Forum Post: If we give them a lower tax rate don’t we have a right to ask how they're spending the money?
Posted 12 years ago on Feb. 18, 2012, 9:03 a.m. EST by factsrfun
(8342)
from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
If we have a right to ask how the schools are spending our money, then if we pay higher taxes so dividends and capital gains can pay less, don’t we have the right to ask how the money is being spent?
UPDATE
borrowed this from GF, don't think she will mind and this guy says it better:
Now silly, you know they are working their pudgy little fingers to the bone creating jobs with that money. Why I have noticed all of these Tea Party 1%ers on this forum bragging and bragging about how great trickle down has been for them and how they pulled themselves up from poverty in a family of 28. And how their parents (Dad's worked as elementary school janitors and their Mom's pulled the plow on their little rented farm) never considered any form of contraception. And that they never went to school past second grade and yet they got a job at Goldman Sachs and quickly became Sr. Vice President of Proprietary Trading and used their bonuses to create, oh, I don't know how many jobs in Bain Capital, the Cayman Islands, and in Swiss Banks. I am sure they are just busy counting up all of those good high-paying jobs they created and are just about to post them on this very web page. Now, isn't that right, all of you 1%ers? (There is plenty of room to post those great big delicious numbers, right here. So, don't be bashful, Post away?) Boys? Boys? Hey, boys, you can post them here. Boys?
That is good! :D
Girl Friday!!! I keep hearing you've gone away, you are the girl Friday that Gypsy is asking about? right? hey thanks for stopping by.
I have a hard time understanding much of the Tea Parties desire
I do know they wish to take the money infrastructure from private hands
end the fed
That is the Libertarian wing, I think. They are the no regulating bunch, as well. The Koch's have to reluctantly take the " the earth is flat and 6,000 years old, personhood upon noticing the opposite sex, and the country was founded by Pentacostals" bunch to get enough votes to elect the first bunch. Sort of a "deal with the devil" I think it is sometimes called.
Hey Brighton, I'm getting jealous your comment getting more action tthan the post. Good Job!! I think that's exactly what we would find.
[Removed]
LOL! Funny!
I am just wait for those numbers. They should be here any minute, just like the final numbers in the Maine caucuses.
Hey I like you so I want to come clean,,, I wrote the report, then I read the report, then I reported on the report, like FOX news. There I feel better now.
I read a report the Maine numbers are frozen for six more weeks ;).
"I read the report that reported that there was a report, and since it wasn't hearsay, I reported it, and was tempted to quote from it, it being a report and all", he reported.
Now, where are those dang numbers?
Why are we getting so many reports out of Maine? And what are they trying to hide?
Seriously, I think like in Iowa, they (a major faction at least) are establishment and don't want Romney to lose and /or they think that wins by "minor candidates" hurt their chances in the general? They are right but expose their willingness to cheat to get what they want.
looking at things this morning where people have been spending their time the last few days, Santorum has been in the battlegrounds, I started thinking what if no one has 50% by June, they always talk about it but I don't think I've ever seen it, this could be a wild ride, but it's not my party, so I'm just watching.
Well, I recall years ago when "none of the above" was first suggested to be put on the ballot. It would be ironic if it won by default. Maybe the GOP could run as a committee?
"I don't want to abolish government (Republican Party). I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." this looks like suicide.
Good one. And who is doing more damage than the GOP? The Koch party? The Foster Freeze party?
So many to choose from, hey if you want to tell me what you think.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-america-revolution-was-the-largest-act-of-weal/
If we get public campaign finance fixed and STOP all other forms of campaign contributions, jobs for family members, consulting contracts, stock tips and other ways to corrupt governance, we could almost be there.
step at a ime, that first one campagn finance, everything seems to hing on that, you really can't deal with people who are only there to repersent the interest of the few that paid their way there.
Oh that is dangerously funny.
Hey man total respect to you, but I really believe in asking fundamental questions. If we are going to ask, “Where are the jobs?” then we’re asking “How are you spending your money?” We, through our government, have staked a huge bet on the actions of these “job creators”. So right up front I want to establish that yes indeed we do have a right to ask, “What have you done with all that money we let you keep?” (i know what they did with most of it, they bought government bonds so their children would have security)
"the money we let you keep?" That has got to be some of the clearest Big Brother language I've ever seen on this site. "Your money is ours, we are entitled to it, but we will allow you to keep some of it only if we approve of what you do with it." Yikes, the implications of that kind of thinking are truly frightening. You guys all think the government sucks, but you want to invest it with these incredible powers at the same time. I don't get it.
