Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

An idea on taxes and tax breaks!

Last response: in News & Leisure
Share

Do you think this is a good idea or no?

Total: 0 vote

  • yes
  • 0 %
  • no
  • 0 %
  • close but not quite
  • 0 %
July 9, 2011 12:30:18 AM

So let me know if you think this is a good idea.

Democrats think we should raise taxes on big corporations to raise more money towards the budget, and this would of coarse raise more money.

Republicans say you have to give those big corporations tax cuts so they can use the money to hire more workers thus helping the economy, BUT there is no guarantee they spend that money on new workers.

Soooo here is my idea...

Give them the tax cut but link it to jobs as such.

Say the tax rate is 30% and company x has 1000 workers. At that point you make any tax cuts proportional to the percentage of workers in the US. So if 60% of those workers are in India or China no tax cuts sorry. AS that percentage gets closer to 100% the tax cuts get higher. Possibly even giving close to 100% tax cuts if 100% of your work force is in the US. That would make it very hard for company's to out source the jobs. Otherwise any tax cuts give no guarantee of more jobs but a 100% guarantee of lost tax revenue.

More about : idea taxes tax breaks

July 9, 2011 12:35:34 AM

I dont know why its closed how do I put a date in so that its no i tryed putting in 08 31 2011 12 00 and 31 08 2011 12 00
July 9, 2011 8:13:50 PM

cburke82 said:
So let me know if you think this is a good idea.

Democrats think we should raise taxes on big corporations to raise more money towards the budget, and this would of coarse raise more money.

Republicans say you have to give those big corporations tax cuts so they can use the money to hire more workers thus helping the economy, BUT there is no guarantee they spend that money on new workers.

Soooo here is my idea...

Give them the tax cut but link it to jobs as such.

Say the tax rate is 30% and company x has 1000 workers. At that point you make any tax cuts proportional to the percentage of workers in the US. So if 60% of those workers are in India or China no tax cuts sorry. AS that percentage gets closer to 100% the tax cuts get higher. Possibly even giving close to 100% tax cuts if 100% of your work force is in the US. That would make it very hard for company's to out source the jobs. Otherwise any tax cuts give no guarantee of more jobs but a 100% guarantee of lost tax revenue.



Corporations paying taxes is a lie. People who run business, from mom and pop stores to Wal-Mart, consider taxes a cost of doing business and the cost is passed on to the consumer. So to all those that think we should "sock it the big guys" you are ultimately taxing yourself and the "poor, minorities, women and children hit hardest" scenario.

Business owners can not hire someone to fill a position that does not exist. There has to be a demand for that job first.

example: "damn it martha, these phone calls every 2 minutes are driving me crazy, hire somebody to handle this will ya?" Sure earl, i can hire cathy down the road, she needs a job."

Job created.

scenario 2: "damn it martha, these phone calls every 2 minutes are driving me crazy, hire somebody to handle this will ya?" Sure earl, i can hire cathy down the road, she needs a job. No, no we cant do that. We owe the IRS $14,000 this year. I don't think we can afford to hire her. Maybe next year it will be better?"
Related resources
July 10, 2011 8:38:16 AM

Corporations that are huge owe no alliegance to any particular country ... hence the problem is not addressed.

They will just move their operations elswhere.

Your idea will work for small business.

I agree supporting small business is a big part of your recovery ... but in order to do it you need to reenergise your car manufacturers and building companies.

Multinational companies are harder to control for any particular government ... they will move according to wherever they can get their labour cheapest ... even the tech companies.




July 10, 2011 10:44:48 AM

I like the idea, but I'm afraid it may just turn out to be a money making machine for corporations: they can hire lots of people to sit around and do nothing all day for minimum wage if the tax cut is higher than say $15.000. The basic problem with tax cuts for the rich/corporations is that these f*ckers rake in so much money compared to the average American that even the smallest tax cut can only be offset by hiring massive amounts of people, which is unlikely because 1) corporations and the rich already have enough money to invest in job creation if they felt it was necessary and 2) they can get the job done far cheaper in third world countries with which the US (or any other developed nation) simply cannot compete when it comes to wages or taxes for the simple reason that that would leave people with just about enough spending power to buy half a loaf of bread each day, that they can then crap out over the green, slimy, toxic stream (they also have to drink from and wash their clothes in) that runs behind their shacks made out of pallets and corrugated iron, you know, the way the average Indian worker lives and just how corporations like it.

The tax cut, in exchange for job creation, might work for small businesses though, as long as the tax cut is less than minimum wage.
July 10, 2011 10:48:11 AM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Business owners can not hire someone to fill a position that does not exist. There has to be a demand for that job first.

example: "damn it martha, these phone calls every 2 minutes are driving me crazy, hire somebody to handle this will ya?" Sure earl, i can hire cathy down the road, she needs a job."

