Government Shutdown

[Proximity 10+ year member]

Anybody here agree with the "flat tax"?

Yes. Poor people have too much money and billionaires don't have enough. Poor people are also eating too much. We need to fix that with the flat tax. Two birds with one stone!

FreakOutNation » Analysis Shows Gov Walker’s Budget Only Raises Taxes On the Poor

...an increase of $49 million in 2 years on the poor...
...In all, the decrease totals approximately $34 million under Walker’s budget, but fees would go up by almost $110 million...

...the fees that go up to $110 is due to tuition increases, so students are paying for the decrease in taxes [on the rich]...

Yay, conservatism!

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

Super-rich have seen their tax liability tumble

The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992.

Taxes on the rich have been going down and down, so why again is our economy getting worse and worse? According to conservatives, shouldn't our economy be getting better and better? I mean, they like to say that the richer the rich are, the richer that everyone else will be because they are the holy job creators. You know, a rising tide lifts all boats. Yet in the past 30 years, the top 2%'s income has skyrocketed, while the bottom 98% (I hope everyone gets the joke about the "bottom" 98%) has decreased. Can someone explain that? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Oh. My. God.
Do you know what tax deductible means?

For all intents and purposes, taxes are on profits only. Let's pretend taxes are 90%. Let's say I have $10,000 profit after expenditures (which include payroll) every year. So after taxes I put $1,000 in the bank and I pay $9,000 in taxes. But the next year I need an extra employee at $4,000 a year. You think I can't afford it, but that money comes out of the profit. So that next year my profit is $6,000k, and I only pay 90% on that $6,000. Taxes do not prohibit hiring. Period.

If taxes didnt prohibit hiring,hiring would prohibit taxes. If your scenario were true, then why doesn't every company who pays taxes simply take on higher payroll (hire more people, and/or raise wages) until they cover all their taxes? If my company paid $60k in taxes last year, I think I would just invest that $60k in my company's payroll at the end of the tax year instead of giving it to the govt and seeing no direct improvement for my establishment come from it.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Super-rich have seen their tax liability tumble


Taxes on the rich have been going down and down, so why again is our economy getting worse and worse? According to conservatives, shouldn't our economy be getting better and better? I mean, they like to say that the richer the rich are, the richer that everyone else will be because they are the holy job creators. You know, a rising tide lifts all boats. Yet in the past 30 years, the top 2%'s income has skyrocketed, while the bottom 98% (I hope everyone gets the joke about the "bottom" 98%) has decreased. Can someone explain that? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif

Where do you get your figures? According to the chart in the following link, the average inflation adjusted household median income has gone up 10% since 1975.

Median Household Income History in the United States

And just to remind you Prox, nobody here suggested upper class tax levels are too high, too low, or anything of the sort. The argument you are waging in this thread is completely of your own creation. When you claimed Im afraid to admit you are right, I honestly wonder about what point you were even referring to. Other than Democrats are God's gift to humanity, because Republicans are so evil.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

If taxes didnt prohibit hiring,hiring would prohibit taxes. If your scenario were true, then why doesn't every company who pays taxes simply take on higher payroll (hire more people, and/or raise wages) until they cover all their taxes? If my company paid $60k in taxes last year, I think I would just invest that $60k in my company's payroll at the end of the tax year instead of giving it to the govt and seeing no direct improvement for my establishment come from it.

Because it would impact your profit. Let's say taxes were 50% (just to make the number easy), your company made $200k gross last year and you paid $80k in payroll. Your profit would be $60k and your taxes would be $60k. So you want to try to foil the government next year and you try your suggestion. You invest $60k in your payroll and your income is still $200k. Well now your payroll is $140, your profit is $60 and you pay 50% of that in taxes. So your taxes due are $30k and your after tax profit is only $30k.

They key is that for every dollar you increase in payroll, you don't get that dollar back when you deduct it at the end of the year. You just get the tax percentage multiplied by the payroll increase. Just like if you donate $100k to a charity you don't get $100k back from the government.

+1 for the effort though.

Where do you get your figures? According to the chart in the following link, the average inflation adjusted household median income has gone up 10% since 1975.
Median Household Income History in the United States

Yes, the average income has been going up. But almost all of those gains have gone to the top.

Why we can't ignore growing income inequality. (1) - By Timothy Noah - Slate Magazine

Yet from 1980 to 2005, more than 80 percent of total increase in Americans' income went to the top 1 percent.

So if you're in the "bottom" 90%, you're income has stayed the same. Relative to huge productivity increases, your income has gone down.

Sorry if this is too partisan audioholic, but welcome to conservative economics.

The argument you are waging in this thread is completely of your own creation.

