• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

A Tragic Irony: Tax The Rich, Hurt The Poor

Help Support Ranchers.net:

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
A Tragic Irony: Tax The Rich, Hurt The Poor

By THOMAS SOWELL
Posted 06:17 PM ET

We could definitely use another Abraham Lincoln to emancipate us all from being slaves to words.

In the midst of a historic financial crisis of unprecedented government spending, and a national debt that outstrips even the debt accumulated by the reckless government spending of the previous administration, we are still enthralled by words and ignoring realities.

President Barack Obama's constant talk about "millionaires and billionaires" needing to pay higher taxes would be a bad joke if the consequences were not so serious. Even if the income tax rate were raised to 100% on millionaires and billionaires, it would still not cover the trillions of dollars the government is spending.

More fundamentally, tax rates — whatever they are — are just words on paper. Only the hard cash that comes in can cover government spending. History has shown repeatedly, under administrations of both political parties, that there is no automatic correlation between tax rates and tax revenues.

Tax Rates Vs. Hard Cash

When the tax rate on the highest incomes was 73% in 1921, that brought in less tax revenue than after the tax rate was cut to 24% in 1925. Why? Because high tax rates that people don't actually pay do not bring in as much hard cash as lower tax rates that they do pay. That's not rocket science.

Then and now, people with the highest incomes have had the greatest flexibility as to where they will put their money. Buying tax-exempt bonds is just one of the many ways that "millionaires and billionaires" avoid paying hard cash to the government, no matter how high the tax rates go.

Most working people don't have the same options. Their taxes have been taken out of their paychecks before they get them.

Even more so today than in the 1920s, billions of dollars can be sent overseas electronically, almost instantaneously, to be invested in other countries — creating jobs there, while millions of Americans are unemployed. That is a very high price to pay for class warfare rhetoric about taxing "millionaires and billionaires."

Nothing New

Make no mistake about it, that kind of rhetoric wins votes for political demagogues — and votes are their bottom line. But that is totally different from saying that it will bring in more tax revenue to the government.

Time and again, at both state and federal levels, in the country and in other countries, tax rates and tax revenue have moved in opposite directions many times. After Maryland raised its tax rates on people making a million dollars a year, there were fewer such people living in Maryland — and less tax revenue was collected from them.

In 2009, many people specializing in high finance in Britain relocated to Switzerland after the British government announced plans to take 51% of high incomes in taxes.

Conversely, reductions in tax rates can lead to more tax revenue being collected. After the capital gains tax rate was cut in the United States in 1997, the government collected nearly twice as much revenue from capital gains taxes in the next four years as in the previous four years.

Similar things have happened in India and in Iceland.

There is no automatic correlation between the direction in which tax rates move and the direction in which tax revenues move. Nor is this a new discovery.

Back in the 1920s, Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon pointed out that people with high incomes were simply not paying the high tax rates that existed on paper, because they were putting their money into tax shelters.

After the tax rates were cut, as Mellon advocated, investments flowed back into the private economy, producing higher output, rising incomes, more tax revenue and more jobs. The annual unemployment rate in the next four years never exceeded 4.2%, and in one year was as low as 1.8%.

Despite political demagoguery about "tax cuts for the rich," in human terms the rich have less at stake than working people. Precisely because the rich have so many ways of avoiding taxes, a high tax rate is likely to do them far less harm than it does to the economy, on which millions of people depend for jobs.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=572307&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:%20EditorialRss%20%28Editorial%20RSS%29&utm_content=Twitter
 

TSR

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
0
hypocritexposer said:
A Tragic Irony: Tax The Rich, Hurt The Poor

By THOMAS SOWELL
Posted 06:17 PM ET

We could definitely use another Abraham Lincoln to emancipate us all from being slaves to words.

In the midst of a historic financial crisis of unprecedented government spending, and a national debt that outstrips even the debt accumulated by the reckless government spending of the previous administration, we are still enthralled by words and ignoring realities.