Hey if they're willing to start paying the same tax rate as everybody else, then you got a point, but as long as they keep saying "Cut us a break and we'll do the right thing" then we have right, indeed a duty to make sure they are.
I think they already do that don't they? I mean, putting out information on how they spend the business income.
Take Bain Capital for example - if you go to wikipedia, you can see all the companies they have an interest in.........AMC Entertainment, Aspen Education Group, Brookstone, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel Communications, Domino's Pizza, DoubleClick, Dunkin' Donuts, D&M Holdings, Guitar Center, Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), Sealy, The Sports Authority, Staples, Toys "R" Us, Warner Music Group and The Weather Channel. This is public information on the companies for which folks work.
Now, take Staples for example - "One of Bain's earliest and most notable venture investments was in Staples, Inc., the office supply retailer. The funding enabled Staples to expand from one store in 1986 to over 2000 stores in 2011." Each franchise opened employed more people correct? And Staples cut the costs of office supplies for small businesses and the self employed by half of the then cost of having them inefficiently delivered.
Now, what more do you need to know about "how they are spending the money" the government didn't take from them through the tax credit/deductions(subsidies iow) that it had "granted" them?
How much it pays in taxes in state, local and Real Estate? Go to the following link to see the state of Missouri for example...
http://www.staplesadvantage.com/why-us/local-advantage/missouri/see-our-contributions/index.html
Need to see what charitable contributions Staples Inc makes? http://www.staplesfoundation.org/grant-recipients-interactive-map.php
How much did Staples pay in Federal Income Tax? Well, that one is a bit harder to determine. Search engines return information on Romney - who retired from Bain in 1999 but I'm sure if you really need to know you could find out.
My point is this. The Government is where all the tax credits/deductions/exemptions are made into law. It is not against the law to use them if an individual or corporation qualifies for them.
Information on businesses is public access - the information on how many jobs are created/replaced/lost for each company is available if you search deep enough. The charitable contributions to grants, scholarships, and so on are also available to public access if you want to take the time to dig for the information as are the state and local taxes paid by the buildings that support and house the businesses.
What more do you want?
This information is available on line for almost any business - you can do the research yourself to see if the company is using the "money we give them" in a socially responsible way.
I was reffering to personal taxes.
Personal Taxes? Okay...let's talk about that a bit. All deductions/credits and so on are available to anyone who qualifies for them. Let's take Mortgage Interest Deduction - anyone who pays a mortgage qualifies for this one as long as their total itemized deductions equal more than the standard deduction.
Do you own a home and take this deduction for mortgage interest? Tell me how you use the money you saved by doing so. Did you donate it to charity? Did you use it to buy blankets for the homeless shelter? Do I even have a "right" to ask you those questions?
The government says it is legal for you to take that deduction just as it is legal for all income levels to take it. You are doing nothing wrong for actually taking it and saving on your tax burden. Neither are the "rich" doing anything wrong by taking a legal deduction. But, you want them to explain to you what they are doing with that savings.....
For 47% of people who work and should be paying income taxes, these deductions allow them to get a refund greater than the amount they paid out of their paychecks. Do you have the right to ask them how they are spending the savings?
What gives you the right to that information?
You make an excellent point, especially considering how careful the government is to make sure that I have indeed used that money to pay interest on my mortgage, by getting independent confirmation from the mortgage company, it’s in the law, one of the few places the government actually checks, when the working man gets the break.
Here’s a link to your other concern:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-dont-we-turn-america-into-a-corporation/
What is my "other" concern?
Again, I replied to your request to know everything that is done with the money "saved" from deductions etc. that "we" give to others on their tax burden. I explained that business information is out there.
You reply that you weren't talking about business but personal tax. So, I asked if you were willing to tell us how you spent the money you got for your legal taking of the mortgage interest deduction.
You now respond with something about how the government checks to make sure that the interest was paid for the "working man" as if the non working man doesn't also have that information checked.
We'd get somewhere in this conversation if you would stick to the topic. Just a suggestion.
.You raised the issue of people who don't pay taxes, that is what the post/link is about.