Job created.

scenario 2: "damn it martha, these phone calls every 2 minutes are driving me crazy, hire somebody to handle this will ya?" Sure earl, i can hire cathy down the road, she needs a job. No, no we cant do that. We owe the IRS $14,000 this year. I don't think we can afford to hire her. Maybe next year it will be better?"


The problem being what exactly...? If a business is not planning on hiring people then why should they be given a tax cut whose only justification is the possibility of job creation?
July 10, 2011 2:07:23 PM

Tax decrease based on number of workers, means helping the big corporations to kill smaller ones, making allready not easy life of the small businesses even harder, creating even bigger monopolys etc. etc.
July 10, 2011 4:17:03 PM

Gulli said:
The problem being what exactly...? If a business is not planning on hiring people then why should they be given a tax cut whose only justification is the possibility of job creation?



Exactly. It's called entrepreneurship. Something you clearly do not understand. When business's, especially small business in the US, get to keep more of their profits, the good one's, my own father being an example, take care of their people. This is how you become successful; by attracting the best talent. Good business owners know this instinctively and they are the prosperous ones along with their employees.

Small business accounts for over 80% of jobs and job creation in the US Gulli. So yeah, a break for them would be nice because it would only be helping a vast majority of the American people, people with families to care for.

"Them" after all is us. Businesses, corporations, et al, are not some isolated entity. They are made up of people. Maybe 2 people or 20,000.

This adversarial mindset you have against any sort of business or business owners, as if they are all pure evil is disturbing to say the least. You have certainly been most properly indoctrinated into the socialistic mindset.
July 10, 2011 6:41:57 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Exactly. It's called entrepreneurship. Something you clearly do not understand. When business's, especially small business in the US, get to keep more of their profits, the good one's, my own father being an example, take care of their people. This is how you become successful; by attracting the best talent. Good business owners know this instinctively and they are the prosperous ones along with their employees.

Small business accounts for over 80% of jobs and job creation in the US Gulli. So yeah, a break for them would be nice because it would only be helping a vast majority of the American people, people with families to care for.

"Them" after all is us. Businesses, corporations, et al, are not some isolated entity. They are made up of people. Maybe 2 people or 20,000.

This adversarial mindset you have against any sort of business or business owners, as if they are all pure evil is disturbing to say the least. You have certainly been most properly indoctrinated into the socialistic mindset.


What an eloquent way of telling me you only pretend to favor tax cuts because of potential job creation while actually you want them handed out regardless of how many jobs they'll create (you just want to get rid of taxes and use the trickle down argument as an excuse you don't really believe in). And, please, no more "corporations" have it so difficult, because they don't, maybe some small businesses do but they get the tax cut for people earning under $250.000 already.
July 11, 2011 4:12:30 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Corporations paying taxes is a lie. People who run business, from mom and pop stores to Wal-Mart, consider taxes a cost of doing business and the cost is passed on to the consumer. So to all those that think we should "sock it the big guys" you are ultimately taxing yourself and the "poor, minorities, women and children hit hardest" scenario.

Business owners can not hire someone to fill a position that does not exist. There has to be a demand for that job first.

example: "damn it martha, these phone calls every 2 minutes are driving me crazy, hire somebody to handle this will ya?" Sure earl, i can hire cathy down the road, she needs a job."

Job created.

scenario 2: "damn it martha, these phone calls every 2 minutes are driving me crazy, hire somebody to handle this will ya?" Sure earl, i can hire cathy down the road, she needs a job. No, no we cant do that. We owe the IRS $14,000 this year. I don't think we can afford to hire her. Maybe next year it will be better?"

The problem is when you give them that $14000 tax cut and they do this:

"Martha we dont owe taxes this year should we use this extra $14000 to hire a part time worker?"

"Sure I here you can hire someone in India or China for $2000 a year! That means we can put a down payment on a boat!"

Ill admit in a smaller mom and pop business that would be less likely, but with big business like Microsoft and other thats what happens. The problem is we give them tax cuts and they get to spend that extra money as they see fit. They may create some jobs they may not and at least recently they dont. So I say let them pay no taxes but make them keep the jobs here. Otherwise there is no incentive for them to not hire cheap labor in another country. Americans will never work for $2 per hour and rightly so, but you also cant blame a company for saving money. Thats when someone has to step in and say "if you want the tax cuts use them for what they are meant for"

I used to sell Hyundai's, you know what they do in Korea... Any car not made in Korea gets a 30% tax. So lets say Hyundai they make the accents in Korea and can sell them for $11000 and the Chevy Aveo is made in America and normaly sold for $10000. Well that cheap Aveo will now cost $13300. Do you know how many people drive cars not made in Korea, not many because its not worth it.