President Barack Obama's constant talk about "millionaires and billionaires" needing to pay higher taxes would be a bad joke if the consequences were not so serious. Even if the income tax rate were raised to 100% on millionaires and billionaires, it would still not cover the trillions of dollars the government is spending.

More fundamentally, tax rates — whatever they are — are just words on paper. Only the hard cash that comes in can cover government spending. History has shown repeatedly, under administrations of both political parties, that there is no automatic correlation between tax rates and tax revenues.

Tax Rates Vs. Hard Cash

When the tax rate on the highest incomes was 73% in 1921, that brought in less tax revenue than after the tax rate was cut to 24% in 1925. Why? Because high tax rates that people don't actually pay do not bring in as much hard cash as lower tax rates that they do pay. That's not rocket science.

Then and now, people with the highest incomes have had the greatest flexibility as to where they will put their money. Buying tax-exempt bonds is just one of the many ways that "millionaires and billionaires" avoid paying hard cash to the government, no matter how high the tax rates go.

Most working people don't have the same options. Their taxes have been taken out of their paychecks before they get them.

Even more so today than in the 1920s, billions of dollars can be sent overseas electronically, almost instantaneously, to be invested in other countries — creating jobs there, while millions of Americans are unemployed. That is a very high price to pay for class warfare rhetoric about taxing "millionaires and billionaires."

Nothing New

Make no mistake about it, that kind of rhetoric wins votes for political demagogues — and votes are their bottom line. But that is totally different from saying that it will bring in more tax revenue to the government.

Time and again, at both state and federal levels, in the country and in other countries, tax rates and tax revenue have moved in opposite directions many times. After Maryland raised its tax rates on people making a million dollars a year, there were fewer such people living in Maryland — and less tax revenue was collected from them.

In 2009, many people specializing in high finance in Britain relocated to Switzerland after the British government announced plans to take 51% of high incomes in taxes.

Conversely, reductions in tax rates can lead to more tax revenue being collected. After the capital gains tax rate was cut in the United States in 1997, the government collected nearly twice as much revenue from capital gains taxes in the next four years as in the previous four years.

Similar things have happened in India and in Iceland.

There is no automatic correlation between the direction in which tax rates move and the direction in which tax revenues move. Nor is this a new discovery.

Back in the 1920s, Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon pointed out that people with high incomes were simply not paying the high tax rates that existed on paper, because they were putting their money into tax shelters.

After the tax rates were cut, as Mellon advocated, investments flowed back into the private economy, producing higher output, rising incomes, more tax revenue and more jobs. The annual unemployment rate in the next four years never exceeded 4.2%, and in one year was as low as 1.8%.

Despite political demagoguery about "tax cuts for the rich," in human terms the rich have less at stake than working people. Precisely because the rich have so many ways of avoiding taxes, a high tax rate is likely to do them far less harm than it does to the economy, on which millions of people depend for jobs.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=572307&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:%20EditorialRss%20%28Editorial%20RSS%29&utm_content=Twitter

So "Tax rates are just words on paper, the hard cash that comes in is what covers gov't spending" does this apply to the corporations??? :) :) :shock:
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
TSR said:
hypocritexposer said:
A Tragic Irony: Tax The Rich, Hurt The Poor

By THOMAS SOWELL
Posted 06:17 PM ET

We could definitely use another Abraham Lincoln to emancipate us all from being slaves to words.

In the midst of a historic financial crisis of unprecedented government spending, and a national debt that outstrips even the debt accumulated by the reckless government spending of the previous administration, we are still enthralled by words and ignoring realities.

President Barack Obama's constant talk about "millionaires and billionaires" needing to pay higher taxes would be a bad joke if the consequences were not so serious. Even if the income tax rate were raised to 100% on millionaires and billionaires, it would still not cover the trillions of dollars the government is spending.

