• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Clove Hitch

Convservatives= "low effort thinkers"

Recommended Posts

Thanks for setting me straight on that. I really do appreciate it.

 

And now that you're done with me, start schooling some others on the subject. May I suggest you start with the Congressional Budget Office and the Wa

 

MK-BS052_CORPTA_NS_20120202184803.jpg

 

http://online.wsj.co...2233215330.html

 

Man, are they going to be embarrassed or what? I know I am.

 

Ben

 

I would be willing to bet that you are looking at what these companies are paying vs. profit for that year. Losses can be carried. That's how enormous companies lower their rate - by offsetting gains with losses, often across years. Not unlike your taxes.

If you have a capital loss, it offsets a capital gain. You only pay when you're above net net. And, in many cases, you too can use things like depreciation, losses, gains, credits etc ahead or behind for favorable rate. But in neither case does that imply that the rate is actually lower, just the base the rate is charged against.

Let's stop thinking about these things like its a goddamn lemonade stand. More taxes is harder for business when you hold all else equal. Always. Unless you show that raising taxes benefits a companies bottom line, it's a hard argument to make. Certainly education is a common good which companies later employ, but the argument of course is that at the margin, raising taxes would be basically throwing good money (profits) after programs well into depreciating marginal returns (pick your least favorite government program here. Wars, handouts of some nature, whatever). The first billion on education we know are good and provide good outcome. But your umpteenth trillion at the same issue just isn't going to get you the same bang for your buck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1334121678[/url]' post='3667331']
1334120260[/url]' post='3667322']
1334112757[/url]' post='3667261']
1334102308[/url]' post='3667068']

If only it was that simple. Let me ask you and everyone else here an honest question. Is The American Dream a "Zero Sum Game"?

 

Democrats and Obama, more often than not, act and talk like they think it is and that is the real reason this country is so fouled up.

 

"The rich get richer while the poor get poorer"

"The wealthy need to pay their fair share"

 

I reject the concept of "zero sum game". Yet I agree with those two quotes.

 

The first is a factual statement, and the second seems entirely reasonable. Are you suggesting that the wealthy need not pay their fair share?

 

Ben

 

If you will stop arguing dishonestly I would be more inclined to engage with you. We both know and you are being silly to feign innocence, that when a Democrats says "The wealthy need to pay their fair share" they actually mean "The wealthy are not paying their fair share"

 

 

Recently another poster tried repeatedly to get someone, anyone, including you to state what exactly is a fair share. To the best of my knowledge all he got was silence.

 

Let's do a real example a NYC doctor with an income of $500 K (numbers are rounded off to nearest $k)

 

fed income tax 29% $145,000

state income tax 6.85% $25,000

NYC income tax 3.6% $12,000

Property tax on a condo worth $2,000,000 $22,000

 

taxes paid $204,000 (effective rate 41%)

 

sales tax on everything else 8.875% $27,000

 

Total tax burden 46%

 

Add in other costs associated with taxes eg accountants, energy taxes etc and lets call it 50%

 

That's pretty close for a high income earner.

 

Now, if 50% is not fair tell us what is fair.

 

Maybe it's the definition of "wealthy" that we differ on. How about the people who don't work 9-5? Those who the majority of their income is derived from capital gains?

 

Ben

 

Like the elderly? I can't believe you want grandma to starve out alone in the cold.

 

Better get her a social program.... Where to find the money.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GE pays a negative tax rate.

 

http://thehill.com/b...ctive-tax-rates

 

You make a fine argument for eliminating corporate taxation. See my previous post.

Seriously. You got elimination of corporate taxes out of that.

That isn't Low Effort Thinking on your part. That's Negative Effort Thinking on your part.

 

In what stupid universe should corporations pay no taxes? The USSR?

 

I think you lack the requisite intellectual or educational development for you to understand the explanation and I know I lack the patience to try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GE pays a negative tax rate.

 

http://thehill.com/b...ctive-tax-rates

 

You make a fine argument for eliminating corporate taxation. See my previous post.

Seriously. You got elimination of corporate taxes out of that.