July 11, 2011 4:19:25 PM

Reynod said:
Corporations that are huge owe no alliegance to any particular country ... hence the problem is not addressed.

They will just move their operations elswhere.

Your idea will work for small business.

I agree supporting small business is a big part of your recovery ... but in order to do it you need to reenergise your car manufacturers and building companies.

Multinational companies are harder to control for any particular government ... they will move according to wherever they can get their labour cheapest ... even the tech companies.

I think my idea employed with some tarrifs would work. I dont get paid to work on this stuff but there has to be a formula to make it work. Basicly you just have to make it as attractive to stay here and hire local labor as it would be to move else were and or hire cheap borderline slave labor. But the current system has us charging the big guys close to nothing when its all said and done, and they dont hire here because why should they when they can get the same work done at a fraction of the cost? American workers simply cant live on $2 an hour wile in India and China they can.
July 11, 2011 4:52:58 PM

cburke82 said:
The problem is when you give them that $14000 tax cut and they do this:

"Martha we dont owe taxes this year should we use this extra $14000 to hire a part time worker?"

"Sure I here you can hire someone in India or China for $2000 a year! That means we can put a down payment on a boat!"

Ill admit in a smaller mom and pop business that would be less likely, but with big business like Microsoft and other thats what happens. The problem is we give them tax cuts and they get to spend that extra money as they see fit. They may create some jobs they may not and at least recently they dont. So I say let them pay no taxes but make them keep the jobs here. Otherwise there is no incentive for them to not hire cheap labor in another country. Americans will never work for $2 per hour and rightly so, but you also cant blame a company for saving money. Thats when someone has to step in and say "if you want the tax cuts use them for what they are meant for"

I used to sell Hyundai's, you know what they do in Korea... Any car not made in Korea gets a 30% tax. So lets say Hyundai they make the accents in Korea and can sell them for $11000 and the Chevy Aveo is made in America and normaly sold for $10000. Well that cheap Aveo will now cost $13300. Do you know how many people drive cars not made in Korea, not many because its not worth it.



That is most certainly the exception rather than the rule.

In addition, it is no ones effing business what someone does with their own money.

I know, it's a strange concept with some people these days. Yes, yes you actually get to keep and spend your own money. I know, crazy right?
July 11, 2011 5:12:15 PM

I think that the ideal of entrepreneurship is a lot like democracy, on paper it looks great.

But what about privately owned prisons? Isnt it in their best interest to have a fully occupied facility? And since they now have a voice in elections they can make that happen.

Or Monsanto, the largest chemical provider in the world. They sell chemicals that cause all sorts of defects but hide under intense litigation and the courts.

The point is all companies large and small try to make money, thats the whole point. They dont care about their workers (Nike,Disney, et al)

So how does it make sense to give them more breaks and less oversight? A lot of things these companies do cant be fixed by "The Free Market" and without regulation they will continue to grow and grow until government cant get a reign on them even if they wanted to.
July 11, 2011 5:48:39 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
That is most certainly the exception rather than the rule.

In addition, it is no ones effing business what someone does with their own money.

I know, it's a strange concept with some people these days. Yes, yes you actually get to keep and spend your own money. I know, crazy right?

There is nothing wrong with keeping your own money, I even think that if you pay an income tax you should be tax free on what you do after that ( meaning no taxes on gains from investing because you allready paid tax on that money).

The issue is as follows. House reps will go on capital hill and talk about how we need to cut taxes to the richest .5% of people so that we can create jobs. All I am saying is if that is why you are giving them a tax break then thats great make them use the extra cash on what its intended for. Or else dont give them the tax breaks. I make $12 per hour and had a small job where I was on a 1099. I had made a mistake when doing my taxes and owe an extra $800. They take 25% of my check untill its paid off, im ok with that. But if Im making only $12 per hour and paying my fair share of taxes why the hell does a multi billion dollar company or person for that matter deserve a tax break? They do.....if they are creating jobs.....if they just want to keep more of there money I think not.

Again nothing wrong with doing well for your self and spending that money how you see fit, if bill gates wants to spend his money on midget prostitutes cool with me. If some congressman says we should give bill gates a tax cut to create jobs then im not cool with him buying another house with the money that he got from the tax cut that was only given in order to create jobs thats the difference. I personaly think we should have a flat tax. Whats the point of having a higher tax bracket if you dont really have to pay the higher taxes? So we all pay the same percentage and everybody stops crying.

Its also funny that people who make a salary paid by tax payers that gets them in the top 1% of income in the country get to vote on tax cuts for the top 1% of income lol. HEy guys should be cut our taxes... sure why not wile were at it I have a bill on the way asking to raise our salary as well.....should we find a way to create more jobs?......yeah thats why im cutting all the taxes to make more jobs......does that mean I have to use the savings to hire more workers or something like that.......heck no, but it sounds good to the average joe and we get to go on a few more vacations next year.
July 11, 2011 6:00:42 PM

wanamingo said:
I think that the ideal of entrepreneurship is a lot like democracy, on paper it looks great.

But what about privately owned prisons? Isnt it in their best interest to have a fully occupied facility? And since they now have a voice in elections they can make that happen.

Or Monsanto, the largest chemical provider in the world. They sell chemicals that cause all sorts of defects but hide under intense litigation and the courts.

The point is all companies large and small try to make money, thats the whole point. They dont care about their workers (Nike,Disney, et al)

So how does it make sense to give them more breaks and less oversight? A lot of things these companies do cant be fixed by "The Free Market" and without regulation they will continue to grow and grow until government cant get a reign on them even if they wanted to.

I watched a thing about privately owned prisons it was crazy. Some judge got in trouble and aressted for taking kick backs. He was giving kids from say 13-17 one year sentences for things that normally dont get any jail time. So they had these kids who ended up spending a year in the system for things like getting in an argument with there parents ( im serious they had one on there) The neighbors call the cops because they here an argument the cops show up and say the kid is being unruly and give him a court date and the judge gave him a year. Glad they arested him but thats still crazy.
July 11, 2011 6:09:33 PM

wanamingo said:
I think that the ideal of entrepreneurship is a lot like democracy, on paper it looks great.

But what about privately owned prisons? Isnt it in their best interest to have a fully occupied facility? And since they now have a voice in elections they can make that happen.

Or Monsanto, the largest chemical provider in the world. They sell chemicals that cause all sorts of defects but hide under intense litigation and the courts.

The point is all companies large and small try to make money, thats the whole point. They dont care about their workers (Nike,Disney, et al)

So how does it make sense to give them more breaks and less oversight? A lot of things these companies do cant be fixed by "The Free Market" and without regulation they will continue to grow and grow until government cant get a reign on them even if they wanted to.



It is government "oversight" that makes what Monsanto does legal. It is government "oversight" that allows GE to not have to pay taxes on $5 billion in profits. People say "get rid of the loopholes!". That's fine except the so called "loophole" is actually the law. Tax law. So if it's the law, is it still a loophole? The same people that write the laws, go on camera and tell us there needs to be more oversight, more regulation etc. when they are the ones that wrote the laws that allowed the bad, evil corporation to behave like that in the first place! It is classic bait and switch. Create the problem, then claim you are the only one with the solution if only you had more power.

This is the problem when you call for more regulation and oversight. The ones doing the overseeing are not working in the best interest of what is right, but what is right for their wallets and reigns of power.
July 11, 2011 6:15:33 PM

cburke82 said:
There is nothing wrong with keeping your own money, I even think that if you pay an income tax you should be tax free on what you do after that ( meaning no taxes on gains from investing because you allready paid tax on that money).

The issue is as follows. House reps will go on capital hill and talk about how we need to cut taxes to the richest .5% of people so that we can create jobs. All I am saying is if that is why you are giving them a tax break then thats great make them use the extra cash on what its intended for. Or else dont give them the tax breaks. I make $12 per hour and had a small job where I was on a 1099. I had made a mistake when doing my taxes and owe an extra $800. They take 25% of my check untill its paid off, im ok with that. But if Im making only $12 per hour and paying my fair share of taxes why the hell does a multi billion dollar company or person for that matter deserve a tax break? They do.....if they are creating jobs.....if they just want to keep more of there money I think not.

Again nothing wrong with doing well for your self and spending that money how you see fit, if bill gates wants to spend his money on midget prostitutes cool with me. If some congressman says we should give bill gates a tax cut to create jobs then im not cool with him buying another house with the money that he got from the tax cut that was only given in order to create jobs thats the difference. I personaly think we should have a flat tax. Whats the point of having a higher tax bracket if you dont really have to pay the higher taxes? So we all pay the same percentage and everybody stops crying.

Its also funny that people who make a salary paid by tax payers that gets them in the top 1% of income in the country get to vote on tax cuts for the top 1% of income lol. HEy guys should be cut our taxes... sure why not wile were at it I have a bill on the way asking to raise our salary as well.....should we find a way to create more jobs?......yeah thats why im cutting all the taxes to make more jobs......does that mean I have to use the savings to hire more workers or something like that.......heck no, but it sounds good to the average joe and we get to go on a few more vacations next year.


I cant disagree with much of what you point out except for a couple things.

Small business accounts for most jobs and job creation to the tune of 80%+ in the US. So breaks are really helping the little guy here and the vast majority of the American people. The Microsofts of the world are the exception rather than the rule as far as business goes in this country. Sure, large corporations are more visible, but are by no means the majority.

You are getting screwed on paying your back taxes. You should have dealt with the IRS directly and set up a payment plan. I once owed over $1500. I talked to an IRS consultant and worked out a payment plan of $38/month plus interest. The IRS dude was fine with that. It took a while to payoff, but I could still live at least.
July 11, 2011 7:02:04 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
I cant disagree with much of what you point out except for a couple things.

Small business accounts for most jobs and job creation to the tune of 80%+ in the US. So breaks are really helping the little guy here and the vast majority of the American people. The Microsofts of the world are the exception rather than the rule as far as business goes in this country. Sure, large corporations are more visible, but are by no means the majority.

You are getting screwed on paying your back taxes. You should have dealt with the IRS directly and set up a payment plan. I once owed over $1500. I talked to an IRS consultant and worked out a payment plan of $38/month plus interest. The IRS dude was fine with that. It took a while to payoff, but I could still live at least.

Im getting it taken down to 5% :)  so yeah the IRS are more reasonable than some think I guess I was just trying to say if I have to pay taxes so should they lol. Also you can be a self employed person and be a corp. So there are ways to work around taxes if you have the money to do so, as in hiring lawyers to make sure your cool and accountants to scour the earth for any possible tax break lol. I know this because one of my old bosses prob made more than a mill every year and as a percentage paid much less taxes than I do or did. However that was fine by me as he was employing about 30 people. I think the people should have to vote for any raise to congress or any politician, we all pay a flat tax something like 15% and I mean everybody. The tax code would be like 2 pages max lol. Not some book 45 times the size of the bible lol.
July 11, 2011 7:13:47 PM

^^ I hear that. I prefer a flat tax as well or a sales tax, even better. The reason it will never happen is becuase the tax code as currently constituted is the largest hammer of power the government has to control social engineering.

They can punish their enemies (Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck get audited every single year by the Feds), they can reward their friends (GE paid no tax on $5 billion in profits).

So you see, it's more about power and control than raising revenue and fairness.
July 11, 2011 7:24:10 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
^^ I hear that. I prefer a flat tax as well or a sales tax, even better. The reason it will never happen is becuase the tax code as currently constituted is the largest hammer of power the government has to control social engineering.

They can punish their enemies (Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck get audited every single year by the Feds), they can reward their friends (GE paid no tax on $5 billion in profits).

So you see, it's more about power and control than raising revenue and fairness.

All I know is the gap between the poor and rich is growing every year. This recession made a lot of people rich. When the gap gets to big the French can tell everybody what happens lol. I love my country but there are some very big problems and I know "we can vote". But what happens when both options are just as bad for different reasons?
July 20, 2011 8:19:39 PM

what about a flat tax? Let us say everyone pays 20% on income? That means the guy who makes 20,000 pays as much as the guy who makes 20,000,000.
July 20, 2011 8:33:10 PM

dogman_1234 said:
what about a flat tax? Let us say everyone pays 20% on income? That means the guy who makes 20,000 pays as much as the guy who makes 20,000,000.

That works as well as far as it being a fair tax. But it does not bring job back to the US from China and India. So you could have a flat tax and then only give companies with 100% of there labor a tax break and combine that with some form of tariff to make move your business out of the country less attractive. Anything along these lines is better than giving a company a huge tax break HOPING that the money gets used for extra jobs when it usually does not.
July 20, 2011 9:37:51 PM

So, if we do not give them tax breaks they go to China? If we give them tax breaks they go to China?
July 20, 2011 10:13:11 PM

dogman_1234 said:
So, if we do not give them tax breaks they go to China? If we give them tax breaks they go to China?

Right now the bigger companies that have alot of production type jobs that they are shipping over seas are doing so because the labor is cheap. Well Americans are never going to work for $2 per hour so we cant solve that problem that way. A lot of people in the government believe that giving big companies tax breaks will better the economy because they will have more money to hire more workers. The problem is that wile they will in fact have a lot more available cash because f those tax breaks there is really no reason for them to use that money to bring those jobs back to the USA. Lets say Microsoft is going to pay 100,000,000 in taxes and is going to ship all its call senter jobs to India to save 50,000,000 ( obviously these are made up numbers lol ). There are some people in the government think as follows.

Microsoft is shipping those jobs out to save 50,000,000. Why dont we give them a 50,000,000 tax break so they can afford to bring those jobs back to the us.

That makes sense in a way because it at least allows them to think about bringing those jobs back BUT... here is how the big companys think....

Senior Supervisor: We are shiping these jobs over seas to save 50,000,000

Accountant: Sir we just got a 50,000,000 tax break we can afford to bring those jobs back to the USA.

Senior Supervisor: We could do that......or we could just take that extra 50,000,000 and put it in the bank.

So my point for the initial post was that if your going to argue that we need to give the top 1% of Americas richest people/companies a tax break by saying it will create jobs then you had better make sure that it creates jobs and doesnt just end up giving the company execs a raise. If you were to give that same 50,000,000 tax break BUT tie in a stipulation that they would only receive that break if they had 100% or 90% or whatever % of there workforce in the USA then the conversation would look more like this...

Senior Supervisor: We are shiping these jobs over seas to save 50,000,000

Accountant: Sir we just got a 50,000,000 tax break but we have to keep those jobs in the USA to receive that break.

Senior Supervisor:................... i guess we just keep the jobs here then huh............

See how that works. A flat tax is fair but does not address this problem. Making Microsoft pay 20% would be great for the budget deficit but in the end would prob just mean they would move even more jobs out of the country if not move the whole company to another country. And that would hurt the economy really bad. So I say let them have there tax break but get something back for it :) . Its like when your a kid and you ask for more allowance, your mom or day might agree to that but they will prob be asking you to do some more chores or something. So if your super rich and want a tax break then our government should be saying " We will think about it but what do we get in return?" They prob do say that but the return is millions of dollars in campaign contributions instead of more jobs for the American People :( 
July 20, 2011 10:50:13 PM

If you make more on revenue, you pay more taxes right?
July 20, 2011 11:13:37 PM

dogman_1234 said:
If you make more on revenue, you pay more taxes right?

Thats the idea but current tax law has many loop holes so that it is possible for corporations to pay far less than they should
July 21, 2011 12:29:41 AM

If it is "Law" it is not a "loophole". It is, for lack of a better term, perfectly legal.

i.e. "it's the law"

Address the "lawmakers" not the people obeying the law.
July 21, 2011 4:24:03 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
If it is "Law" it is not a "loophole". It is, for lack of a better term, perfectly legal.

i.e. "it's the law"

Address the "lawmakers" not the people obeying the law.

I agree with you its not the peoples fault. And that was why I thought this idea I had would be good :)  I think if law makers want to give themselves and there friends a tax cut they should at least have the balls to just come out and say it and not try to sell the average joe on the fact that giving the richest 1% of Americans a tax break will make more jobs when in fact it wont. And it wont because giving a tax cut with no stipulations is just giving away money not creating anything. And we are not talking about mom and pop stores we are talking about rich people. They want to keep a bush era tax cut to people who make $250,000 or more per year thats not mom and pop thats rich. If you make that much money and need a tax cut you need to take money management classes not a tax cut.
July 21, 2011 5:56:25 PM

Well, I do agree on the fairness factor of the flat tax.

However I do not agree that allowing people, wealthy or otherwise, to keep their own money is considered "giving it away". That premise would assume that all money belongs to government first, and what people are allowed to keep is through the good graces of politicians. I reject this premise and how casually people these days accept this.

It goes to show the infilitration in our public schools by global socialists and the world view they have inculcated in our young skulls full of mush in this country. (US)

$250,000 a year may seem "rich" to you, but not to someone making $500,000 a year. It's all relative and I don't think someone should be punished for being successful. If 10% is good enough for God it should be good enough for the fragging government.
July 21, 2011 6:22:23 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Well, I do agree on the fairness factor of the flat tax.

However I do not agree that allowing people, wealthy or otherwise, to keep their own money is considered "giving it away". That premise would assume that all money belongs to government first, and what people are allowed to keep is through the good graces of politicians. I reject this premise and how casually people these days accept this.

It goes to show the infilitration in our public schools by global socialists and the world view they have inculcated in our young skulls full of mush in this country. (US)

$250,000 a year may seem "rich" to you, but not to someone making $500,000 a year. It's all relative and I don't think someone should be punished for being successful. If 10% is good enough for God it should be good enough for the fragging government.