More fundamentally, tax rates — whatever they are — are just words on paper. Only the hard cash that comes in can cover government spending. History has shown repeatedly, under administrations of both political parties, that there is no automatic correlation between tax rates and tax revenues.

Tax Rates Vs. Hard Cash

When the tax rate on the highest incomes was 73% in 1921, that brought in less tax revenue than after the tax rate was cut to 24% in 1925. Why? Because high tax rates that people don't actually pay do not bring in as much hard cash as lower tax rates that they do pay. That's not rocket science.

Then and now, people with the highest incomes have had the greatest flexibility as to where they will put their money. Buying tax-exempt bonds is just one of the many ways that "millionaires and billionaires" avoid paying hard cash to the government, no matter how high the tax rates go.

Most working people don't have the same options. Their taxes have been taken out of their paychecks before they get them.

Even more so today than in the 1920s, billions of dollars can be sent overseas electronically, almost instantaneously, to be invested in other countries — creating jobs there, while millions of Americans are unemployed. That is a very high price to pay for class warfare rhetoric about taxing "millionaires and billionaires."

Nothing New

Make no mistake about it, that kind of rhetoric wins votes for political demagogues — and votes are their bottom line. But that is totally different from saying that it will bring in more tax revenue to the government.

Time and again, at both state and federal levels, in the country and in other countries, tax rates and tax revenue have moved in opposite directions many times. After Maryland raised its tax rates on people making a million dollars a year, there were fewer such people living in Maryland — and less tax revenue was collected from them.

In 2009, many people specializing in high finance in Britain relocated to Switzerland after the British government announced plans to take 51% of high incomes in taxes.

Conversely, reductions in tax rates can lead to more tax revenue being collected. After the capital gains tax rate was cut in the United States in 1997, the government collected nearly twice as much revenue from capital gains taxes in the next four years as in the previous four years.

Similar things have happened in India and in Iceland.

There is no automatic correlation between the direction in which tax rates move and the direction in which tax revenues move. Nor is this a new discovery.

Back in the 1920s, Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon pointed out that people with high incomes were simply not paying the high tax rates that existed on paper, because they were putting their money into tax shelters.

After the tax rates were cut, as Mellon advocated, investments flowed back into the private economy, producing higher output, rising incomes, more tax revenue and more jobs. The annual unemployment rate in the next four years never exceeded 4.2%, and in one year was as low as 1.8%.

Despite political demagoguery about "tax cuts for the rich," in human terms the rich have less at stake than working people. Precisely because the rich have so many ways of avoiding taxes, a high tax rate is likely to do them far less harm than it does to the economy, on which millions of people depend for jobs.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=572307&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:%20EditorialRss%20%28Editorial%20RSS%29&utm_content=Twitter

So "Tax rates are just words on paper, the hard cash that comes in is what covers gov't spending" does this apply to the corporations??? :) :) :shock:

I think this article is correct. High tax rates without high collections are just numbers on a paper. They don't mean much.

Does that mean that when very rich people need to have their tax rates go down when they figure out ways to avoid taxes as Sowell suggests?

I don't think so. He must be getting paid pretty well to say these kind of things.

People who are wage earners get about 16 percent taken out of their paychecks for SS and medicare (closer to 18 percent) so they can not avoid paying those taxes.

I don't know why we don't do the same with the very rich.

If they want to take their money over seas (as they did when the first run on the dollar began with the financial crisis and the gov. backed the money market accounts), then let them take it. Just don't let it come back without a price.

China does it, so why can't our government? We allow the corporations to take production out of the U.S. to avoid the higher costs of paying Americans to do jobs and instead boost the Chinese economy. This is all to give corporations a higher profit margin thanks to the Chinese not having a floating currency and using foreign earnings to buy the debt our children will have to pay because our govt. debt finances.

How smart is that?

Should the govt. just fold when big biz starts threatening them or should the government actually govern for the people instead of big money?