That isn't Low Effort Thinking on your part. That's Negative Effort Thinking on your part.

 

In what stupid universe should corporations pay no taxes? The USSR?

 

I think you lack the requisite intellectual or educational development for you to understand the explanation and I know I lack the patience to try.

You got all the right words, just not in the correct order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for setting me straight on that. I really do appreciate it.

 

And now that you're done with me, start schooling some others on the subject. May I suggest you start with the Congressional Budget Office and the Wall Street Journal?

 

MK-BS052_CORPTA_NS_20120202184803.jpg

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204662204577199492233215330.html

 

Man, are they going to be embarrassed or what? I know I am.

 

Ben

 

I was explaining why Mitt Romney's tax rate was ~14% and why that rate does not constitute some sort of Rich Guy rip off of the working class and for the media and obama to make that argument is both insecure and deceptive. If you are conceding my point and not being sarcastic then fine we can move to a different topic. If you are changing the subject to avoid my point then my attitude is "There he goes again".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GE pays a negative tax rate.

 

http://thehill.com/b...ctive-tax-rates

 

You make a fine argument for eliminating corporate taxation. See my previous post.

Seriously. You got elimination of corporate taxes out of that.

That isn't Low Effort Thinking on your part. That's Negative Effort Thinking on your part.

 

In what stupid universe should corporations pay no taxes? The USSR?

 

I think you lack the requisite intellectual or educational development for you to understand the explanation and I know I lack the patience to try.

You got all the right words, just not in the correct order.

Yeah, dysgraphia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who actually pays corporate taxes? The consumer pays them with the corporation being an intermediary. So say you wanted to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US or companies that have left the US to set up shop where the tax structure might be more favorable. Why wouldn't you cut corporate rates?

You guys really amaze me sometimes with your myopia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who actually pays corporate taxes? The consumer pays them with the corporation being an intermediary. So say you wanted to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US or companies that have left the US to set up shop where the tax structure might be more favorable. Why wouldn't you cut corporate rates?

You guys really amaze me sometimes with your myopia.

So let us get this straight.

 

Mitt shouldn't pay his Fair Share because the Corporations he invests in have already paid Corporate taxes on their profits. And Corporations shouldn't pay taxes at all because the consumer pays taxes.

 

Mind if we don't join you on that race to the bottom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for setting me straight on that. I really do appreciate it.

 

And now that you're done with me, start schooling some others on the subject. May I suggest you start with the Congressional Budget Office and the Wall Street Journal?

 

MK-BS052_CORPTA_NS_20120202184803.jpg

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204662204577199492233215330.html

 

Man, are they going to be embarrassed or what? I know I am.

 

Ben

 

I was explaining why Mitt Romney's tax rate was ~14% and why that rate does not constitute some sort of Rich Guy rip off of the working class and for the media and obama to make that argument is both insecure and deceptive. If you are conceding my point and not being sarcastic then fine we can move to a different topic. If you are changing the subject to avoid my point then my attitude is "There he goes again".

 

You and I were arguing corporate tax rates specfically. Apparently, it was not considered a detraction until you lost the argument. If it helps you save face, then sure: "There I go again."

 

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Perhaps not enough genetic variety to pollinate properly? When hemp flowers properly it makes delicious seeds, nutty and filling, way more delicious than sunflower. There is radiated hemp in birdseed, the budgies seem to go for that first. If they get millet hemp they'll only eat that until there is none left before going into the regular seed.

 

The hemp you have on your farm, does it make big heads full of seed? If not, it's perhaps not germinating properly?

 

 

Oh, they seed like crazy. That's what makes it impossible to get rid of them.

I think it's just too fibrous to be appetizing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

have left the US to set up shop where the tax structure might be more favorable. Why wouldn't you cut corporate rates?

You guys really amaze me sometimes with your myopia.

 

It's usually not the tax structure - more likely the wages are low, you can dump shit into the water and air and some of the markets are over there also.......

 

Also, Americans don't like dirty work - which is why immigrants do meatpacking, picking veggies, construction, domestic and yard work, etc......

 

The answer, at this point, is not taking America back to the smokestack age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites