Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    6:15 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Do you think the "rich" should be paying more in taxes? Back to Topics
101Speedster

Champion Author
Ventura

Posts:31,592
Points:2,844,505
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Aug 20, 2005 3:12:20 PM

If so, how do you define rich?
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
Chiefaz
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:3,400
Points:1,344,145
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 30, 2014 11:46:23 AM

rjhenn
You will be a realist when you get your head out?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,609
Points:2,703,860
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 30, 2014 3:05:40 AM

Chiefaz - "Weasel and RJhenn
Look out, your liberalism is showing????????????????????????"

Since when is realism "liberalism"?
Profile Pic
Chiefaz
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:3,400
Points:1,344,145
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 29, 2014 10:47:07 PM

Weasel and RJhenn
Look out, your liberalism is showing????????????????????????
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,097
Points:19,960
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Aug 29, 2014 5:27:53 PM

"Which any company that is solvent has, regardless of tax rates..."

That's Hillary Clinton's line. No matter what type of spin you attempt to place on the issue, capital is still after tax dollars. The higher the percentage of a person or corporation's income used to pay tax, the less that is left over as capital.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,312
Points:515,925
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 29, 2014 2:15:31 PM

"Weasel
Under O-Vomit, not for long!"

What? Seems like we have been hearing stuff like this for 6 years now - how long is "not for long"?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,609
Points:2,703,860
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 29, 2014 1:36:05 PM

Chiefaz - "Under O-Vomit, not for long!"

Paranoia.
Profile Pic
Chiefaz
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:3,400
Points:1,344,145
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 29, 2014 1:34:28 PM

Weasel
Under O-Vomit, not for long!
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,312
Points:515,925
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 29, 2014 9:05:13 AM

"You have to have capital to spend, first."

Which any company that is solvent has, regardless of tax rates...
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,097
Points:19,960
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Aug 28, 2014 4:45:26 PM

You have to have capital to spend, first.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,312
Points:515,925
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 28, 2014 4:30:14 PM

"I said less tax paid leaves the company with more capital. More capital means a company can invest money to impact the things you mentioned."

Typically, the money saved from the activity is what justifies spending the capital.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,097
Points:19,960
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Aug 28, 2014 4:25:48 PM

"You can't raise prices of a product in a vacuum simply because of taxes."

Never said that. I said less tax paid leaves the company with more capital. More capital means a company can invest money to impact the things you mentioned.

[Edited by: SoylentGrain at 8/28/2014 4:26:34 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,609
Points:2,703,860
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 27, 2014 4:05:43 PM

So you're talking politics ("election-year demagoguery"), and not anything that actually matters? 7;-]

How about the Buffett remark?

[Edited by: rjhenn at 8/27/2014 4:06:24 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,414
Points:1,425,710
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Aug 27, 2014 3:16:06 PM

Come on guys - keep up with the real world will you.
.
.
>>>U.S. President Barack Obama on Thursday hammered U.S. companies that avoid federal taxes by shifting their tax domiciles overseas in deals known as "inversions" and called on Congress to pass a bill to end the practice.
During remarks to a rowdy crowd at the Los Angeles Technical College, Obama promoted what he called "economic patriotism" and made clear he believed the companies that were engaging in such practices were not being patriotic. The president is in California on a three-day fund-raising swing for Democrats.
So-called inversion deals occur when a U.S. company acquires or sets up a foreign company, then moves its U.S. tax domicile to the foreign company and its lower-tax home country.<<<
.
.
Then there is this of course.
.
.
>>>President Obama and many congressional Democrats argue that US-based multinational firms are being unpatriotic by moving their corporate addresses overseas in order to reduce their taxes. Obama even implied they are “corporate deserters.” These are powerful, emotionally-charged allegations. But are they fair?

Is it unpatriotic to maximize tax savings? After all, companies and individuals do it all the time. Or is it only unpatriotic to reduce taxes by shifting your legal headquarters to a low-tax country?

Obama is mostly engaging in election-year demagoguery. The US does a remarkably poor job taxing multinational corporations, but Obama is over the top when he claims that certain firms that manipulate the tax code are unpatriotic.<<<
.
.
.
Guys I could fill up the entire topic with places that say that Obama and his henchmen say that not paying more taxes is unpatrotic - how many do you want?
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,312
Points:515,925
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 27, 2014 12:41:42 PM

"Wrong. Taxes affect retained earnings. If company one has higher retained earnings than another, that places the company with higher retained earnings in a position to build plants with lower operating costs, expand or grow, or shave prices to gain share in their existing market.