Many countries dealing with these business tactics of corporations told the corporations to leave and they nationalized the industries (oil being the main one). I don't think we should do that but if our politicians can't make them pay the stated tax rate, they need to close the loopholes that have allowed them to not pay the stated rates. When we have a deficit, they should have to pay more taxes until the deficit is fully paid off. If we don't do this, then we allow corporations to use China's or other country's labor to undermine our labor force AND STILL SELL IN OUR MARKETS.

I am really about tired of the trickle down, if you make the rich pay their fair share of taxes they will just leave mantra. Make them leave too if they want to make a run on the dollar.

We need the SS tax all the way up the income and it needs to be on investment income too. We need to stop looking at just one side of this ledger. We have tried that and it just isn't working out very well, is it?

Conversely, reductions in tax rates can lead to more tax revenue being collected. After the capital gains tax rate was cut in the United States in 1997, the government collected nearly twice as much revenue from capital gains taxes in the next four years as in the previous four years.

I take exception to the conclusion from this observation. People went ahead and with the action of triggering the tax because it was reduced. That is why tax revenues went up. The triggering mechanism (selling shares and taking your profit) was optional so people did it when rates went lower. This really means we need to look more at the triggering option we give people than reducing the capital gains rate to bring in more revenue.

If people who are paying SS and medicare had the option of when they triggered these taxes, the system would go broke in a hurry.

I wonder why we treat the wage earning income people so differently than those with money to invest.

No, really, I know the answer. Big money has bought their advantages and the PR from people like Thomas Sowell to make people think that is the way it should be or the sky will fall.

Tex
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Income Tax is paid on "INCOME". Not money sitting in the bank.

Warren Buffet made a stupid statement during the 2008 Presidential election in that his maid had paid more personal income taxes that year than he did.

Well DUH! She had had more personal income! Yes, even though he had gazillions sitting in a bank account that was made in previous years and had been taxed in previous years.

I'll say it again. You don't get taxed on how much money you have in the bank. You get taxed on how much you make. That's how many of the uber rich don't appear to pay much income tax.

Thomas Sowell is one of the brightest minds in town. No, he didn't get it wrong.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Mike said:
Income Tax is paid on "INCOME". Not money sitting in the bank.

Warren Buffet made a stupid statement during the 2008 Presidential election in that his maid had paid more personal income taxes that year than he did.

Well DUH! She had had more personal income! Yes, even though he had gazillions sitting in a bank account that was made in previous years and had been taxed in previous years.

I'll say it again. You don't get taxed on how much money you have in the bank. You get taxed on how much you make. That's how many of the uber rich don't appear to pay much income tax.

It isn't that simple. If you have money in the bank it isn't income, it is just an asset. When you make interest on that money in the bank, it is income. You do include the income for income tax purposes.

Stocks are different. You can have retained earnings or the price of the stock can go up and it doesn't trigger any taxable amount until you sell those stocks. Then, the difference between what you paid for the stock and what you sold it for is taxable.

In the case of interest, the bank calculates it and pays it to you every year (most of the time in a quarter).

So the difference between the two is that with stocks, your net worth can go way, way up because your stock went way up, had retained earnings or whatever, and you don't have to pay tax on it---it is just deferred until you sell it.

Of course if you have a loss on that stock, you count it as a deduction.

Many people had a lot of retained earnings or stock appreciation and waited until they lowered the tax rate on capital gains before they traded out of them. Sometimes they bought the same stock and just did it to get a new basis and pay capital gains tax when they were low. That is why there was probably more taxes collected after the tax rate went down.

Warren Buffet commented on this because he knew that his tax rates could be manipulated while his employee's could not. She had to pay taxes every year the money was earned and he didn't have to pay the taxes until he sold the stocks. In addition, he got a lower tax rate than she did because our Congress allowed investors-- mainly the super rich benefited here--to get a lower tax rate if they held the investment over a certain period of time (the capital gains tax rate). Warren Buffet paid no SS or medicare taxes on his income from stocks because it was "investment" income, not earned income. In addition, he got a lower tax rate because he bought and held past the amount of time it takes to be counted as income and then it was put in the capital gains tax category which was taxed at a lower rate. His secretary didn't have a choice with her salary. She had to take it and spend her income on actually living--paying rent, food, transportation, etc.