As we talk about this I am more and more convinced that the only sensible thing to do is to remove the preferences so the government isn't required to get so involved in personal choices
Again, you missed the point. The inclusion of those who receive a refund greater than the amount of federal income tax they have paid was to ask YOU if you have a "right" to question how they use the income tax return they legally obtained. Does the Government have a right to question those people on how they will spend that several thousand dollars? Since "saving" it doesn't help the economy, does the government have the right to say "you have to use that money to help the economy by spending it" here or there?
So let me get this straight, you are concerned that working class people will jet out of the country to spend their money?
[-] 1 points by factsrfun (741) 1 hour ago
I think the merit of your argument is reflected in the merit of your concern.
And methinks that you can't argue/defend against that which you yourself have written.
Thank you for that feedback.
Just who is it that is saying that "we" have a "right" to hear how people (one minute it is personal taxes and the next it is business taxes) are using the money "we" let them keep?
That would be YOU.
You seem to be concerned that those who take legally allowed credits, deductions to lower their effective tax rate are not spending their money in the "right" way....so it would appear that YOU are the one who is concerned that "working class people will jet out of the country to spend their money?",
But you know that don't you? You just keep trying to change the topic to avoid answering questions.
I think the merit of your argument is reflected in the merit of your concern.
Totally agree with this. So basically conditional tax breaks that can be owed to the government if X number of jobs are not created? I would go for this. I'd still rather see us just scrap the entire tax code and end up with one that is only a few pages long, no loopholes, and no way for anyone to wiggle out of paying their fair share.
Maybe I'm no tax lawyer, but I was thinking, raise the rates, get rid of capital rates/dividend sp. rate then give back big, credits for each job created, maybe even bigger credits if the job paid more or had better health coverage.
I thought you were talking about "personal taxes" factsrfun? How can that be if you are stating in this post that you want businesses to report how many jobs are created or when higher salaries are given or when health coverage is expanded?
Wait a minute you mean "job creators" aren't people. They don't pay personal income taxes? Cool, then if there are no “job creators” who are people, everyone can pay the same progressive rates.
the term sounds important but can be found in no economic model and isn't even a consideration in any economic model. The creation of jobs is the direct result of demand. Simply starting production does not equal demand. Being a middleman between labor and supply still does not mean you are creating the products or the demand, you simply manage the in-between and anyone can fill that spot just as anyone can be a dishwasher. The notion of rich people creating jobs only gets traction in this country because we have sold our country to glorified middlemen. After Occupy is said and done, that will no longer be the case and middlemen we be back in their place.
I follow what your saying, I think, I like to say, “We pay a lot to have people schedule vacations, don’t we?”
Ah, now you are back to the businesses again.
Earlier, I posted that the information you want - which is to know what is done with the money "saved" by the credits/deductions "we" give - is public information; that you could google any business and see what taxes it paid, what charitable contributions it gave, how many workers it employed.....
And you answered it by saying that you meant "personal" taxes and not business taxes....now, you are back to saying "job creators" - that means businesses.
You know this is what happens when you jump into the middle of conservation, unless of course your purpose here is to distort and confuse, then it makes perfect sense to jump into the middle of something to take it out of context.
I am not the one distorting or confusing. I am not the one who is all over the place.
Your original post asked if we had the right to know how the money not paid in taxes on capital gains and dividends was spent. Your second post on topic was regarding the "job creators" which means businesses....
[-] 1 points by factsrfun (741) 5 days ago
Hey man total respect to you, but I really believe in asking fundamental questions. If we are going to ask, “Where are the jobs?” then we’re asking “How are you spending your money?” We, through our government, have staked a huge bet on the actions of these “job creators”...."
I responded to that (you can check the thread layout if you doubt it) with the following....
[-] 1 points by Concerned (353) 3 days ago
I think they already do that don't they? I mean, putting out information on how they spend the business income.
Take Bain Capital for example - if you go to wikipedia, you can see all the companies they have an interest in.........AMC Entertainment, Aspen Education Group, Brookstone, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel Communications, Domino's Pizza, DoubleClick, Dunkin' Donuts, D&M Holdings, Guitar Center, Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), Sealy, The Sports Authority, Staples, Toys "R" Us, Warner Music Group and The Weather Channel. This is public information on the companies for which folks work....."
Which of course pertains to those "job creators" you spoke of in the post you wrote which I was responding to....THEN you wrote in response to me....
[-] 1 points by factsrfun (741) 3 days ago
I was reffering to personal taxes.
