derived from just the pool of taxpayers who must pay the top marginal rate.

You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Apparently, I'm more than sharp enough to cut you to ribbons.

No, I was speaking of it. You were - and still are - ignoring it.

Because of that, I'm broadening the topic to the real point of bringing it up - but you're not playing ball there either.

That's because you are afraid to really have an in-depth discussion of these issues, including - once again - totally punting on my new question to you.

But let's return to what you claim you wish to speak about.

How much revenue was collected from the top marginal rate of 90%? That marks the 5th time I've asked you to answer the question.

Bethere
08-01-2016, 11:55 PM
Apparently, I'm more than sharp enough to cut you to ribbons.

No, I was speaking of it. You were - and still are - ignoring it.

Because of that, I'm broadening the topic to the real point of bringing it up - but you're not playing ball there either.

That's because you are afraid to really have an in-depth discussion of these issues, including - once again - totally punting on my new question to you.

But let's return to what you claim you wish to speak about.

How much revenue was collected from the top marginal rate of 90%? That marks the 5th time I've asked you to answer the question.

15537

Subdermal
08-01-2016, 11:56 PM
Corporate taxation is not the cause of our current stagnation, corporate greed is. Big corporations already pay little to no taxes.

Nonsense. Your opinion is meaningless, particularly in light of the fact that human nature doesn't change, and there is no difference in greed now than at any other time.

Corporate profits - a popular empty-headed leftist meme - are way up for one reason only: corporations are beyond reticent to return revenues into growth or expansion. As such, what used to fuel growth is - instead - fueling the meme: "record profits".


I do agree the tax code is ridiculously overcomplicated though.

Why do you think that is?

Subdermal
08-01-2016, 11:58 PM
No it isn't, any more than the claim that democrats mostly don't pay taxes.

Since I never made that claim, why did you bring it up? Strawman!


I live in Kansas, surrounded by a sea conservatives who are mostly sucking off the government teat.

If you're speaking of agriculture subsidy, why do you suppose that is?

Crepitus
08-01-2016, 11:59 PM
Nonsense. Your opinion is meaningless, particularly in light of the fact that human nature doesn't change, and there is no difference in greed now than at any other time.

Corporate profits - a popular empty-headed leftist meme - are way up for one reason only: corporations are beyond reticent to return revenues into growth or expansion. As such, what used to fuel growth is - instead - fueling the meme: "record profits".



Why do you think that is?
Building in loopholes for wealthy people and corporations.

Crepitus
08-02-2016, 12:02 AM
Since I never made that claim, why did you bring it up? Strawman!



If you're speaking of agriculture subsidy, why do you suppose that is?
Yea you did. That's what started this whole thing. Go back and read your posts.

I was actually speaking of out and out welfare, but that's a good point as well. Small Kansas towns are packed with "salt of the earth" conservatives who couldn't live without their monthly checks.

Subdermal
08-02-2016, 12:02 AM
15537

Stick with what you know.

Subdermal
08-02-2016, 12:03 AM
Building in loopholes for wealthy people and corporations.

And who is responsible - and how is it possible to fix it?

Bethere
08-02-2016, 12:05 AM
Stick with what you know.

15538

Tahuyaman
08-02-2016, 12:08 AM
Full List of Hillary’s Planned Tax Hikes (http://www.atr.org/full-list-hillary-s-planned-tax-hikes)

Assume she isn't a pos. This alone disqualifies her.

Liberals believe that tax increases revive and or stimulate an economy. I guess they think that the more government takes, the more people will take risks or work even harder to make up the difference.


Her business tax increase will kill small businesses. The ones which have survived the last decade will not survive the next.

Subdermal
08-02-2016, 12:13 AM
Yea you did. That's what started this whole thing. Go back and read your posts.

No, I did NOT. And since I'm positive that I did not, why don't YOU go back and post where I did?


I was actually speaking of out and out welfare, but that's a good point as well. Small Kansas towns are packed with "salt of the earth" conservatives who couldn't live without their monthly checks.

Your personal anecdotes are utterly meaningless here. You've now made several claims regarding what I said that are flat untrue.

Your credibility on this topic is zero.

Tahuyaman
08-02-2016, 12:15 AM
I think we can find a good balance between some new/updated taxes along with budget cuts. Eventually we will have to address our country's infrastructure. It will require money.

we need to eliminate, or dramatically lower the taxes placed upon business both large and small. Creating, growing and expanding businesses builds a larger and wealthier tax base.