As a product manager and marketing director within a Fortune 50 company and business owner for well over three decades, I well experienced as to the opportunities a sales force will take to lower prices. If a large organization gains a competitive edge, whatever it is, senior management is going to have a battle with sales. That's the way it works."

You can't raise prices of a product in a vacuum simply because of taxes. It will affect your ability to be competitive in the market. What you would do is try to find cheaper sources for materials, reduction in processing costs, etc. VA/VE activities... Taxes are far, far down the list of variables that impact the price of a product.

But I work in manufacturing of products, so what do I know. :)
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,312
Points:515,925
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 27, 2014 12:31:37 PM

"I didn't see anyone say anything about "unpatriotic". Strawman?"

I was wondering the same - he must have been referencing some other source since nothing to that end has been posted here.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,609
Points:2,703,860
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 27, 2014 12:28:45 PM

flyboyUT - "What I find hilarious is that BK is suddenly "unpatriotic" because they don't wish to pay High US taxes on profits earned elsewhere. So the libs are all bent out of shape that them 'rich fat cats/corporations' are trying to avoid "paying their fair share" again."

I didn't see anyone say anything about "unpatriotic". Strawman?

"But when they are told the deal is being financed and done by Warren Buffet - Obama's fair haired token fat cat everyone seems to slink away."

And most of the discussion on it looks to have happened AFTER reb4 mentioned "the financial wizard of Omaha".

[Edited by: rjhenn at 8/27/2014 12:30:20 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,414
Points:1,425,710
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Aug 26, 2014 5:57:01 PM

What I find hilarious is that BK is suddenly "unpatriotic" because they don't wish to pay High US taxes on profits earned elsewhere. So the libs are all bent out of shape that them 'rich fat cats/corporations' are trying to avoid "paying their fair share" again.
.
.
.
.
But when they are told the deal is being financed and done by Warren Buffet - Obama's fair haired token fat cat everyone seems to slink away.
.
.
.
SMG and some of that ROTFL too

Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,609
Points:2,703,860
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 26, 2014 4:30:58 PM

BK moving their HQ to Canada doesn't have that much to do with the nominal tax rate. The big difference is that the US charges tax on all of a U.S. corporation's income, no matter where it's earned. Most countries only tax that part of the income that's earned in that country.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,097
Points:19,960
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Aug 26, 2014 12:12:57 PM

"It only affects their profits. The cost of a product is determined by raw material cost, processing cost, and a mark-up for profitability on the item without pricing it out of the range of competitiveness..."

Wrong. Taxes affect retained earnings. If company one has higher retained earnings than another, that places the company with higher retained earnings in a position to build plants with lower operating costs, expand or grow, or shave prices to gain share in their existing market.

As a product manager and marketing director within a Fortune 50 company and business owner for well over three decades, I well experienced as to the opportunities a sales force will take to lower prices. If a large organization gains a competitive edge, whatever it is, senior management is going to have a battle with sales. That's the way it works.



[Edited by: SoylentGrain at 8/26/2014 12:22:04 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,312
Points:515,925
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 26, 2014 11:39:37 AM

"Since corporations pay taxes with money they got from their customers, any effort to avoid paying taxes helps a corporation (or any business) keep their costs under control and their prices lower."

It only affects their profits. The cost of a product is determined by raw material cost, processing cost, and a mark-up for profitability on the item without pricing it out of the range of competitiveness...

And it still has nothing to do with the 1% (or 0.1%) whom we have been discussing in this thread.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,048
Points:2,938,545
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Aug 26, 2014 11:35:39 AM

>>>Corporations and people paying taxes are two very, very different things.<<<
If you are referring to corporations paying taxes, or avoiding doing so, then that is a good thing. Since corporations pay taxes with money they got from their customers, any effort to avoid paying taxes helps a corporation (or any business) keep their costs under control and their prices lower. If that keeps more money in the corporation's pockets, it gets paid to stockholders who then pay taxes on it. But the profits get taxed once, instead of twice. That's a good thing, even though Liberals and Big Government types hate it.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,312
Points:515,925
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 26, 2014 11:30:27 AM

"Being able to declare Canada the corporate home is just a fringe benefit."

Good, then we agree.

"Corporations are seen as rich (and the law sees a corporation as a person, like it or not). People who "own" corporations are seen as rich (even though most stock is held by mutual funds hence owned by a wide swath of the populace) so news about the "rich" paying more taxes, or avoiding doing so, goes here."

Except that in reality, Corporations and people paying taxes are two very, very different things.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,048
Points:2,938,545
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Aug 26, 2014 11:25:20 AM

>>>You really believe the main purpose for Burger King to buy Tim Horton's is to move their corporate home to Canada? Really?<<<

Being able to declare Canada the corporate home is just a fringe benefit.

