The case for tax reform

[Rocknwolf]

When guys like this make more in compensation than their companies pay in federal tax, it should obvious to even the most dense of the anti-tax crowd, that tax avoidance is costing them more in their own tax bill. Forget all of the statistical crap from fat Limbaugh and Fakes news about who is paying taxes. The facts are the facts, and corporate America is simply tax shifting. By the way to put the eternal lie about the highest corporate tax rate in the world to rest, check the tax rates in other countries, and I mean the the TOTAL business tax. it ain't so bad here. The real reason corporations like China, etc. is the lower wages, and no benefits.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62385.html

 

[Man For All Seasons]

Sad to see you're still trading facts for delusions! You don't have a clue. LOL!

 

[jasmin]

You must realize that the vast majority of discussion is around simple income tax on two income professional families, high individual income earners, and small businesses who file an individual return, right? This is what rallies the cries of class warfare. The discussions have not focused on corporate taxes at all. You fools voted in obama, applauding his plans to tax successful individuals and professional couples.

Your article is very flawed because it cites individual incomes with no report of what taxes they paid on this income. Payment by a business to an individual in salary, benefits, and perks is an expense so all this says is these companies had high expenses. Now, is it necessary to pay a CEO that much? That is an entirely different discussion but frankly, none of the fed's business and should be managed by consumers and company boards.

Trying to relate individual salaries a company pays to the company tax level is a ridiculous premise.

 

[Bubble Burster]

You must realize that the vast majority of discussion is around simple income tax on two income professional families, high individual income earners, and small businesses who file an individual return, right? This is what rallies the cries of class warfare. The discussions have not focused on corporate taxes at all. You fools voted in obama, applauding his plans to tax successful individuals and professional couples.

Your article is very flawed because it cites individual incomes with no report of what taxes they paid on this income. Payment by a business to an individual in salary, benefits, and perks is an expense so all this says is these companies had high expenses. Now, is it necessary to pay a CEO that much? That is an entirely different discussion but frankly, none of the fed's business and should be managed by consumers and company boards.

Trying to relate individual salaries a company pays to the company tax level is a ridiculous premise.

Bill Gates has a net worth of $50 Billion. He employs over 100,000 people. He gives away most of what he makes. How much ssalary should he receive?

 

[jasmin]

Bill Gates has a net worth of $50 Billion. He employs over 100,000 people. He gives away most of what he makes. How much ssalary should he receive?

As much as his company and the board chooses to pay him.

 

[I Love America]

When guys like this make more in compensation than their companies pay in federal tax, it should obvious to even the most dense of the anti-tax crowd, that tax avoidance is costing them more in their own tax bill. Forget all of the statistical crap from fat Limbaugh and Fakes news about who is paying taxes. The facts are the facts, and corporate America is simply tax shifting. By the way to put the eternal lie about the highest corporate tax rate in the world to rest, check the tax rates in other countries, and I mean the the TOTAL business tax. it ain't so bad here. The real reason corporations like China, etc. is the lower wages, and no benefits.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62385.html

When the government wants to discuss actually raising revenues instead of social engineering, then come talk to me.

I am all for tax reform and here is how I would do it.

1. I would eliminate taxes on corporations, capital gains and dividends. It would encourage investment and create jobs.
2. I would eliminate the IRS and 100% of all income taxes and have a 15% across the board national sales tax exempting food, clothes and housing.

If you were interested in actually raising revenues then you wouldn't think they way you think. Everyone knows that lowering taxes brings in more revenue by growing the economy and broadening the tax base. The only people who don't believe that are statists.

As long as you wish to use the tax code for your social justice/social engineering policies you will have people trying to avoid it.

With a national sales tax there is nothing to avoid. Not even for Warren Buffett. He will have no incentive to avoid taxes, but he will have incentives to create and make more money which will grow the economy which will leade to more sales tax revenue. It is actually all very simple.

BTW, Alibi Ike Obama had two years with an all democrat congress to fulfill your liberal orgy fantasies of higher taxes and didn't do it. When faced with letting the Bush tax cuts expire, he folded like a deck of cards in Tropical Storm Irene

 

[Rocknwolf]

You must realize that the vast majority of discussion is around simple income tax on two income professional families, high individual income earners, and small businesses who file an individual return, right? This is what rallies the cries of class warfare. The discussions have not focused on corporate taxes at all. You fools voted in obama, applauding his plans to tax successful individuals and professional couples.

Your article is very flawed because it cites individual incomes with no report of what taxes they paid on this income. Payment by a business to an individual in salary, benefits, and perks is an expense so all this says is these companies had high expenses. Now, is it necessary to pay a CEO that much? That is an entirely different discussion but frankly, none of the fed's business and should be managed by consumers and company boards.