I'm just trying to open the minds. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[subzero 5,000+ posts]

buttsects

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Because it would impact your profit. Let's say taxes were 50% (just to make the number easy), your company made $200k gross last year and you paid $80k in payroll. Your profit would be $60k and your taxes would be $60k. So you want to try to foil the government next year and you try your suggestion. You invest $60k in your payroll and your income is still $200k. Well now your payroll is $140, your profit is $60 and you pay 50% of that in taxes. So your taxes due are $30k and your after tax profit is only $30k.
They key is that for every dollar you increase in payroll, you don't get that dollar back when you deduct it at the end of the year. You just get the tax percentage multiplied by the payroll increase. Just like if you donate $100k to a charity you don't get $100k back from the government.

+1 for the effort though.

Now lets increase those taxes to 100%. The company's gross is $200k. At the end of the year, they are faced with paying $200k in profits, or paying out $200k in payroll increases, which choice would you make? The answer, you'd close the business down. Companies are not in business to create jobs, they are in business to turn a profit. You say a company's taxes only affect profit, not payroll. Both taxes AND payroll affect profit and loss. If profit is not there, be it due to payroll OR taxes, the business will not exist.

And your entire argument here goes back to the FU Republicans thread were you wanted to raise personal income tax on the wealthy (not businesses) to 90%. If a company owner faces a decision to expand his business, ultimately to increase HIS profit, why would he spend money investing in the company, risking losing it all, if when or if his risk turns out successful, he will only see 10% of that profit increase go in his pocket? The answer, higher income taxes diminish the incentive to take that risk. Again, taxes definitely do affect the bottom line, and the bottom line is why the business ultimately exists.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

So if you're in the "bottom" 90%, you're income has stayed the same. Relative to huge productivity increases, your income has gone down.
Sorry if this is too partisan audioholic, but welcome to conservative economics.

A good example of why its impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you. All along this has been about the 'middle class'. Lets at what you recently said again...

Taxes on the rich have been going down and down, so why again is our economy getting worse and worse? According to conservatives, shouldn't our economy be getting better and better? I mean, they like to say that the richer the rich are, the richer that everyone else will be because they are the holy job creators. You know, a rising tide lifts all boats. Yet in the past 30 years, the top 2%'s income has skyrocketed, while the bottom 98% (I hope everyone gets the joke about the "bottom" 98%) has decreased. Can someone explain that? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif

So yesterday your argument was that the "bottom 98%" of people have seen a decrease in their income. I post evidence that statement is completely wrong. You then change your stance to talk about your income relative to someone elses. The average income has gone up (contrary to your previous statements you still do not try to prove or admit were wrong, you just shift your argument and hope nobody notices), but you are mad because the income of the top 2% has increased more. I find it funny your last statement is 'welcome to conservative economics' when you are actually using liberal economics, that everyone should share profits equally, to make your skewed points.

Good try, for someone who has still not taken a single economics class.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I'm just trying to open the minds. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

So what is the great and powergul audioholic doing to change the world?

Its funny how you find it impossible to apply the same logic to people you disagree with. Democrats aren't trying to help themselves personally, by spouting harmful ideas to excite their political base, they are doing it simply because they honestly believe in everything they say. Their own political and financial gains are merely a side effect of their charitable actions. But Republicans cant possibly believe what they say, they are simply lying to line their own pockets. Audioholic is 'trying to save the world', while Proximity is "just trying to open the minds". Ive told you this before, and it obviously did not penetrate.... but I call you a radical because radicals think in terms of absolutes. Sound familiar?

If I was trying to 'save the world', Id start by deleting your posts that have completely derailed the topic of this thread. But I believe in allowing people to speak, no matter how partisan or wrong they may be. You're welcome.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

To sum up, as I said earlier, csu already checkmated you, but you were too busy looking 3 steps ahead to realize it. The owner of the company will still make his profit, that's why he opened the business. So if expenses go up, and tax IS an expense, either other costs such as payroll will decrease, or the business WILL close. Either way, decreasing payroll to meet the higher tax expense, or closing the business, certainly affects the job market. Your refusal to admit, or even see, that tax is an expense that must be considered when looking at payroll and expansion, is merely your overwhelming desire for the world to work the way you want it to, blinding you to how the world really does work. You've stated your parents own a restaurant, go ask them what would happen if their taxes, or their business' taxes, increased by a substantial amount. Apparently their answer will shock you.

 

[benzmansl65amg 10+ year member]

Proximity is a liberal.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

Now lets increase those taxes to 100%. The company's gross is $200k. At the end of the year, they are faced with paying $200k in profits, or paying out $200k in payroll increases, which choice would you make? The answer, you'd close the business down.

Okay...so you've successfully argued against 100% taxes.

Companies are not in business to create jobs, they are in business to turn a profit.

Okay, so you agree that giving tax cuts to the rich will not create jobs whatsoever, but just grow their profit? Sweet.