This thread is about "the rich" paying taxes. Corporations are seen as rich (and the law sees a corporation as a person, like it or not). People who "own" corporations are seen as rich (even though most stock is held by mutual funds hence owned by a wide swath of the populace) so news about the "rich" paying more taxes, or avoiding doing so, goes here.

Or, feel free to start a new thread about Burger King.

I'm not going to do it.

[Edited by: I75at7AM at 8/26/2014 11:25:48 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,312
Points:515,925
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 26, 2014 10:55:45 AM

Since when did this thread become a discussion of corporate taxation?

Corporations are not people, despite what some Judges might like to think.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,312
Points:515,925
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 26, 2014 10:54:36 AM

"Their solution? Buy Canadian company Tim Horton's, merge, and move the BK corporate home to Canada! The taxes in Canada are 26% compare with 40% in the good ol' USA!"

You really believe the main purpose for Burger King to buy Tim Horton's is to move their corporate home to Canada? Really?

SMH
Profile Pic
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,585
Points:2,327,380
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Aug 26, 2014 10:47:56 AM

Guess who has number one tax rates for Business.... (Sigh)....
Ooops sorry I75, reposted same link as yours...I thought it ironic that the financial wizard of Omaha who this current administration goes to often, is financing the move....

[Edited by: reb4 at 8/26/2014 10:50:19 AM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,414
Points:1,425,710
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Aug 26, 2014 10:31:57 AM

The liberals who love to "sock it to the fat cats" never seem to understand that the fat cats will not just stand still and be gouged. They will take steps to respond and we might not like the response.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,048
Points:2,938,545
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Aug 26, 2014 10:26:41 AM

Do you think Burger King should be paying more taxes? Apparently the corporate types don't think so. Their solution? Buy Canadian company Tim Horton's, merge, and move the BK corporate home to Canada! The taxes in Canada are 26% compare with 40% in the good ol' USA!

Hey, anything to control costs......

And people still try to make mindless jokes about the FairTax, which would end all taxes on businesses at every level.
Who would want that?

Many relevant links at the top of Drudge this morning.

[Edited by: I75at7AM at 8/26/2014 10:31:53 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Chiefaz
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:3,400
Points:1,344,145
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 7, 2014 12:24:23 PM

Hobby001
How about taxing everyone 10% and passing a balanced budget amendment to stop runaway spending?????

[Edited by: Chiefaz at 8/7/2014 12:24:45 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,347
Points:12,105
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Aug 1, 2014 2:28:26 PM

Hobby001, how about just cutting spending back and not wasting money on ridiculous projects, crony capitalists, and throwing it around like drunken Democrats? (Apologies to Teddy Kennedy...)
Profile Pic
Chiefaz
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:3,400
Points:1,344,145
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 1, 2014 2:09:08 PM

Hobby001
The answer is not higher taxes. The answer is less spending from DC. O-Vomit has added 8 Trillion dollars to the National Debt. He intends to add 4 Trillion more in his last 2 years in office.
The first thing we have to do is get Reid out of office. He has blocked all legislation since he became head of the Senate.
Over 40 House bills passed to help our immigration problems and he refused to bring them up.
Profile Pic
Hobby001
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:5,847
Points:1,479,055
Joined:Jul 2007
Message Posted: Aug 1, 2014 1:27:32 PM

Everyone should be paying higher taxes to cover the excessive spending in DC.

How about a change to the tax code so everyone pays something and no person gets a refund for more than they paid into the IRS? More specifically, the refund cannot exceed the total amount withheld from paychecks by the IRS and paid to the IRS as quarterly tax estimates.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,609
Points:2,703,860
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 1, 2014 1:22:42 PM

Chiefaz - "If the economy is so great why is 103 million people still out of work."

The economy is not "so great". But it's also not "in a tailspin".

And where do you get that "103 million" figure? From what I could find, that's the number of people with incomes below twice the poverty line (as of a couple of years ago).

That would also be almost 1/3 of our total population, including children and retired people.
Profile Pic
Chiefaz
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:3,400
Points:1,344,145
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jul 31, 2014 7:56:06 PM

Henn
If the economy is so great why is 103 million people still out of work. Those people are not even counted. Government lies and you fall for them.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,609
Points:2,703,860
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2014 7:21:00 PM

Economy heats up in Q2 after harsh winter
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,097
Points:19,960
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2014 7:26:29 AM

You are a static thinker, Henn. The economy already is in a tailspin, in part to regulation and in part to the tax code.