We need to lower tax rates which incentivises people moving their capital and taking risks to invest in our economy.

Eliminate the inheritance tax. That money has been taxed already several times.


Imposing more taxes strangles an economy. It's proven over and over again.

Peter1469
08-02-2016, 04:37 AM
Hmmm... Perhaps I am wrong, but I detect a hint of disapproval in that use of the word "justified." As if it really wasn't. Do you think it was justified?

I do. Ever since WWII, wars these days are won by industrial infrastructure. And that includes the ability to quickly move material and people from place to place. So, yes, the Interstate Highway System is a legitimate national defense system.

Which, BTW, has provided over the decades trillions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies to "job creators" who would otherwise have had to pay for their plant access all by themselves.

I have some actual knowledge of this: my father owned a small manufacturing plant (but the largest in Southern California, by far) that made surveyor stakes. Everyone else supplied stakes to the industry from their garages, re-tooling scrap wood. My dad created a business that received entire semi-trailers of 2x4 and 2x6 lumber and turned them into thousands (rather than dozens) of stakes of various sizes. He once investigated getting Union Pacific to build a 300 yard rail spur to deliver the lumber; the cost to do that was far, far beyond his reach, so he abandoned the idea. Our vaunted industrial base, had they had to pay their own way for the Interstate Highway System that sped their goods to buyers all over the country, would not be nearly as wealthy.

Similar arguments apply for other benefits: electricity generated by government-built dams, for example.

I used justified in its commonly used way.

The interstate system was built with federal authority and funds in order to ensure our military could get across the nation as fast as possible. The other benefits were obvious, but not a basis for the federal government to do them.

Crepitus
08-02-2016, 09:17 AM
And who is responsible - and how is it possible to fix it?
Who is responsible? The businesses and wealthy individuals themselves through their pet boght and paid for politicians.

How can we fix it? First make lobbying 100% illegal, and strictly enforce the rules against accepting gifts and such. Second never vote for an incumbent.

Crepitus
08-02-2016, 09:20 AM
No, I did NOT. And since I'm positive that I did not, why don't YOU go back and post where I did?



Your personal anecdotes are utterly meaningless here. You've now made several claims regarding what I said that are flat untrue.

Your credibility on this topic is zero.
Why would I bother to go look up your nonsense? I already read and responded to it once, wasn't that enough?

Suuuuuuuuure they are untrue, I just live here after all, what could I possibly know about the place?

Subdermal
08-02-2016, 09:32 AM
Who is responsible? The businesses and wealthy individuals themselves through their pet boght and paid for politicians.

How can we fix it? First make lobbying 100% illegal, and strictly enforce the rules against accepting gifts and such. Second never vote for an incumbent.

How about removing from Federal Government the extra-Constitutional power they've been given?

Subdermal
08-02-2016, 09:33 AM
Why would I bother to go look up your nonsense? I already read and responded to it once, wasn't that enough?

Suuuuuuuuure they are untrue, I just live here after all, what could I possibly know about the place?

You accused me of something that I did not say, and now you're wondering why you should demonstrate where I said that?

You did NOT respond to a post of mine claiming that Democrats don't pay taxes, because I never said that.

Now retract it, or be known as a dishonest hack.

Crepitus
08-02-2016, 09:37 AM
How about removing from Federal Government the extra-Constitutional power they've been given?
They haven't been.

Crepitus
08-02-2016, 09:39 AM
You accused me of something that I did not say, and now you're wondering why you should demonstrate where I said that?

You did NOT respond to a post of mine claiming that Democrats don't pay taxes, because I never said that.

Now retract it, or be known as a dishonest hack.
You said it, I was here. You don't remember? Not my problem. I don't have time, need, or desire to sift through the thread to prove stuff to you.

hanger4
08-02-2016, 10:17 AM
No it isn't, any more than the claim that democrats mostly don't pay taxes.

Just for fun, mostly boredom, I look and Subdermal never said that nor implied.

Just sayin.




You said it, I was here. You don't remember? Not my problem. I don't have time, need, or desire to sift through the thread to prove stuff to you.

Crepitus
08-02-2016, 10:28 AM
Just for fun, mostly boredom, I look and Subdermal never said that nor implied.

Just sayin.
OK, I looked. You're right. He never explicitly stated it. He jumped into a discussion that began with this:
The vast majority of dem supporters are too poor to pay most taxes. That is why this platform works. Democracy kills itself when the people realize that they can vote themselves the content of the public treasury. and since it had been hours since I looked at the thread I forgot he wasn't the one who started it.

