What makes one tax rate wrong, and another right?

[888888]

I'll tell you what, I am all for it, changing the corp tax rates to zero, and taxing the div's and capitol gains at the higher rate for everyone.

 

[PhilFish]

I understand all of these things.

Two things...

first...whaen Mitt (or others like him) were earning..by working....did they pay tax on income? at what rate?

second...knowing that he has already paid on income...what is the limit of the tax that should be imposed on the residuy (investment income)? looks to me like 15%, presently.

 

[YouCantHandleDaTruth]

Well, if you include the 35% corporate tax rate paid before the dividends and capital gains are paid out...

Again, they NEVER pay that raid that is a stated rate not the EFFECTIVE rate.

It's easy, they shelter the 35% so they do NOT have to pay it.

On the other end there aren't that many shelters a middle class tax payer can have.

 

[Lukey]

The govt has said to every tax payer Phil, that until you make this much income it is not taxed. The reason being that they understand that to do otherwise would only push more people into poverty and onto the rolls of welfare and food stamps.

The problem to me isn't that Mitt has a 15% tax rate but why don't everyone who makes the money that mitt does. Why is income of mitts treated different than income to a person who gets paid for doing the work himself.

Not only that but most of us who are in the middle income area can not afford to invest and get this kind of income that is treated differently than work with your hands. Then those of us that do have savings, its mostly in IRA and 401K's which div's and capitol gains go straight into our accounts and we pay whatever the rate is just as if we created it with our hands, paying the higher rate as we take it out to live on.

To me it's unfair that 15% of our population is entitled to a what amounts to a tax cut that 85% of us have little gain to none from.

They are able to create wealth at a low tax rate and all we can do is use what little wealth we have to live on as we pay a higher rate.

The problem is that one person cam make a million dollars and pay 36% and another can earn a million and pay 15%. The rich have written the tax code to help the rich, and that is the rest of the story.

The reason for that is it is a second tax on corporate income. The corporation pays 35% on its income, and then it pays out dividends and capital gains and that's taxed at 15%. That's a total of 50% paid on corporate earnings. How much MORE than HALF of their income should people have to pay?

 

[PhilFish]

why would you want corp rates at 0?

 

[mark14]

I got it. I wrote "What is right or wrong is a moral issue and you might look to your sense of humanity or religion, if you have one" referring to religion and you replied,

by what pretense do you call my morality into question?

So now I don't know if you were just trying to be funny or suffering from constipation.

 

[Lukey]

Again, they NEVER pay that raid that is a stated rate not the EFFECTIVE rate.

It's easy, they shelter the 35% so they do NOT have to pay it.

On the other end there aren't that many shelters a middle class tax payer can have.

You mean like the "foreign tax paid" tax "shelter" like I outlined above re: ExxonMobile?

 

[YouCantHandleDaTruth]

You mean like the "foreign tax paid" tax "shelter" like I outlined above re: ExxonMobile?

No

...and how in the hell is NOT paying any taxes to US while keeping all the profits here a plus to the conservative argument!??!?!?!?

You guys hate America's workers so much

 

[888888]

I understand all of these things.

Two things...

first...whaen Mitt (or others like him) were earning..by working....did they pay tax on income? at what rate?

second...knowing that he has already paid on income...what is the limit of the tax that should be imposed on the residuy (investment income)? looks to me like 15%, presently.

Well since Mitt most likely got most of his income in the things like div's and capitol gains back when he was earing his living, because he was paid in stock options like most Ceo's and top exc's, where he was given stock and also able to purchase stock at pennies on the dollar, it was not him that paid the tax but the excess profit on the stock price vs what he bought it for or was given for free did it.

Not to mention much of his wealth was given to him, so he started off making money the old fashion way.

 

[Lukey]

No

...and how in the hell is NOT paying any taxes to US while keeping all the profits here a plus to the conservative argument!??!?!?!?

You guys hate America's workers so much

How is taxing all the profits away from these multinationals that pay taxes overseas (and then would have to pay again here under leftist rules) going to grow the economy and create jobs here in America? Oh, right, that's not the goal of the left!

 

[YouCantHandleDaTruth]

How is taxing all the profits away from these multinationals that pay taxes overseas (and then would have to pay again here under leftist rules) going to grow the economy and create jobs here in America? ...

Lets try it and see, the conservative method of "trickle down" sure in the hell isn't working worth a damn

4 presidents in my voting lifetime, 2 conservative and 2 liberal....under the 2 liberal presidents jobs grew....under the to conservative president jobs did NOT grow....that's my reality

Thx

 

[anti.reptile]

I love it when people like Bill Gates are ignored and credit handed to whom ever happens to be president during a boom.

 

[YouCantHandleDaTruth]

I love it when people like Bill Gates are ignored and credit handed to whom ever happens to be president during a boom.

Cause RayGuns economy stank hunh?

Thx

 

[888888]

I love it when people like Bill Gates are ignored and credit handed to whom ever happens to be president during a boom.

Are only smart people who create empires like Gates allowed to operate under Democrats? Why not under a republican? Do you guys stifle creativity?

 

[YouCantHandleDaTruth]

Are only smart people who create empires like Gates allowed to operate under Democrats? Why not under a republican? Do you guys stifle creativity?

lol!!!

Good one, I welcome the DIVERSITY of different perspectives....it's enlightening.

 

[Lukey]

Lets try it and see, the conservative method of "trickle down" sure in the hell isn't working worth a damn

4 presidents in my voting lifetime, 2 conservative and 2 liberal....under the 2 liberal presidents jobs grew....under the to conservative president jobs did NOT grow....that's my reality

Thx

I have news for you! The ONLY president of those four to have ACTUALLY implemented supply side "trickle down" economics (correctly) was...wait for it...Bill Clinton.

Spending = taxes (current + deferred). So when he (with a little prodding from Congress) lowered capital gains taxes and simultaneously reined in spending (future taxes) he was (precisely) executing "supply side" economics (during the latter part of his administration). The economy was pretty good in the late 90's wouldn't you say?