Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Study shows what we all kind of suspected

Tags:
Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
November 4, 2011 8:15:38 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/big-corp...

"The authors examined the finances of 280 corporations from 2008 through 2010 and found that 30 paid zero taxes or used loopholes to wind up with negative tax rates. Local utility Pepco Holdings paid the lowest rate of all the firms investigated, clocking in at nearly minus 58 percent.

Under the federal tax code, corporations are supposed to pay 35 percent of their profits in taxes. But the study found many of the companies used legal tax breaks that allowed them to pay lower rates than ordinary Americans.

...

The report said that 71 of the companies paid an effective rate of more than 30 percent over the three years. But roughly an equal number paid less than 10 percent."
November 5, 2011 12:24:32 AM

No, we should trash the system, allow rabble into our ranks, and never blame the ones responsible, because they give us free bread
November 5, 2011 1:50:29 PM

Why do you think there's so much resistance to any of the flat tax schemes. There's no room to game the system.
Related resources
November 5, 2011 7:28:13 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Sorry, what's a "loophole" again? You mean tax law? Written by Congress and signed into "Law" by Presidents? Notice the plural.

Maybe we should change that.

I agree, we should definitely change that. That was my point in posting.
November 5, 2011 7:29:14 PM

jsc said:
Why do you think there's so much resistance to any of the flat tax schemes. There's no room to game the system.

I suspect that a lot of opposition to flat tax ideas are because of their fundamental unfairness. That's why I oppose them anyway.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/10/ric...
November 6, 2011 1:02:22 AM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
How is everyone paying the same rate unfair? That seems the epitome of fairness to me.

Progressive taxation is considered fair (flat tax unfair) by every modern country. The link in my last post gives you a nice illustration of why.
November 6, 2011 5:03:08 PM

Flat tax is good. It would shut up everyone to whom is paying more/less.

If I make 20,000 a year, but a CEO makes 20,000,000 a year @ 20% tax

Me: 4,000
CEO: 4,000,000

Seems fair to me.
November 6, 2011 5:45:18 PM

But some want to see that CEO pay 8,000,000
November 6, 2011 7:31:44 PM

Why? He already paied what I paied.

corrected.
November 6, 2011 8:50:06 PM

I am more worried about the % than the amount. Granted, amount should be considered, but we all need to understand that 5 is what defines the equality when it comes to taxes. I would think a flat tax would be a liberal idea. Guess not.
November 6, 2011 9:29:14 PM

Liberal ideas require money, and this is where they get it
November 7, 2011 1:14:07 PM

Of the 20+ countries world wide that have implemented a flat tax all have experience growth and increased tax revenues. Can we say "Russia"?

Regardless of where you stand on a flat tax, we can at least all agree on the fact that the American tax code is totally FUBAR and needs to be overhauled.

November 7, 2011 2:14:37 PM

and with change...comes an election. vote the bast@rds out!
November 7, 2011 11:46:03 PM

I was hoping you guys would come along.

Besides the graph I posted, and the basic fact of progressive taxation in modern society, here is why I think progressive taxation is fair.

The 2010 United States Federal Budget broke down into 23% Medicare/Medicaid, 20% Social Security, 20% Defense Department, 19% Discretionary Spending, 12% Other Mandatory, 6% Net Interest.

Medicare/Medicaid helps the recipients of those programs, obviously, but the money goes to the health care industry.

Social Security is funded by a form of regressive taxation.

The Department of Defense awards lucrative contracts to the defense industry and provides free research to technology companies.

That covers 63% of federal spending from 2010. The rest (aside from the 6% interest) goes in various directions, but generally the government chooses large corporations, thanks to their lobbyists, to carry out whatever projects that spending goes to.

So it's clear who's benefitting the most from government spending. Of course, programs like Medicare and Social Security help the 99% (as jaydeejohn wrote, "Liberal ideas require money, and this is where they get it"), but it makes sense for the cost to be shared proportionally (the ones who benefit more should pay more, as a percent of their income).
November 8, 2011 12:08:01 AM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Oh, so that settles it then since every "modern" country considers it to be fair.


Do understand the reasons behind why it is the fairest in the modern scheme of things? Throwing your hands up in the air in contempt no better educates you or the rest of your kind - Just because facts don't favor your opinion doesn't mean they fail to exist.

Which brings us to this:

dogman_1234 said:
Flat tax is good. It would shut up everyone to whom is paying more/less.