And your entire argument here goes back to the FU Republicans thread were you wanted to raise personal income tax on the wealthy (not businesses) to 90%. If a company owner faces a decision to expand his business, ultimately to increase HIS profit, why would he spend money investing in the company, risking losing it all, if when or if his risk turns out successful, he will only see 10% of that profit increase go in his pocket? The answer, higher income taxes diminish the incentive to take that risk. Again, taxes definitely do affect the bottom line, and the bottom line is why the business ultimately exists.

I don't remember saying that I wanted a 90% tax rate. Even if I did, I guarantee that it was on a very high income amount. Remember what a progressive tax rate is?

A good example of why its impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you.

What is unreasonable there? What, in those couple sentences, is unreasonable? If you're in the bottom 90%, your income HAS largely stayed the same (maybe gone up a whole percentage point). Productivity HAS gone way up. In the past 30 years, we HAVE been under the influence of conservative economics and policies. It was promised to create the greatest economy known to man, yet it just made it all worse.

So yesterday your argument was that the "bottom 90%" of people have seen a decrease in their income. I post evidence that statement is completely wrong. You then change your stance to talk about your income relative to someone elses. The average income has gone up (contrary to your previous statements you still do not try to prove or admit were wrong, you just shift your argument and hope nobody notices), but you are mad because the income of the top 2% has increased more.

You posted evidence that paints a false picture. Incomes HAVE increased over the past 30 years, but 80% of those income gains went to the very top. Did you actually look at those pictures, dare I say, evidence, in my last post? Here, let me post it again:

I find it funny your last statement is 'welcome to conservative economics' when you are actually using liberal economics, that everyone should share profits equally, to make your skewed points.

I'm in favor of using liberal economics, but this country has been under the shroud of conservative economics for the past 30 years. The latter is what I was referring to. I guess that went over your head.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

Democrats aren't trying to help themselves personally, by spouting harmful ideas to excite their political base, they are doing it simply because they honestly believe in everything they say. Their own political and financial gains are merely a side effect of their charitable actions. But Republicans cant possibly believe what they say, they are simply lying to line their own pockets.

Of course Democrats are interested in their own political success just like the Republicans. But when you look at what the two sides say, what they've both done and the policies they support, those are more or less the conclusions I come to. It has nothing to do with the names of either party. I have no inherit biases to either party.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

The owner of the company will still make his profit, that's why he opened the business. So if expenses go up, and tax IS an expense, either other costs such as payroll will decrease, or the business WILL close.

So making 100% less profit is better than making 10% less profit? Better than making 1% less profit? Just like I'm sure rich people would rather only make $50k and year and be taxes 20% than making $500k a year and be taxed 50%.

And go read my other posts to address your "payroll will decrease" stigma. Actually, I'll just paste them for you.

Businesses only hire to serve their demand, if demand doesn't go down, employment won't go down. There may be some pseudo effects of taxation on employment, but that's really only lag from a change in demand or over-hiring anyway.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Okay...so you've successfully argued against 100% taxes.


Okay, so you agree that giving tax cuts to the rich will not create jobs whatsoever, but just grow their profit? Sweet.

I don't remember saying that I wanted a 90% tax rate. Even if I did, I guarantee that it was on a very high income amount. Remember what a progressive tax rate is?

What is unreasonable there? What, in those couple sentences, is unreasonable? If you're in the bottom 90%, your income HAS largely stayed the same (maybe gone up a whole percentage point). Productivity HAS gone way up. In the past 30 years, we HAVE been under the influence of conservative economics and policies. It was promised to create the greatest economy known to man, yet it just made it all worse.

You posted evidence that paints a false picture. Incomes HAVE increased over the past 30 years, but 80% of those income gains went to the very top. Did you actually look at those pictures, dare I say, evidence, in my last post? Here, let me post it again:

I'm in favor of using liberal economics, but this country has been under the shroud of conservative economics for the past 30 years. The latter is what I was referring to. I guess that went over your head.

You claimed 100% tax rates would not hurt employment. Congrats, you've (almost) successfully admitted you were wrong without admitting anything.

Higher profits means more power to increase expansion. You're "lets share all the wealth equally" liberal mentality precludes you from understanding this.

Yes, tax rates are progressive, so what? Once you enter the top tax bracket, such as the people in the top 2% you are so angry about reside in, ALL additional profit is at that 90% tax rate.

Actually, if you'd read my link showing the adjusted median income, you';d see it has increased about 10% since the 70's, not 1%. Again you make up numbers to try and support your theories, and hope nobody notices. I always notice, yet you continue to try and slip your bogus statistics past me.

So the truth finally comes out, you are just mad because your income bracket has experienced growth in the past 30 years, but you are mad because the highest income levels have increased MORE than yours. Socialism shrouded in a one-sided view of what is fair.