When clearly you were not....when you used the words "job creators" you were clearly referring to BUSINESSES/EMPLOYERS and not to personal taxation.
so no more special treatment for personal taxes agreed?
[-] 0 points by factsrfun (741) 1 hour ago
Of course the most regressive tax of all, the sales tax, well to each their own.
Which shows how much you really understand about it.
1) There is no Federal sales or use tax in the United States.
2) A Fair Tax on spending would REPLACE the Federal Income Tax
3) It would also phase out the Federal Excise Tax that is hidden in products - like Peanut Butter which has a hidden tax of 144%. (Politicians LOVE excise taxation because we don't see it!). Excise taxes are used to discourage certain types of behavior as well as to raise revenue - so hows that equate with your idea of "freedom"?
Why don't you do a bit of research?
Would you please cut and paste where I said there was a Federal sales tax, you seem to be good at that though actual points do enlude you.
No. I don't agree.
I support a flat or fair tax on SPENDING (not income and saving) with "allowances" for the lower income level (where a certain amount of spending is NOT taxed).
Of course the most regressive tax of all, the sales tax, well to each their own.
They are not job creators. They are just rich people. They don't spend their days trying to create jobs that benefit the common good and the middle class. They spend their days trying to get richer.
Of course we agree on this, but I'm typing it anyway hahah. I still can't believe the GOP got all their repub followers to actually believe in the Job Creators that are responsible for the corporate cutback theory that fires people and reduces product quality to maximize profits for the few rich guys at the top of the pyramid scheme.
Of course this is not accurate for all millionaires and super rich, but it's accurate of the type of people the GOP is claiming to be job creators.
Wow. We agree on the 1% not being job creators as well! It's the middle class consumers who create demand and therefore the pressure to hire.
I guess it's mainly out opinions on who is to blame for our current military misadventures that separates us. And the horrible way you treat me because I have a different opinion as well. I will look further.
[Removed]
Thank you, for your input, well said. If you would like to take a look here, tell me what you think?
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-america-revolution-was-the-largest-act-of-weal/
Maximizing profit often requires improving product quality and even hiring more people. Without a satisfied consumer, there is no profit.
But I agree, they are not job creators as a first priority - but the result of what they do creates jobs.
It must be nice to live in fantasy land. You could sell maps for a profit.......:)
When they can't find it, you can set up tech support in Bangladesh.
rather than posting nebulous responses, what part of my post did you find to be fantasy?
(are you stalking me....again?)
That whole improving product quality thing. What joke.
I suppose you've never heard of engineered MTF?
What??? I'm not allowed to address your BS, without being accused of stalking?
I guess you should get a private room them, as you certainly don't belong here with that attitude.
Calm down.
MTF is more commonly referred to as MTBF and most companies have efforts to increase MTBF. The cost of poor quality more times than not exceeds the cost of good quality hence why most companies have significant efforts to improved internal and external quality.
Re: addressing your BS: What specifically do you think is BS about my statement?
Why is MTBF, or MTF, or as it was once called, planned obsolescence, indicative of high quality? That you consider it that, is the BS I speak of.
Planned obsolescence is a different metric than MTBF. PO has a negative connotation in today's world but is actually based upon understanding what the life of a product should be. For example, would it have been smart to design a 1970 AMC pacer with a PO of 50 years? Taking into account customer desires, anticipated and historical technology improvements, designers can best design for application and respective cost/price. How many people will want to use today's iphone for the next 20 years? However, if you design an iphone for a 3 year life, you still want the MTBF to be high. If you don't then recalls, returns and customer dissatisfaction result which in turn affects profit margins. Question - what kind of industry are you in?
MTF and planned obsolescence, are different in the same way PR is different from propaganda. It's just a name change for the sake of perception.
You failed to equate it with higher quality, and failed to notice it actually equates to higher profits at minimum quality, while at the same time locking the consumer onto a profit taking treadmill.
I have no Iphone, however if my current cell made calls for 20yrs I have no problem with that. In fact, it sounds good to me.
I'm retired and fail to see what that would have to do with it anyway.
Please do me and yourself a favour and understand the definitions of MTBF, MTTF and planned obsolescence. Then we can intelligently discuss.
Also google "cost of poor quality" and you will see why it is in the interest of companies to strive for improved internal and external quality.
We won't, until you understand they are the same.
The acronyms are just lingo for corporate fine tuning.
