Jump to content


Convservatives= "low effort thinkers"


  • Please log in to reply
114 replies to this topic

#101 Drewbius

Drewbius

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 54 posts
  • Location:Boston
  • Interests:Sailing(???)

Posted 11 April 2012 - 10:48 PM

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

Posted Image

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

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

Ben
[/quote]

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.

#102 Drewbius

Drewbius

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 54 posts
  • Location:Boston
  • Interests:Sailing(???)

Posted 11 April 2012 - 10:53 PM

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.....

#103 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,945 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 12 April 2012 - 12:12 AM



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.

#104 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,940 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 12:16 AM




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.

#105 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,945 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 12 April 2012 - 12:24 AM

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?

Posted Image

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".

#106 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,066 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 12 April 2012 - 12:53 AM





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.

#107 The Shadow

The Shadow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,755 posts
  • Location:Between Darkness and Light

Posted 12 April 2012 - 12:59 AM

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.

#108 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,066 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 12 April 2012 - 02:09 AM

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?

#109 benwynn

benwynn

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,935 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 05:16 AM



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?

Posted Image

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

#110 austin1972

austin1972

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,621 posts
  • Location:Sandwich, IL

Posted 12 April 2012 - 07:36 AM

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.

#111 RumBulls

RumBulls

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,260 posts
  • Location:Boyne City
  • Interests:Was J24s
    Now is Olson30s

Posted 12 April 2012 - 01:24 PM

In other news.... Drinking improves problem solving ability....

#112 TMSAIL

TMSAIL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,454 posts
  • Location:NW Chicago/Des Plaines

Posted 13 April 2012 - 11:57 PM

bump

#113 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 14 April 2012 - 01:25 AM

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.

#114 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,940 posts

Posted 14 April 2012 - 01:52 AM

bump

Is that a low effort thingy? :D

#115 TMSAIL

TMSAIL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,454 posts
  • Location:NW Chicago/Des Plaines

Posted 14 April 2012 - 02:08 AM

Bump and grind. Now it's dirty to.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users