I dont disagree but the way the current tax law is written it is possible for someone who is smart or has a good accountant to make $250,000 or more and pay a lower percentage than someone who makes $50,000. And like you said thats not there fault they are playing by the rules. What im saying is that if the current tax bracket says that if you make over $250,000 per year your in the 30% bracket then that also is the law right? So if a group of people in congress want to give those people a tax break to say 28% and say they are doing so to create jobs then that is where I have a problem. Because it wont but saying that it will will gain support for the cut from people that the cut will ever help.
( I dont have exact numbers or want to research them but this should make my point lol )

Your right a 10% flat tax should be workable but I only make $30,000 per year and pay that much so that would mean major tax cuts for almost everybody and that would mean that our government would have to find a way to spend much much less and that wont happen because a lot of politicians are to proud to admit our government spends way to much money. And when they do admit that they never agree on where the cuts should be made. So all im really saying is that if your going to try to cut taxes for one group of people and not others then cut them but dont try toBS people into thinking that the tax cut wll make jobs when it wont. There is a growing gap between the rich and poor and the middle class is going away. Our government is to busy arguing about why this is happening and not doing crap about it, this goes for all parties not just democrats or republicans. The democrats dont want to cut welfare to people who have kids in oder to collect it and the republicans do want to see that we probubly dont need to spend so much money on our military and go off starting wars we dont have any business getting into. And Im guessing that both parties would have an issue with lowering there pay to make room in the budget as well as the lifetime pension they get that our country really cant afford and the endless expenses our country takes on by paying for half f the stuff they do.

So again my Idea was to give them the tax break but get something back in return. Or else like you said just give us all the same rate and be done with it.
July 21, 2011 6:43:36 PM

Cutting taxes stimulates the economy and does create jobs. It works everytime it's tried. There is a plethora of historical evidence to support this going all the way to the founding of the country, and pre-colonial era.

When people have more money they typically spend it. Vacations, new tv, a new car, going out to dinner more often, etc. all of these activities creates jobs.

Example: when we (the US) increased the luxury tax on yachts in the 80's the expectation of the Democrats in congress would be that it would raise all sorts of revenue for the govt. The exact opposite happened. The wealthy just bought their yachts elsewhere, destroying the yacht building business here in this country and heavily stimulated the yacht business in other countries without the luxury tax. Thousands of jobs were loss as a result, as well as a loss in revenue to the govt.

I am truly not trying to be rude, but you need to re-examine your premise you laid out above concerning taxes and how they stimulate or stifle economic activity.
July 21, 2011 6:57:13 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Cutting taxes stimulates the economy and does create jobs. It works everytime it's tried. There is a plethora of historical evidence to support this going all the way to the founding of the country, and pre-colonial era.

When people have more money they typically spend it. Vacations, new tv, a new car, going out to dinner more often, etc. all of these activities creates jobs.

Example: when we (the US) increased the luxury tax on yachts in the 80's the expectation of the Democrats in congress would be that it would raise all sorts of revenue for the govt. The exact opposite happened. The wealthy just bought their yachts elsewhere, destroying the yacht building business here in this country and heavily stimulated the yacht business in other countries without the luxury tax. Thousands of jobs were loss as a result, as well as a loss in revenue to the govt.

I am truly not trying to be rude, but you need to re-examine your premise you laid out above concerning taxes and how they stimulate or stifle economic activity.

Cutting taxes may increase spending, so why not give everybody a tax cut and increase the effect? They are only talking about giving less than 1% of the people in America a tax break. Trickle down economics does not work tax break might. Of coarse if everybody has more money they spend more. but I somehow doubt that .5% of the people having more money will improve anybody's economy but the .5% of people who get a tax cut. And the tax cut in question was made by GW Bush . Before he was in office that cut was not there. So are you telling me that that tax cut kept the economy in good shape so far?
July 21, 2011 7:04:58 PM

dogman_1234 said:
what about a flat tax? Let us say everyone pays 20% on income? That means the guy who makes 20,000 pays as much as the guy who makes 20,000,000.
Check your math...

Percentage wise, they pay the same, but a huge difference in the dollar amount they pay.
July 21, 2011 7:05:36 PM

I'm not sure what you are referring to. No one is talking about any tax cuts right now. In fact it's just the opposite. They are considering a $1 trillion tax increase across the board in the current debt talks.

Also consider that nearly half the country, 49%, doesn't even pay ANY federal income tax. Can't give a tax cut to people who already don't pay any.

Last year, after deductions, my effective tax rate was only around 4.7%. Typically it is around 1.7-2% after deductions. The reason it was that high in 2010 was because I cashed some treasury bonds that I had to pay tax on as earned income.

The GW tax cuts resulted in near full employment, around 4%. Remember Bush inherited a slight recession that was exacerbated by the 9/11 attacks. He also cut taxes across the board, all tax brackets. The idea he only cut taxes for his rich friends is a total myth.
July 21, 2011 7:10:39 PM

chunkymonster said:
Check your math...



I think dog meant to say the same percentage, not the same dollar amount.
July 21, 2011 7:42:08 PM

cburke82 said:
So let me know if you think this is a good idea.
Arguing about what percentage to make a corporate tax is a political diversion from the real issues.

Our bloated and wasteful federal government is an addict and tax dollars are the addiction.



July 21, 2011 8:13:40 PM

chunkymonster said:
Arguing about what percentage to make a corporate tax is a political diversion from the real issues.