Subdermal
08-02-2016, 11:47 AM
You said it, I was here. You don't remember? Not my problem. I don't have time, need, or desire to sift through the thread to prove stuff to you.

You are a liar. You invented the claim, and now you're refusing to support your claim because you know you're a liar, and you do not care.

I never said that, ever. Stop lying.

Subdermal
08-02-2016, 11:50 AM
One of the key accomplishments of Progressives is getting the graduated tax rate system implemented. There is no more powerful tool available to progressives to pit one group against the next.

Crepitus
08-02-2016, 12:55 PM
You are a liar. You invented the claim, and now you're refusing to support your claim because you know you're a liar, and you do not care.

I never said that, ever. Stop lying.

Unbunch your panties and see post #184.

You supported the statement though.

Subdermal
08-02-2016, 01:13 PM
Unbunch your panties and see post #184.

You supported the statement though.

You think you can unravel your assertion without an apology?

Bethere
08-02-2016, 02:20 PM
You are a liar. You invented the claim, and now you're refusing to support your claim because you know you're a liar, and you do not care.

I never said that, ever. Stop lying.

15555

Watching you get upset about someone else making up dialog on your behalf is hilarious.

Without that tactic you wouldn't know what to do with yourself.

With your duplicity on full display do you feel like a loser or what? Lol.

You are this forum's most dishonest debate partner.

Crepitus
08-02-2016, 03:18 PM
You think you can unravel your assertion without an apology?
Like the only one who ever got confused about who said what on a three day long forum discussion?

Besides, while it may not have been your original assertion you were supporting it.

Tahuyaman
08-03-2016, 09:33 AM
Full List of Hillary’s Planned Tax Hikes (http://www.atr.org/full-list-hillary-s-planned-tax-hikes)

Assume she isn't a pos. This alone disqualifies her.
Hillary’s formally proposed $1 trillion net tax increase consists of the following:



Income Tax Increase – $350 Billion: Clinton has proposed (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/08/10/college-compact/) a $350 billion income tax hike in the form of a 28 percent cap on itemized deductions.


Business Tax Increase -- $275 Billion: Clinton has called for a tax hike of at least $275 billion through undefined business tax reform, as described in a Clinton campaign (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/infrastructure/) document.


“Fairness” Tax Increase -- $400 Billion: According to her published plan (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/01/12/investing-in-america-by-restoring-basic-fairness-to-our-tax-code/), Clinton has called for a tax increase of “between $400 and $500 billion” by “restoring basic fairness to our tax code.” These proposals include a “fair share surcharge,” the taxing of carried interest capital gains as ordinary income, and a hike in the Death Tax.
But there are even more Clinton tax hike proposals not included in the tally above. Her campaign has failed to release specific details for many of her proposals. The true Clinton net tax hike figure is likely much higher than $1 trillion.


For instance:


Capital Gains Tax Increase -- Clinton has proposed (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/24/encourage-long-term-growth/) an increase in the capital gains tax to counter the “tyranny of today’s earnings report.” Her plan calls for a byzantine capital gains tax regime with six rates. Her campaign has not put a dollar amount on this tax increase.


Tax on Stock Trading -- Clinton has proposed (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/10/08/wall-street-work-for-main-street/) a new tax on stock trading. Costs associated with this new tax will be borne by millions of American families that hold 401(k)s, IRAs and other savings accounts. The tax increase would only further burden markets by discouraging trading and investment. Again, no dollar figure for this tax hike has been released by the Clinton campaign.


“Exit Tax” – Rather than reduce the extremely high, uncompetitive corporate tax rate, Clinton has proposed (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/12/08/ending-inversions-and-investing-in-america/) a series of measures aimed at inversions including an “exit tax” on income earned overseas. The term “exit tax” is used by the campaign itself. Her campaign document describing this proposal says it will raise $80 billion in tax revenue, but claims some of the $80 billion will be plowed into tax relief. How much? The campaign doesn't say.


Read more: http://www.atr.org/full-list-hillary...#ixzz4Fo6zjJLT (http://www.atr.org/full-list-hillary-s-planned-tax-hikes#ixzz4Fo6zjJLT)
Follow us: @taxreformer on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=cNTREaBzmr37DZadbi-bpO&u=taxreformer)




Those increased and new taxes would throw our economy into a deep recession. Our economy is weak right now.

Peter1469
08-03-2016, 03:59 PM
We have too many taxes and other cost imposing regulations as it is.