Warren Buffet was right on this one on several accounts.


Tex
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
In the year in question:

Warren Buffet paid $8,740,000.00 (Eight MILLION - Seven Hundred and Forty Thousand) in taxes.

His maid paid $18,000.00 (Eighteen Thousand).

He led people to believe that his maid paid more taxes than he did.

Not true.

Less than 50% of Americans pay no income taxes at all.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Mike said:
In the year in question:

Warren Buffet paid $8,740,000.00 (Eight MILLION - Seven Hundred and Forty Thousand) in taxes.

His maid paid $18,000.00 (Eighteen Thousand).

He led people to believe that his maid paid more taxes than he did.

Not true.

Less than 50% of Americans pay no income taxes at all.


I think he said that his secretary pays more in taxes out of her pay than he does, not that she paid more total.

She paid more as a percent of her increased wealth (mostly her income from work) than he paid as a percent of his increase in wealth. One was tax deferred, the other one was not.

Warren realized that this is a situation that helps the rich get richer and the working poor to stay more poor.

In attempts to rectify this situation, the govt. has decreased the tax rate on lower income people because they know they are basically just getting by and have to pay about 17% into their mandatory retirement plan administered by the govt.--SS and medicare, of which Warren Buffet is exempt on paying after about 150K in earned income.

Until we re do our tax situation, this trend will continue or we will keep making the people actually working the slaves of those who have the money. It is a form of economic slavery.

Yes, you can say these lower income people don't pay income tax or much income tax. They are paying for all of the things that make an economy--food, transportation, clothing, bills, etc.. Meanwhile investors like Warren Buffet are shielding their money from taxes until the time is right and it benefits them the most. They can wait until they get the right politicians in to get what they want. Meanwhile, their businesses continue to amass wealth in an economy that relies on consumer spending and his secretary making the economy go around.

Don't get me wrong, we need investors and we need workers who produce in our economy. Buffet is saying that as a percent of over all taxes, not just income tax, he pays less than his secretary who makes the economy go round and allows his businesses to thrive.

He sees who the goose is in the economy (his secretary) and sees that the goose is getting squeezed a lot harder than he is as he and others with money collect the gold. This system has led to the greatest concentration of wealth in the United States since the Great Depression and the time of the Robber Barons who did the same thing---because they could. It is the system we have set up at this point and it is getting worse for those actually working for a living. It is the model of the Mexican economy, where political power is used to get those in power to yield to those who are rich.

In order to get a more secure economy, we need to set the rules where those working can save and invest for their own retirement and stop allowing the super rich to get what amounts to a free ride at the expense of others in the economy. We have to get the majority of people to vote for their self interests in tax policy and the rule of law so they don't get the shaft.

Tex
 

TSR

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
0
Tex said:
Mike said:
In the year in question:

Warren Buffet paid $8,740,000.00 (Eight MILLION - Seven Hundred and Forty Thousand) in taxes.

His maid paid $18,000.00 (Eighteen Thousand).

He led people to believe that his maid paid more taxes than he did.

Not true.

Less than 50% of Americans pay no income taxes at all.


I think he said that his secretary pays more in taxes out of her pay than he does, not that she paid more total.

She paid more as a percent of her increased wealth (mostly her income from work) than he paid as a percent of his increase in wealth. One was tax deferred, the other one was not.

Warren realized that this is a situation that helps the rich get richer and the working poor to stay more poor.

In attempts to rectify this situation, the govt. has decreased the tax rate on lower income people because they know they are basically just getting by and have to pay about 17% into their mandatory retirement plan administered by the govt.--SS and medicare, of which Warren Buffet is exempt on paying after about 150K in earned income.