I suppose you think PR is different from propaganda too.
They are the same.
Your post didn't address what I said.
You must consider yourself a "conservative".
No, the "lingos" are for very specific and distinct things. It is how product designers discuss different concepts so we don;'t have to resort to "that thingy" talkj. You must think people who are actually knowledgable of the subject matter are conservatives?
I don't know why people think this is a joke???..... but thank you for stopping by.
Come on job creators, gimme those numbers.
Careful what if someone with a heart condition were to read that 1st comment?
Well at least they would die laughing.
For those just checking in:
3 points by brightonsage (960) 37 minutes ago
Now silly, you know they are working their pudgy little fingers to the bone creating jobs with that money. Why I have noticed all of these Tea Party 1%ers on this forum bragging and bragging about how great trickle down has been for them and how they pulled themselves up from poverty in a family of 28. And how their parents (Dad's worked as elementary school janitors and their Mom's pulled the plow on their little rented farm) never considered any form of contraception. And that they never went to school past second grade and yet they got a job at Goldman Sachs and quickly became Sr. Vice President of Proprietary Trading and used their bonuses to create, oh, I don't know how many jobs in Bain Capital, the Cayman Islands, and in Swiss Banks. I am sure they are just busy counting up all of those good high-paying jobs they created and are just about to post them on this very web page. Now, isn't that right, all of you 1%ers? (There is plenty of room to post those great big delicious numbers, right here. So, don't be bashful, Post away?) Boys? Boys? Hey, boys, you can post them here. Boys? ↥like ↧dislike reply permalink
I have a heart condition, so if I can write it they should be able to read it.
Oh, Boys?
Hey Dk I hope you check back in, me and brighion sage got a little.Lewis $ Martin down blow, and I do try to defend this.
I am with you. The sarcasm in the original comment I replied to was funny. But it was also true. There should be clarity and accountability. If you are claiming you are doing something for the public good and that is why you have been given a break of any kind, well then you should be able to show such efforts in the plain light of day, and feel good about it.
DK Thank you, I did pick up on that, hey if you like would you look here? tell me what you think.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-america-revolution-was-the-largest-act-of-weal/
Another good post to stir up thoughtful examination of the world we are in as to where we came from.
I would also include the economic wealth redistribution that happened in the South due to the freeing of the slaves. It was handled rather poorly though in the aftermath of the Civil War in that the South was not properly helped or guided in their reformation and so ended up running economic slavery for long after the war ended.
Watch: PBS special - Slavery by another name.
I will, thank you for reading. I am practicing my "bummer sticker" policy points as the right has worked them so well, yet we have truth on our side. Each contributs in their way to best of their ability.
Yes! Each individual has their own strengths ( genius ). It behooves us to inspire it's use, it's creativity, it's participation.
thank you, (hey this part, heard that a lot from doctors too ;))
There are good Doctors out there as well as Teachers.
I pray so....
There are, they just need support like we do.
borrowed this from GF, don't think she will mind and this guy says it better:
http://www.upworthy.com/breaking-you-know-that-nick-hanauer-ted-talk-you-werent-supposed-to-see-here-it-?g=3&c=dfa1
Why not ask this question another way.
50% of the people pay no Federal Income Tax. Why do the people that pay nothing have any say in how the tax money is spent?
We have a graduated tax rate why not a graduated ballot box? Everybody gets one vote, and then you get one more for every $1000 that you pay in taxes?
Do believe that only those that pay the bills should have a say in how things are done?
They should have a larger say as described above. If not then the money receivers will use the ballot to vote themselves ever more money. When that happens democracy dies. - De Tocqueville
I do think I see democracy dying, but it is down your path. Let’s see what others think:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-dont-we-turn-america-into-a-corporation/
I disagree. Democracy is on the rise around the world and has been for 200 years. It is possibly the greatest contribution of western civilization to the rest of the world.
not if we go down your path
We are on that path now and have been since Adam Smith and democracy has increased.
We are also enjoying one of the most peaceful periods in world history (war and war deaths per capita are at an all time low) in large part due to the commodity abundance provided by the free market system.
we still have one vote per person, your money can't buy you more, of course it does but adds, for now.
Do you not agree that money buys influence with the government today?
Let's just make it available to everyone.
Maybe we could import space alliens to do all the work and everyone could be rich?
or maybe we could make government available to everyone by getting the money out....