Trying to relate individual salaries a company pays to the company tax level is a ridiculous premise.

Just curious, the majority of the talking heads on the business channels are bitching about the high marginal corporate tax rate, even though no company pays that rate. The effective rate is 20-24% according to Reuters.
Now for the individual tax rate, I haven't heard what the rate would be, but if it went back the Clinton era rates, no one would be that severely impacted.
If te AGI was $260k, and the top rate was 40% (a 5% increase), then the additional tax on 10K is $500. Very few in that tax bracket would be heading to the "poorhouse", while the additional funds could be used to pay down the debt, or the interest, or anyone of the things tat conservatrds like to bitch about. Just so it isn't used for another imperialistic war.

 

[jasmin]

Just curious, the majority of the talking heads on the business channels are bitching about the high marginal corporate tax rate, even though no company pays that rate. The effective rate is 20-24% according to Reuters.
Now for the individual tax rate, I haven't heard what the rate would be, but if it went back the Clinton era rates, no one would be that severely impacted.
If te AGI was $260k, and the top rate was 40% (a 5% increase), then the additional tax on 10K is $500. Very few in that tax bracket would be heading to the "poorhouse", while the additional funds could be used to pay down the debt, or the interest, or anyone of the things tat conservatrds like to bitch about. Just so it isn't used for another imperialistic war.

An additional 5% on $260,000 is 13,000 a year. That almost pays my mortgage for the year, almost the cost of an in-state tuition. However, as I've said many times, I would actually support this, if and only if there were real tax cuts implemented. The government cannot keep living off the backs of those earning their way, the only ones paying their fair share of taxes, and the only ones paying in to SS what they hope to take out. You don't keep giving more money or supporting an addicted relative.

 

[Rocknwolf]

An additional 5% on $260,000 is 13,000 a year. That almost pays my mortgage for the year, almost the cost of an in-state tuition. However, as I've said many times, I would actually support this, if and only if there were real tax cuts implemented. The government cannot keep living off the backs of those earning their way, the only ones paying their fair share of taxes, and the only ones paying in to SS what they hope to take out. You don't keep giving more money or supporting an addicted relative.

Well, there is your problem, much the same with the misinformers on the right. You would not be paying 5% on the entire $260K, there would be a new bracket, like it was under Clinton, and similar to the brackets in place now. The misinformation is astounding and the people who buy into the misinformation are amazing ignorant of the tax code and how it works.

 

[Bubble Burster]

Amazing how the Left Wing Knee-Jerk whack jobs seem to know so much about what a tax reform law would look like when it hasn't been written yet.

 

[jasmin]

Well, there is your problem, much the same with the misinformers on the right. You would not be paying 5% on the entire $260K, there would be a new bracket, like it was under Clinton, and similar to the brackets in place now. The misinformation is astounding and the people who buy into the misinformation are amazing ignorant of the tax code and how it works.

I suspect I understand it far better than you. You try to make it more simple than the code is. Do you understand that the same income level faces additional Medicare payments of 0.9% for obamacare? This same group will pay an additional 3.8% for investment earnings. Do you understand the impact of the AMT? Do you know the limitations on deductions faced when AGI is over $150,000?

Your additional $500 claim is wrong. Take a look at this
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
Put in your example's income of $260,000 and calculate the tax for:

The year 2000 = Tax bracket is 36%, % of income to IRS = 31%, total tax $81,651
The year 2011 = Tax bracket is 33%, % of income to IRS = 27%, total tax $70,697

A tax bracket difference of only 3%, % of income difference to IRS 4%, and total tax difference $10,954. This does not include additional differences from limitations to deductions nor the AMT due. It does not include the additional payroll taxes hidden by obamacare. This is a little more than your $500 claim. I think the misinformers are squarly on the left.

 

[Breakingnews]

Amazing how the Left Wing Knee-Jerk whack jobs seem to know so much about what a tax reform law would look like when it hasn't been written yet.

It is amazing that you can dress yourself in the morning.

 

[Rocknwolf]

I suspect I understand it far better than you. You try to make it more simple than the code is. Do you understand that the same income level faces additional Medicare payments of 0.9% for obamacare? This same group will pay an additional 3.8% for investment earnings. Do you understand the impact of the AMT? Do you know the limitations on deductions faced when AGI is over $150,000?