Our bloated and wasteful federal government is an addict and tax dollars are the addiction.

So how do we get these crybabies to figure out how to spend there money. Nobody on capital hill can agree on what to cut but they all say there needs to be cuts made. So nothing gets done.
July 21, 2011 8:26:14 PM

cburke82 said:
So how do we get these crybabies to figure out how to spend there money. Nobody on capital hill can agree on what to cut but they all say there needs to be cuts made. So nothing gets done.


Call, write, fax, email your representative and your senators. Encourage others to do the same.

Losing their cushy jobs is all they understand and it motivates them.

In my view, we can do away with a large portion of federal agencies that are redundant and do nothing but soak up tax dollars. We can start with the dept. of education, dept. of energy, dept. of the interior. Each state has their own of these. There is no need to have them at the federal level.

Let me be clear. I am not against government. I am against giant, bloated, inefficient bureaucracies at the federal level. If California wants to run their state that way, thats fine with me, but leave my state the hell alone.

That's the biggest beef I have. They are taking away our ability to vote with our feet by making blanket policies at the federal level.

The vast majority of people in my state did not want Obamacare, yet it was shoved down our throats anyway. That, I have a huge problem with.
July 21, 2011 8:33:47 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
I think dog meant to say the same percentage, not the same dollar amount.


Correct, Percentage. But, even look at it again, it is still fair...just remove all the zeros!
July 21, 2011 9:49:49 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Call, write, fax, email your representative and your senators. Encourage others to do the same.

Losing their cushy jobs is all they understand and it motivates them.

In my view, we can do away with a large portion of federal agencies that are redundant and do nothing but soak up tax dollars. We can start with the dept. of education, dept. of energy, dept. of the interior. Each state has their own of these. There is no need to have them at the federal level.

Let me be clear. I am not against government. I am against giant, bloated, inefficient bureaucracies at the federal level. If California wants to run their state that way, thats fine with me, but leave my state the hell alone.

That's the biggest beef I have. They are taking away our ability to vote with our feet by making blanket policies at the federal level.

The vast majority of people in my state did not want Obamacare, yet it was shoved down our throats anyway. That, I have a huge problem with.

I think that a lot of the stuff that gets past on the federal level should have to be on a ballot somewhere before or after it gets to congress and the senate. For example, why can they vote and pass bills to give them selves a raise. Can I have that setup please? Last time I checked the tax payers pay there paychecks so if anybody is getting a raise shouldn't the taxpayers have to vote for that?

Like you say they dont want to loose there jobs but then again they need all those contributions to run again so they have to make sure they satisfy there biggest supporters and once that is done they can work on what needs to be done if there is any time left. One of the big problems is the fact that a lot of people vote without thinking, so who ever has the more flashy campaign wins.

And even if we do our research there are far to many time when the 2 people up for any position on that ballot are both no good and you just have to pick the one who will screw things up the least. But then the people who might really change things cant get the funding for a flashy campaign so they never get on the ballot and we start the cycle over again.
July 22, 2011 12:20:31 AM

^^ Yes indeed. The circus goes on, and too many are still asleep.

As far as specific things being on the ballot, I disagree. Democracy is what you are referring to and it always leads to mob rule then tyranny and total collapse.

The United States, let me emphasize, The United States (States, plural), is a republic. If people get informed a republic always works. But, when people fall asleep, for whatever reason, then a republic also degrades into tyranny.
July 22, 2011 1:04:29 AM

^ Someone has been reading Roman History? :D 
July 22, 2011 1:58:39 AM

cburke82 said:
So how do we get these crybabies to figure out how to spend there money. Nobody on capital hill can agree on what to cut but they all say there needs to be cuts made. So nothing gets done.
Oldmangamer_73 said:
Call, write, fax, email your representative and your senators. Encourage others to do the same.

Losing their cushy jobs is all they understand and it motivates them.
Exactly! CCB is going up for vote before the Senate on Friday, 7/22, or Saturday, 7/23. So YES! Call, write, email your Senator and tell them to vote for CCB, show some testicular fortitude, do the right thing, and put CCB before Obama!

July 22, 2011 3:36:00 PM

cburke82 said:
For example, why can they vote and pass bills to give them selves a raise.

That's not exactly what is happening. The pay raise is automatic. They have to vote not to take it.

Figure the odds.
July 25, 2011 4:05:20 PM

jsc said:
That's not exactly what is happening. The pay raise is automatic. They have to vote not to take it.

Figure the odds.

Thanks for the correction and.......thats even worse WTF lol. So these retards get an automatic pay raise even if they are driving the country into the ground nice.
September 12, 2011 4:29:26 PM

This topic has been closed by Reynod
!