What did you think of President Obama's recommendation yesterday to cut the corporate tax from 35% to 28%? With the caveat that we also cut the special interest loop-holes.
I like getting rid of loop-holes, if we had a proper personal income tax and value added tax, we would not need corporate income taxes at all. Corporate income being so easy to hide and all. I do think there is a difference between a loop hole and an incentive, what I call a loop hole the guy getting it calls an incentive, so light of day can help a lot here.
I agree.
If there are no loop-holes than what motivation do corps have to lobby government (there may still be some, but much reduced). They just pay the assigned rate (graduated if necessary); end of story.
I also don't like corporate taxes in general. They are just regressive taxes on consumers that hurt the poor more than the rich. I don't like the VAT because it also disproportionately hurts the poor, and at least part of it is hidden from the consumer (VAT can be levied at numerous points in production from raw material to the retail outlet). The VAT also discourages consumption which costs jobs.
If there were no corporate income tax would that end lobbying altogether?
A graduated personal income tax without tons of exemptions and deductions should be the most equitable approach.
VAT can be adjusted for higher luxury items and be somewhat progressive in nature, unlike a sales tax, which of course is the worst way to raise revenue.
I worry that attempts to implement reforms in the VAT so it does not hurt the poor will turn it into the same, lobby-group magnet that is the current income tax. Everyone will want their own special carve-out and it will be impossible for the consumer to keep track of how much they pay in taxes.
Would it not be better if the government had to look us in the eye when they tax us?
Plus the VAT by nature curbs consumption, hurts the economic growth and costs jobs.
I also don't want to give the government power to regulate our behavior. Is the VAT on butter higher than margarine? Can we avoid giving the Gov one more way to intrude on our lives?
tons of $$$ spent on needless stuff, while they still pay teachers like shit.
Why bother? You let the schools waste money constantly.
The schools I know of do a great job of streaching every penny, that they get.
Is that why you misspelled "stretching"? :)
oh you must be an english teacher
Among our inalienable rights are life, liberty, and property. Don't let the government tell us what we are allowed to do with our own property.
Then you don't mind paying the same tax rates as everyone else? Good, let's fix that.
Uhm, factsrfun...which party is for the flat tax where everyone pays the same basic rate of income tax?
I’m for a flat rate on social security tax first dollar to last all forms of income, and progressive income tax rates, or even better replace the income tax with a flat property tax, after all protection of property is the government's chief job.
Why not a tax on spending instead of on income and savings? With vouchers in place of standard deductions and other caps of income for those of lower income levels. We had an interest income of $200 this year from our retirement savings and were taxed on that interest. Does this make any sense? We sacrifice spending to save for retirement and are taxed on the earnings from that sacrifice.
Tax spending and those who are more wealthy and therefore spend more money will pay according to their spending rate. Those things purchased for needs rather than wants are not taxed at all or taxed at lower rates.
because it depresses the economy and is very regressive
flat tax with a wage system that leaves the 40 hour per week worker, enough to pay said taxes and basic cost of living. Taxes should include Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid so there is no need to pay the cost of the three-four separate administrative functions like we have now that ads to the cost of operating gov for no apparent advantage.
I think I follow your position, (not that you are not clear but I do not wish to speak for you), I do feel the standard deduction should allow for basic needs, not the ridiculously low amount it is today. Even given that I feel at a certain point taxes becomes a method to protect freedom, by preventing anyone from becoming larger than our democracy. I do feel taxes serve both proposes, funding the government as well as protection of freedom/democracy. I would be happy if it did at least one of those, but I can dream right?
Trevor claims Goldman paid for this.
Is this why Romney don't want us to see his tax returns? Because he hasn't really been creating jobs with all that money he gets to keep that working stiffs don't.
since it's not politcal everyone should agree with this
[Removed]
[Removed]
You think you have a right to ask someone what they're doing with their own money? That's exactly the ass-backward nature of the thinking behind this so-called 'movement' that will propel it forward exactly zero distance. I know you think this is a legitimate question (or is this a troll so artfully crafted I've missed it?) but what you don't know and will never be able to understand, realize, or admit is a lifetime of thinking like this has re-wired your brain. You're functional in society but in truth hopelessly lost.
Hey if they're willing to start paying the same tax rate as everybody else, then you got a point, but as long as they keep saying "Cut us a break and we'll do the right thing" then we have right, indeed a duty to make sure they are.