Your additional $500 claim is wrong. Take a look at this
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
Put in your example's income of $260,000 and calculate the tax for:

The year 2000 = Tax bracket is 36%, % of income to IRS = 31%, total tax $81,651
The year 2011 = Tax bracket is 33%, % of income to IRS = 27%, total tax $70,697

A tax bracket difference of only 3%, % of income difference to IRS 4%, and total tax difference $10,954. This does not include additional differences from limitations to deductions nor the AMT due. It does not include the additional payroll taxes hidden by obamacare. This is a little more than your $500 claim. I think the misinformers are squarly on the left.

I did overlook the AMT, and did simplify the effect of a tax increase, small as it may be. That said, as a fiscal conservative, you should be outraged at the AMT, how it was implemented and how it has evolved.
Your icon the fiscal idiot Raygun, started this, had his minion wrote the legislation to make sure that people like you have to pay some tax. Of course conservards always brag that the idiot Raygun lowered taxes, I guess he missed you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Minimum_Tax

 

[jasmin]

I did overlook the AMT, and did simplify the effect of a tax increase, small as it may be. That said, as a fiscal conservative, you should be outraged at the AMT, how it was implemented and how it has evolved.
Your icon the fiscal idiot Raygun, started this, had his minion wrote the legislation to make sure that people like you have to pay some tax. Of course conservards always brag that the idiot Raygun lowered taxes, I guess he missed you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Minimum_Tax

The origins of the AMT date back to the Vietnam war era where voters were more outraged about 'those rich people hiding income' (fewer than 200 high income households) than they were about the war. Our ability to exclude income today is far different than in 1969. (BTW< people like me would have to pay tax anyway - it's mostly W2 income, a modest home, and lots of college bills. We don't participate in anything that could be considered a tax shelter except our 401Ks.) Reagan actually made some good changes so that it met the original goal of taxing income sheltered from the basic tax code. However, the AMT has not been substantially updated since that time and many, many of us that do nothing but earn a good salary are stuck with a higher percentage of our income taken. Today, the AMT impacts many two income professional couples and obama's pledge to slam this same group is a double tax.

The Tax Policy Center (a research group) estimated that if the AMT had been indexed to inflation in 1985, and if the Bush tax cuts had not gone into effect, only 300,000 taxpayers—instead of their projected 27 million—would be subject to the tax in 2010

As the AMT has expanded, the inequalities created by the structure of the tax have become more apparent. Taxpayers are not allowed to deduct state and local taxes in calculating their AMT liability; as a result, taxpayers who live in states with high income tax rates are up to 7 times more likely to pay the AMT than those who live in states with lower income tax taxes.[55] Similarly, taxpayers are not allowed to deduct personal exemptions in calculating their AMT liability; as a result, taxpayers with large families—and specifically families with 3 or more children—are more likely to pay the AMT than smaller families.

 

[jasmin]

This thread highlights the illusion perpetuated by obama, that the 'rich' should pay more in taxes. We'll hear more of this in his speechifying this week, I'm sure. Many like Rock think, hey what's the big deal and far underestimate the costs. No, $500 is not even close to the real figure of well over $10,000.

 

[I Love America]

The origins of the AMT date back to the Vietnam war era where voters were more outraged about 'those rich people hiding income' (fewer than 200 high income households) than they were about the war. Our ability to exclude income today is far different than in 1969. (BTW< people like me would have to pay tax anyway - it's mostly W2 income, a modest home, and lots of college bills. We don't participate in anything that could be considered a tax shelter except our 401Ks.) Reagan actually made some good changes so that it met the original goal of taxing income sheltered from the basic tax code. However, the AMT has not been substantially updated since that time and many, many of us that do nothing but earn a good salary are stuck with a higher percentage of our income taken. Today, the AMT impacts many two income professional couples and obama's pledge to slam this same group is a double tax.

The Tax Policy Center (a research group) estimated that if the AMT had
been indexed to inflation in 1985, and if the Bush tax cuts had not gone into effect, only 300,000 taxpayers—instead of their projected 27 million—would be subject to the tax in 2010


As the AMT has expanded, the inequalities created by the structure of
the tax have become more apparent. Taxpayers are not allowed to deduct state and local taxes in calculating their AMT liability; as a result, taxpayers who live in states with high income tax rates are up to 7 times more likely to pay the AMT than those who live in states with lower income tax taxes.[55]
Similarly, taxpayers are not allowed to deduct personal exemptions in calculating their AMT liability; as a result, taxpayers with large families—and specifically families with 3 or more children—are more likely to pay the AMT
than smaller families.

The AMT is why my wife quit her job. Now who is hurt by that? Us? Not a chance. Just less revenue for Alibi Ike and his welfare cronies.

We are tired of being slave labor for Odummy to buy votes