Until we re do our tax situation, this trend will continue or we will keep making the people actually working the slaves of those who have the money. It is a form of economic slavery.

Yes, you can say these lower income people don't pay income tax or much income tax. They are paying for all of the things that make an economy--food, transportation, clothing, bills, etc.. Meanwhile investors like Warren Buffet are shielding their money from taxes until the time is right and it benefits them the most. They can wait until they get the right politicians in to get what they want. Meanwhile, their businesses continue to amass wealth in an economy that relies on consumer spending and his secretary making the economy go around.

Don't get me wrong, we need investors and we need workers who produce in our economy. Buffet is saying that as a percent of over all taxes, not just income tax, he pays less than his secretary who makes the economy go round and allows his businesses to thrive.

He sees who the goose is in the economy (his secretary) and sees that the goose is getting squeezed a lot harder than he is as he and others with money collect the gold. This system has led to the greatest concentration of wealth in the United States since the Great Depression and the time of the Robber Barons who did the same thing---because they could. It is the system we have set up at this point and it is getting worse for those actually working for a living. It is the model of the Mexican economy, where political power is used to get those in power to yield to those who are rich.

In order to get a more secure economy, we need to set the rules where those working can save and invest for their own retirement and stop allowing the super rich to get what amounts to a free ride at the expense of others in the economy. We have to get the majority of people to vote for their self interests in tax policy and the rule of law so they don't get the shaft.

Tex

I think what I understood Buffet to say was on a percentage basis his secretary paid more, which if I understand this coreectly means her effective tax rate was higher than his. I think you got it right Tex.
 

Rambo

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
123
Reaction score
0
Location
The Great Bend
I think everyone should pay income tax. Even high school kids on minimum wage should pay at least a token ammount, maybe $50 per year. It would make them pay attention to how their taxes are spent.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Rambo said:
I think everyone should pay income tax. Even high school kids on minimum wage should pay at least a token ammount, maybe $50 per year. It would make them pay attention to how their taxes are spent.

I totally agree. As it is, they pay probably too high of taxes for SS program that they probably won't see in the same way we do today.

We need an economy that produces jobs with good enough wages that everyone pays for our government and watches what it does, not just the very rich who have Washington D.C. and the halls of Congress filled to protect their interests.

Tex
 

TSR

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
0
Tex said:
TSR said:
hypocritexposer said:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=572307&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:%20EditorialRss%20%28Editorial%20RSS%29&utm_content=Twitter

So "Tax rates are just words on paper, the hard cash that comes in is what covers gov't spending" does this apply to the corporations??? :) :) :shock:

I think this article is correct. High tax rates without high collections are just numbers on a paper. They don't mean much.

Does that mean that when very rich people need to have their tax rates go down when they figure out ways to avoid taxes as Sowell suggests?

I don't think so. He must be getting paid pretty well to say these kind of things.

People who are wage earners get about 16 percent taken out of their paychecks for SS and medicare (closer to 18 percent) so they can not avoid paying those taxes.

I don't know why we don't do the same with the very rich.

If they want to take their money over seas (as they did when the first run on the dollar began with the financial crisis and the gov. backed the money market accounts), then let them take it. Just don't let it come back without a price.

China does it, so why can't our government? We allow the corporations to take production out of the U.S. to avoid the higher costs of paying Americans to do jobs and instead boost the Chinese economy. This is all to give corporations a higher profit margin thanks to the Chinese not having a floating currency and using foreign earnings to buy the debt our children will have to pay because our govt. debt finances.

How smart is that?

Should the govt. just fold when big biz starts threatening them or should the government actually govern for the people instead of big money?