Human nature says some, maybe most of them are liars. But one truth we can be sure of is, there's no $40,000 a year taxpayer with the ability to create a job. So you can't count on everyone who makes big money from investments but there's no chance anyone but them will do it.
If you get special treatment in getting lower rates you should have special rules.
He creates a job every time he walks into a store to buy something, that's what went wrong with America, we kept trusting them to do the right thing. They just laugh at us and buy government bonds.
Or hires people to mow the lawn, or goes to a laundromat (someone has to maintain the machines, building, etc.) or every time they buy food (someone had to grow that food, pack it, drive it to the store. Someone had to stock the shelf with that item.) Or every time they consume any sort of entertainment product (lots and lots of people work on those.)
Living a normal lifestyle "creates" a ton of jobs. Without all of these consumers buying things and needing services, there would be no economy.
"That's the way, uhuh, uhuh.....we do it.
that's the way uhuh uhuh."
[Removed]
No, "we" don't. "We" don't set the tax rates. "We" don't raise taxes.
So you don't think the government works for us, or you don't think it should? You don't think "we" have a right to ask how the schools are spending our money?
F course we have the right to ask? And when we do does it change anything? Out here in Mexifornia it changes nothing.
I just think you got to know the scope of the problem before you can address it.
School district budgets are published. Ask your local board of education for the information.
And so should the budgets of anyone that gets special tax treatment, like lower taxes for dividends and capital gains.
Whether we like it or not, that is private information.
Far better to spend one's efforts changing the law, than it is tracking down who gets these unfair breaks.
You’re right it is easier and more sensible to get rid of the tax breaks on dividends and capital gains and get the government out of the business of telling people how to make their money.
I'm not sure I understand the second half of the sentence. How is government telling people how to make their money?
by having lower rates on one way and higher rates on another...
That's not telling people how to make money, that's allowing them to keep more of it.
Nevertheless. I agree that it is absolutely unjust and promotes nothing other than inequality.
An equal chance for all, is all I ask really. Thank you for stopping by.
As I said, I agree completely. It was your choice of words that was puzzling.
It is my intent to “frame” the issue that wealth in America has become too concentrated, in such a way that it will speak to all Americans. There is a lot to undo. I’m just one voice of many, with a few ideas. I think framing is really important, it is my hope that a few will think of things in different ways, maybe read my threads, and realize that they really do have the best positions, if they can keep the 1%’ers from framing everything to suit them.
The problem is that you state these things in a confusing way. One post you say you are referring to the tax breaks given to the "job creators", yet when it is pointed out to you that that information ( how they use the savings - which you say you have a right to) is public information you reply that you are talking about personal taxation.
You speak of capital gains and dividend taxation as if it were available only to the 1% and not to anyone who invests at any level of income. Do you even understand what those things are?
You talk about what appears to be one level of taxation across the board and then post negative things about the Republicans which is that party that supports a flat tax based upon spending and not saving and income.
Like I said, you tend to confuse the issue with your many posts.
Thank you for paying attention and reading, confused “concerned”.
First point:
Yes I believe that we should not give tax breaks for dividends or capital gains, because doing so requires that the government be appraised of how the money is spent (no matter if the person is a 99er or 1%er) so that the taxpayers can know that the money is being used as it was said that it would be, since it is really impracticable and undesirable for the government to do this, the only sensible thing to do is remove the special treatment.
Second point:
Answered above.
Third point:
Don’t know where you get the “one level” stuff, I do think we should flat tax social security tax first dollar to last all forms of income. If you refer to removal of the special treatment on capital gains/dividends, I support progressive income tax rates, but all should pay the same rates no matter how they earn their money, the government shouldn’t be telling people how to make their money.
Where is that "requirement" written? The one you state mandates that the government be appraised of how the money is spent? Who "said" how the money would be used? Did the 99% - er tell the government how they would "use" the money not legally required by the tax code be paid on the capital gains or dividends they receive from investing for their retirement?
Second point - although you include both 99% and 1% - ers in your paragraph you did not answer whether or not you understand what capital gains and dividends actually are. And the random nature of the totality of your postings makes me wonder whether you do.
One level of taxation - here again this is from your postings - i.e.
[-] 1 points by factsrfun (741) 4 days ago
"Hey if they're willing to start paying the same tax rate as everybody else, then you got a point, but as long as they keep saying "Cut us a break and we'll do the right thing" then we have right, indeed a duty to make sure they are."