Free markets work. I think business would adjust to some of their customers having 10@ of their gross income taxed. The sky would not fall.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,609
Points:2,703,860
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2014 12:23:15 AM

SoylentGrain - "It might also create competition between the people who rent property, sell groceries and other basic essentials."

How is reducing the income of many people, thus reducing consumer spending, going to create competition? If anything, it will reduce business, kill jobs and send the economy into a tailspin.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,097
Points:19,960
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2014 7:13:02 PM

"Would put even more people on welfare. "

It might also create competition between the people who rent property, sell groceries and other basic essentials. That means lower prices. It might also be an incentive to get a higher paying job.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,609
Points:2,703,860
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2014 4:16:53 PM

Chiefaz - "Everyone pays 10% on any and all income."

Would put even more people on welfare.
Profile Pic
Chiefaz
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:3,400
Points:1,344,145
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2014 1:37:35 PM

Everyone pays 10% on any and all income.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,902
Points:397,315
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jul 23, 2014 9:46:09 PM

Excellent point about hedge funds, SG.

RJH, I've often wondered if we eliminated those give-aways, would wages rise because people just wouldn't work for less than they need?

Or would we have to raise the minimum wage in conjunction.

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 7/23/2014 9:46:57 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,609
Points:2,703,860
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 23, 2014 6:31:45 PM

Hobby001 - "How about a change to the tax code so everyone pays something and no person gets a refund for more than they paid into the IRS? More specifically, the refund cannot exceed the total amount withheld from paychecks by the IRS and paid to the IRS as quarterly tax estimates."

So you reject Ronald Reagan and his support for the EITC as a “sweeping victory for fairness” and “perhaps the biggest antipoverty program in our history”?

Of course, making it so "everyone pays something" would also increase the number of people on welfare, since many people would find the reduction in their earnings made working no longer worth it.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,097
Points:19,960
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jul 23, 2014 11:34:28 AM

'Hedge funds, which I do not care for because of their speculative nature, could go about their business of hedging against risk, instead of hedging against taxation. '

That's exactly what hedge funds do is hedge against business risk. It has little to do with taxes. The same techniques used in hedge funds are used by individuals operating other businesses. for example, my renter sells grain on the futures market and secures an option on the other side to secure against loss. It's simply an insurance policy.

Be careful what you wish for. If restrictions are placed on hedging to limit private individuals investing in funds, the same will apply to individuals owning businesses. That will make the day to day items you consume more expensive or unavailable.

[Edited by: SoylentGrain at 7/23/2014 11:38:01 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Hobby001
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:5,847
Points:1,479,055
Joined:Jul 2007
Message Posted: Jul 23, 2014 11:24:58 AM

Everyone should be paying more for the level of spending in Washington, DC. How about a change to the tax code so everyone pays something and no person gets a refund for more than they paid into the IRS? More specifically, the refund cannot exceed the total amount withheld from paychecks by the IRS and paid to the IRS as quarterly tax estimates.
Profile Pic
Chiefaz
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:3,400
Points:1,344,145
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jul 23, 2014 11:08:18 AM

Keep it going guys. If it wasn't for the rich we would all be in the poor house.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,048
Points:2,938,545
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jul 23, 2014 10:42:14 AM

I am completely with you, Soylent, that long term capital gains should not be taxed. Nor should short term capital gains. Nor should "corporate profits".
I am for the consumption-based FairTax. The revenue generated through taxing consumption of new goods and services would replace all income-based taxes.

Hedge funds, which I do not care for because of their speculative nature, could go about their business of hedging against risk, instead of hedging against taxation.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,097
Points:19,960
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jul 23, 2014 9:39:44 AM

The 150 or so billionaires in the US own, control, or have created and controlled the operations of companies that employ 7.5 million US citizens. The income tax generated by employing those individuals dwarfs that of the corporate income tax. In the event a corporation has years it pays no taxes, it's still dwarfed by the tax revenue generated by the personal income tax created by employing people.
Profile Pic
Chiefaz
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:3,400
Points:1,344,145
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jul 22, 2014 1:27:36 PM

SemiSteve
Those "rich" corporations pay a hell of a lot of taxes. Who employs all those taxpayers that keep this country afloat.
This liberal "stick" the rich is getting old.

[Edited by: Chiefaz at 7/22/2014 1:28:01 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,902
Points:397,315
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jul 22, 2014 11:59:06 AM

Would be helpful if some of these rich corporations were to pay ANY taxes at all.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,097
Points:19,960
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jul 22, 2014 11:54:13 AM

It's called a long term capital gain, I75at7AM. If congress is wasting time on this kind of picky nonsense, then, the tax code has to be simplified. One more reason to abolish the IRS, as it currently stands.
Post a reply Back to Topics