Many countries dealing with these business tactics of corporations told the corporations to leave and they nationalized the industries (oil being the main one). I don't think we should do that but if our politicians can't make them pay the stated tax rate, they need to close the loopholes that have allowed them to not pay the stated rates. When we have a deficit, they should have to pay more taxes until the deficit is fully paid off. If we don't do this, then we allow corporations to use China's or other country's labor to undermine our labor force AND STILL SELL IN OUR MARKETS.

I am really about tired of the trickle down, if you make the rich pay their fair share of taxes they will just leave mantra. Make them leave too if they want to make a run on the dollar.

We need the SS tax all the way up the income and it needs to be on investment income too. We need to stop looking at just one side of this ledger. We have tried that and it just isn't working out very well, is it?

Conversely, reductions in tax rates can lead to more tax revenue being collected. After the capital gains tax rate was cut in the United States in 1997, the government collected nearly twice as much revenue from capital gains taxes in the next four years as in the previous four years.

I take exception to the conclusion from this observation. People went ahead and with the action of triggering the tax because it was reduced. That is why tax revenues went up. The triggering mechanism (selling shares and taking your profit) was optional so people did it when rates went lower. This really means we need to look more at the triggering option we give people than reducing the capital gains rate to bring in more revenue.

If people who are paying SS and medicare had the option of when they triggered these taxes, the system would go broke in a hurry.

I wonder why we treat the wage earning income people so differently than those with money to invest.

No, really, I know the answer. Big money has bought their advantages and the PR from people like Thomas Sowell to make people think that is the way it should be or the sky will fall.

Tex

Reminds me of when Microsoft threatened to move overseas at the threat of an increase in taxes focused on their overseas profits. So far to my knowledge the gov't has since been quiet about the issue. To me it was just a case of corporate blackmail. At some point the gov't needs to stand up to them instead of doing their bidding. But we do have the best Congress money can buy.

Tex makes some good points. I have said before that it seems as if the corporations have no allegiance to America-the country that made most of them the giants they are today.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
These are global corporations who don't care about the U.S. as TSR says. They are after wealth and hiding it. They avoid paying taxes that support our government that other people have to end up paying.

It just isn't right.

Tex
 

lonewolvie

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 23, 2007
Messages
185
Reaction score
0
To me it was just a case of corporate blackmail. At some point the gov't needs to stand up to them instead of doing their bidding. But we do have the best Congress money can buy.

Why can governments blackmail everyone else with their tax schemes? Our congress behaves much the same way as a mafia does and the government has become a racket.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
[quote+"Tex"]If they want to take their money over seas (as they did when the first run on the dollar began with the financial crisis and the gov. backed the money market accounts), then let them take it. Just don't let it come back without a price. [/quote]

Ironically the Liberals already tried that... and liberals are complaining about the Tax loophole it created...

ever hear the argument about capital parked overseas?



The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.

Its American tax bill? None.

Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore.

Although the top corporate tax rate in the United States is 35 percent, one of the highest in the world, companies have been increasingly using a maze of shelters, tax credits and subsidies to pay far less.

Such strategies, as well as changes in tax laws that encouraged some businesses and professionals to file as individuals, have pushed down the corporate share of the nation’s tax receipts — from 30 percent of all federal revenue in the mid-1950s to 6.6 percent in 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?pagewanted=all

sadly we see how well your ideas failed already.... won't you guys ever learn?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Tex said:
If people who are paying SS and medicare had the option of when they triggered these taxes, the system would go broke in a hurry.

can you explain the Obama policy of "payroll tax"

Obama has offered two major legislative proposals in recent weeks: a jobs bill for next year that would cut payroll taxes ,... backs the extension of Social Security payroll tax cuts proposed in the president's jobs plan

seems like the policy is short sighted... ,.. causing the system to go broke in a hurry....
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Tex said:
Many countries dealing with these business tactics of corporations told the corporations to leave and they nationalized the industries (oil being the main one). I don't think we should do that but if our politicians can't make them pay the stated tax rate,

it is hard to argue with a commie.. they are stupid to the bone...
 

Latest posts

Top