If I make 20,000 a year, but a CEO makes 20,000,000 a year @ 20% tax

Me: 4,000
CEO: 4,000,000

Seems fair to me.


Of course factoring in the cost of living throws a huge wrench in your machine, mostly because the % of liquid/disposable income is hugely lopsided, but I guess that's ok if you want to eat bread and mayonnaise sandwiches while your CEO eats filet mingon everyday. It's a great idea, until you ACTUALLY look at it on paper - I can only assume these are the reasons Nim Chimpsky feels the way he does.

Using your numbers:

Regular Person: $20,000
CEO Salary: $20,000,000

Tax obligation @ 20%;
Regular Person:4,000
CEO Salary: 4,000,000

Disposable income:
Regular Person $20,000 - 4000 = 16,000 / 12 = 1333.33/mo
CEO Salary $20,000,000 - 4,000,000 = $16,000,000 / 12 = 1,333,333.33/mo

These numbers don't consider anything other than a tax obligation and leave those that already make very little to make even less.

The Flat Tax and Fair Tax scenarios act the same way and both leave the poor end of the spectrum even poorer - This is why progressive or graduated tax systems more appropriately apply taxation across all social classes. The problem is that a large handful of folks who watch talking point programs and pundit TV fall for the charade. I see it and hear it a lot and classify it as the "I'll make that much one day" which is highly delusional in the grand scheme. People seem to think they are going to be the next millionare/billionare with a bright idea or just entering a high paying field like medicine or information technology is going to put them in the "winners circle" when all it really does is create ideology wars amongst classes, between people who would highly benefit from legislation that affects 95% of the population.

But you all have the right to think what you like and listen to as many highly wealthy individuals (like that of Congress) that comprise less than 5% of our total population that decide upon just about all of who pays for what. I'm certain they will make you continue to pay for their tax breaks, they will continue to make you try to feel guilty for raising their taxes, and you will never be the next millionare/billionare with a brilliant idea believing them.
November 8, 2011 11:55:32 AM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Every flat tax idea i've ever heard would exempt anyone making $30,000/year or less.

@lockdown

my "kind"? WTF does that mean?


Openly conservative. :) 

And as soon as you draw a line at any dollar number, people above that line will feel cheated by the people who happen to fall below that line. Especially as incomes APPROACH that line.
November 10, 2011 12:43:00 AM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
eh, they would still be paying the sales tax, just not their income directly. Besides, we have that line now under the current system.


l0ckd0wn said:
And as soon as you draw a line at any dollar number, people above that line will feel cheated by the people who happen to fall below that line. Especially as incomes APPROACH that line.

November 12, 2011 4:56:35 PM

Nim Chimpsky said:
Progressive taxation is considered fair (flat tax unfair) by every modern country. The link in my last post gives you a nice illustration of why.


I wonder how accurate that "graph" is. Does it account for all the loopholes the rich can find for their investments? After all, we also hear about how many rich people pay a pittance in taxes due to the loopholes - maybe not as egregious as the corporations in the link, but still..

I would gladly pay a small amount more in a flat tax rather than spend a whole weekend or two doing my taxes in TurboTax, then getting an irate letter from the IRS because I missed some stupid $12 interest statement.

Also, aren't most of these flat-tax schemes modified so that those below the poverty line actually receive $$ instead of paying taxes? If the same scheme is applied to corporations too, even better.
November 12, 2011 6:35:54 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
I wonder how accurate that "graph" is. Does it account for all the loopholes the rich can find for their investments? After all, we also hear about how many rich people pay a pittance in taxes due to the loopholes - maybe not as egregious as the corporations in the link, but still..

I would gladly pay a small amount more in a flat tax rather than spend a whole weekend or two doing my taxes in TurboTax, then getting an irate letter from the IRS because I missed some stupid $12 interest statement.

Also, aren't most of these flat-tax schemes modified so that those below the poverty line actually receive $$ instead of paying taxes? If the same scheme is applied to corporations too, even better.

The reason the rich can avoid taxes in those cases is because moving their money around in investments is not considered "income." A flat tax wouldn't change that, it would just decrease the taxes they pay on traditional income.
November 12, 2011 10:24:26 PM

Actually, the 1% starts at 433,000 USD.
November 12, 2011 10:58:51 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
You are wrong. The "rich" don't have earned income. Only a return on investments.

The 1% starts at $337,000 per year in the US. Those at the bottom of the 1% do have earned income. If you are talking billionaires, that is a different matter, as they do not have earned income that is taxed.

Maybe I misunderstand, but I think you can still earn an income if you're a billionaire.

But anyway, how would a flat tax change this if it only taxes income?
November 12, 2011 11:23:12 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Nope.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jay-z-occupy-wall...

$379,150. make that per year and you are part of the 1%.

@ Nim

No, billionaire's are not taxed on their "earned income" because they do not have any. That is US tax law. If you disagree with the US tax law I agree with you.

Here's what it sounds like you're saying: "If you have a billion dollars, you do not earn an income."

Here's what you must be saying: "The highest tax bracket is $379,151+ at 35%."

That helps clear up your disagreement with dogman as well: you're talking about the highest income tax bracket, and he's talking about what "the top 1% of American households" earn (a minimum of $516,633 in 2010, an average of $1,530,773).
November 13, 2011 12:43:48 AM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
No, i'm saying the bottom of the 1% do have what the federal government defines as "earned income". The top of the 1%, as defined by the tax code, do not have earned income.

I agree with you on changing the tax code. But, that will never happen as the US tax code is the single most powerful mechanism available to the ruling elite to engineer their "social change" they desire so much. The tax code allows the choosing of winners and losers. Who would want to give up that power?



Then how are you so vocally against the OWS? You can see the problem in the system, yet your a cynical and insulting to people who stand up for what they believe in, what gives?
November 13, 2011 4:59:00 AM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
No, i'm saying the bottom of the 1% do have what the federal government defines as "earned income". The top of the 1%, as defined by the tax code, do not have earned income.

I agree with you on changing the tax code. But, that will never happen as the US tax code is the single most powerful mechanism available to the ruling elite to engineer their "social change" they desire so much. The tax code allows the choosing of winners and losers. Who would want to give up that power?


I'm not trying to be a di*k here but:

Who are the ruling elite?
November 13, 2011 1:48:10 PM

l0ckd0wn said:
Then how are you so vocally against the OWS? You can see the problem in the system, yet your a cynical and insulting to people who stand up for what they believe in, what gives?

im guessing that it is because they believe in more taxation on the rich and more wealth distribution. also because of the way they are protesting. There is violence everywhere. they are deficating on cop cars, having sex in public, and there are lots of anti semitics there that blame everything on the Jews. The only thing to love is that they are exercising their freedom of speech and how they want some sort of change
November 13, 2011 4:32:26 PM

I'm, waiting for another 'Red Scare'...
November 13, 2011 4:54:45 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
The people, on the left and the right, who are trying to destroy Herman Cain because he is not a member of the club and doesn't play by their rules.

The progressive movement in America is over 100 years old. They play a game. The game is, ok you all get to control the purse for x number of years and then its our turn to control the purse for x number of years. The whole time, the average person is just trying to make a life for themselves why these assholes figure out new ways to separate us from our money and our freedom.

Games over. There is a political awakening happening. Kissinger even said so not long ago. As a result, the move towards globalization has been kicked into high gear.

It seems like this line comes from the Republicans every election. "I'm a political outsider," "a maverick," etc. Herman Cain is funded by the Koch brothers, he's as much "a member of the club" as any of them.
November 13, 2011 4:55:20 PM

mjmjpfaff said:
im guessing that it is because they believe in more taxation on the rich and more wealth distribution. also because of the way they are protesting. There is violence everywhere. they are deficating on cop cars, having sex in public, and there are lots of anti semitics there that blame everything on the Jews. The only thing to love is that they are exercising their freedom of speech and how they want some sort of change

Citations, please.
November 13, 2011 4:57:13 PM

Nim Chimpsky said:
Citations, please.


At least they are not teabagging...oh, wait...

:hello: 
November 13, 2011 9:26:02 PM

mjmjpfaff said:
oh come on you have not heard of the violence or seen the picture of that guy defecating on the cop car? in LA they had to clean up a lot of $hit (literally) on the lawn. anti-semitics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMjm4LxFa1c , http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/vandals-to...

No, I haven't, which is why I asked for a citation.

The second link isn't even about Occupy Wall Street, except according to "Sandra Simone, a speech therapist at a nearby school."

So you have one example of antisemitism, out of who knows how many people.

EDIT: There's already been a demonstration against that particular incident. "Sunday’s march included about 25 people from the Occupy Wall Street movement in Manhattan, which put out a statement condemning the vandalism."
November 13, 2011 11:47:10 PM

mjmjpfaff said:
sorry about that 2nd link.

http://www.adl.org/main_Extremism/occupy_wall_street.ht...

you are right they have condemned. let me just say i was not calling them as a whole anti-semitics. that would be like calling the tea party rascist.

Much as I dislike the ADL, it looks like they support my impression (emphasis mine):

"While there is no evidence that these incidents are widespread, history reveals how economic downturns can embolden anti-Semites to spread malicious conspiracy theories about Jews and money. The financial crisis over the past few years has shown how turmoil in the markets can be exploited by anti-Semites to promote stereotypes about Jews.

As the focus of the demonstrations continues to develop and evolve, ensuring that the movement does not get hijacked by extremists or anti-Semitic elements is critical. Public rallies like OWS often draw a wide range of people with various personal or organizational agendas, including those seeking to exploit public rallies for their own purposes. The American Nazi Party, for example, expressed their support for OWS rallies in several cities via Twitter.

Thus far, however, anti-Semitism has not gained traction more broadly with the protestors, nor is it representative of the larger movement at this time."
November 14, 2011 1:51:55 AM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
That's hilarious! You don't know when your being 'tweaked' do you?

I knew you were referencing my comment, but I thought it was in order to defend your position that Cain is an outsider. Glad to hear we don't have to debate that.

I would be interested, like dogman, to hear who you think are "the ruling elite."
November 14, 2011 4:06:06 AM

You don't need to...that is the beauty...it just makes sense on its own! :) 
November 14, 2011 3:31:51 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
No, you don't get it. Cain was tweaking you with that comment. He knew by making that comment it would drive the lefties nuts.

When I say he is an outsider I mean he is not part of the political machine. He's not in the club of power brokers that run Washington.

He says, "I'm proud to know the Koch brothers, I'm very proud to know the Koch brothers." There's sparse clapping, and then he makes the joke, that the NY Times thinks he's way closer to them than he is: "They make it sound like that [sic] we've had time to go fishing together, hunting together, skiing together, golfing together." So he makes a comic statement to the effect that he likes the Koch brothers, but that he isn't as close to them as the media suggests: "But just so I can clarify this for the media, this may be a breaking news announcement for the media: I am the Koch brothers' brother from another mother. Yes! I'm their brother from another mother!" And then there's an old man dancing and clapping.

But besides that, since we're talking about whether he's an outsider or not, check out this link.

"Cain was elected to the Board of Directors of the National Restaurant Association in 1988. In 1994 to 1995, he served as Chairman of the Board of Directors. While leading this association, he developed the organization into a pro-business voice via national debates and speeches concerning health care reform, employment policies, and taxation. Following this experience, he was appointed to serve on the Economic Growth and Tax Reform Commission in addition to serving as Chairman and Member of the Board of Directors for the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. He then became a senior advisor to the 1996 Dole/Kemp campaign for the Presidency."
November 14, 2011 3:40:35 PM

Nim Chimpsky said:
"Cain was elected to the Board of Directors of the National Restaurant Association in 1988. In 1994 to 1995, he served as Chairman of the Board of Directors. While leading this association, he developed the organization into a pro-business voice via national debates and speeches concerning health care reform, employment policies, and taxation. Following this experience, he was appointed to serve on the Economic Growth and Tax Reform Commission in addition to serving as Chairman and Member of the Board of Directors for the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. He then became a senior advisor to the 1996 Dole/Kemp campaign for the Presidency."
Got more hairs to split?

In case you don't get the context, when pretty much anyone says, " he's an outsider", that typically means that the person in question is not a career politician and has never held a publicly elected office; compared to a Mitt Romney...

With all your rhetoric throughout these threads, I would think that a 3rd party person like Herman Cain would be an attractive choice to you. But, maybe I'm not reading your opinions correctly.
November 14, 2011 3:49:30 PM

chunkymonster said:
Got more hairs to split?

In case you don't get the context, when pretty much anyone says, " he's an outsider", that typically means that the person in question is not a career politician and has never held a publicly elected office; compared to a Mitt Romney...

With all your rhetoric throughout these threads, I would think that a 3rd party person like Herman Cain would be an attractive choice to you. But, maybe I'm not reading your opinions correctly.

I don't think it's splitting hairs to mention that he was on the board of a local federal reserve bank and advised a presidential campaign.

True, he hasn't held public office, and if that's how you want to limit your definition of "outsider," then there's nothing more to be said.

I don't like him because he's a hearty supporter of the system I don't like. I think the ties between business and government, which illustrate why I don't consider him an outsider, both prevent the majority of the population from having a stake in their own government and rig the system contrary to free market ideals.
November 14, 2011 5:04:00 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Ok, so Cain knows the Koch brothers. So? You don't like them becuase they are businessmen? I'm not getting where your coming from. You don't like Cain because he's created thousands of jobs over decades and happen to sit as a chairman of the board for the federalr reserve?

To me, those ^^ experiences makes him intimately more qualified to be President then Barrack Obama who has no experience whatsoever.

I understand.

I generally don't like to see power and wealth concentrated so heavily, and I specifically don't agree with the positions their wealth advocates through groups the Americans for Prosperity, who lobby for the deregulation of the very industries in which the Koch family made their fortune.
November 14, 2011 5:11:43 PM

Unfortunately, those very industries are sorely needed at this point, it would do th single most to this economy to help
November 14, 2011 5:13:28 PM

Nim Chimpsky said:
I don't think it's splitting hairs to mention that he was on the board of a local federal reserve bank and advised a presidential campaign.

True, he hasn't held public office, and if that's how you want to limit your definition of "outsider," then there's nothing more to be said.
Well, if that's the case, then you have a much broader definition of what a "political outsider" is than what is commonly held by most people.

Nim Chimpsky said:
I don't like him because he's a hearty supporter of the system I don't like. I think the ties between business and government, which illustrate why I don't consider him an outsider, both prevent the majority of the population from having a stake in their own government and rig the system contrary to free market ideals.
Now, here's some solid examples of why you don't like Herman Cain, I can respect that, those are ideological differences and not lame accusations of associations like those between Cain and the Koch brothers.

After all, if business and personal association for political inspiration was really an issue, then Obama's personal friendship with Mike Kruglick, Jeremiah Wright, Frank Marshall Davis, Louis Farrakhan, and William Ayres would not have been given a free pass.

Can you say, "six degrees of separation"?
November 14, 2011 6:21:31 PM

I'm part of the 53%. You know, the suckers who pay taxes.
November 14, 2011 6:54:34 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Unfortunately, those very industries are sorely needed at this point, it would do th single most to this economy to help

I agree that our economy would grow if their profits would grow, but that would not help the average American. The economy is actually back at pre-recession levels, and slowly growing; the wealth, though, is going mostly to the wealthy.
November 14, 2011 6:56:48 PM

chunkymonster said:
Well, if that's the case, then you have a much broader definition of what a "political outsider" is than what is commonly held by most people.

Ok.

chunkymonster said:
Now, here's some solid examples of why you don't like Herman Cain, I can respect that, those are ideological differences and not lame accusations of associations like those between Cain and the Koch brothers.

After all, if business and personal association for political inspiration was really an issue, then Obama's personal friendship with Mike Kruglick, Jeremiah Wright, Frank Marshall Davis, Louis Farrakhan, and William Ayres would not have been given a free pass.

Can you say, "six degrees of separation"?

Well those are sort of random names, but it is an issue. I dislike Obama for the same reason as I dislike Cain. In fact, Obama's funding from mega corporations is on a far larger scale than Cain's.
November 14, 2011 7:36:57 PM

LOL - Google is your friend...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=herman+cain+funded+by+koch

He's part of the rich power brokers; he ran the Kansas City Federal Reserve. How much more of a "player" does he have to be?

Hundreds of thousands of dollars to get his campaign off the ground; astro-turf, not grass roots.

40% of contributions from large individual donations vs Romney's 90% from large donations and Perry's exclusive funding from the Oil Corps.


Nim Chimpsky said:
I dislike Obama for the same reason as I dislike Cain. In fact, Obama's funding from mega corporations is on a far larger scale than Cain's.

Indeed.
November 14, 2011 10:43:28 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
I'm sure there is left wing US attorney just salivating over the prospect of bringing charges. Oh wait......

Can't bring charges if no law is broken. ehhhhh, thank you for playing.

I think you're missing the point: Cain is an insider. Having established that, I won't be supporting him.

You've moved from "Cain is an outsider" to "I don't care if he's an insider, I like his connections to business interests," to "No laws were broken!"
November 14, 2011 11:25:49 PM

Nim Chimpsky said:
I think you're missing the point: Cain is an insider. Having established that, I won't be supporting him.
I think the only person here that you've convinced that Cain is not an outsider is yourself. If not Cain, who do you think is an outsider?

And, if not Cain, then who's topping your list? Who's gonna get the Chimpsky stamp of approval?

Just so you know this is not a loaded question, I will not be supporting Cain either, but not for the same reasons as you, I am genuinely interested in hearing who you would support.
!