You have posted a version of that "same tax rate" sentence many times on this page. Written another way, you are asking for the same "level" of taxation for everyone across the board.
My point was that it is the Democrats who want a "progressive" rate of taxation on income - which has clearly failed - and many of the GOP members are for a "flat" tax rate on spending not on savings - which - in case you were not aware - basically capital gains and dividend income is...it is income derived from money which you have put aside (saved) in funds with the potential for much higher gain/return than a simple savings account.
Is there a "requirement" on how you spend the money you earn? Again, I ask you...if YOU take the legally allowed deduction for mortgage interest, HOW are you spending that savings? Do I even have a right to ask you?
Let them pretend, it's all they've got.
You're absolutely right, but:
We will hammer a message here so strong that they cannot silence it.
Im going to assume this is a joke....
No this is not a "joke" do you disagree?
Income Taxes are "the joke". Please, "think again" if you believe that our income taxes go to "maintaining roads and building embassies in other countries".
The "joke" is on the American working people. For Federal Income Tax is in place so that "our government" can pay back the interest on its loan from The Federal Reserve.
Why would our own government have to take out a loan to print the very money that we as a nation use?
The concepts I am touching on are just the beginning of a complex and historical story. The main point is to understand that I speak the truth. If you do not believe any of this to be true, I invite you to read Alan Greenspan's essay that he wrote in 1966, entitled "Gold & Economic Freedom". It is readily available by doing a web search.
I took economics from Greenspan at that time, he has been wrong so many times since then quoting him is the joke. I know, a blind sow sometimes finds an acorn, but.....Its' like listening to Chuck Colson on ethics.
"I took economics from Greenspan . . ."
You should have given it back to him. Man, he really needed it!
You are right. I didn't know I had the originals.
[Removed]
Income taxes are a joke, because they are so low.
So at what rate should they be?
We certainly did much better in the 90's but here is record of where we've been.
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html
I believe the 50's were very good too.
You have the freedom to write a larger check to your government.
You have always had the ability to give more. In fact, you could even give it ALL.
What's that got to do with finding out where all our (taxpayer supported) investment capital has gone?
But they never do.......they never do.
This one has nothing to do with the R's see I can do it!
You are assuming that its the government's money its not. The government is not making that money to then give back to someone; it belongs to the person's or institution that created and earned that money, so why should they tell you how they spend it anymore than why you should tell us how you spent your disposable income. Schools are government services paid for by the public. You really are quite naive.
money is accumulated not created
unless one is a fractional lender
I make no such assumption; I am stating plainly that the government has a legal right to levy taxes. It has an obligation to tax all it’s citizens fairly. If it gives preference to one group, and justifies it by saying that group will do good for all then the government has a responsibility to make sure that happens.
well, that sounds like a Hugo Chavez government, in the U.S. your disposable income is your business. You are asking that the government track what you spend it on.
Hey if they're willing to start paying the same tax rate as everybody else, then you got a point, but as long as they keep saying "Cut us a break and we'll do the right thing" then we have right, indeed a duty to make sure they are.
As far as the federal progressive income tax the rich pay more (hence 'progressive') you are talking about the tax on investments. If that tax goes up people (not just the rich) will invest less. Not talking about income tax.
It's really simple, they are allowed certain breaks, ie captal gains, dividends, (yes we are all "they" that's the point of OWS I think) on the premiss that they will do certain things it is irresponable of government not ensure those things get done
its their money, the government has no right to tell them anything. just like the government doesn't tell you how to spend your money.
The government has no right to make me pay more, or take away my retirement, so they can pay less.
i assume that 'they' is the rich. There is no law that can tell people how to spend their after tax disposable income. If you know of one please tell me.
You are correct sir, we need to change the tax law.
The point is that there SHOULD be a law like that, especially if the tax breaks are being levied to "create jobs." I think it would be more than worthy of Uncle Sam to demand that the recipients of those breaks prove that they, in fact, used their savings to create jobs.
Or even that they used their tax breaks to improve the process and technology to make it cleaner and more efficient - environmentally friendly. As this is also an often used reason for granting a tax break or subsidy.
ok now we are talking. try to pass that law; talk to your representative, or protest legally and peacefully. problem is is that its a rubbish idea that'll never see the light of day. 'Mr speaker i want a law that will force rich dudes to prove that they use the money that they have, cause taxes aren't higher, to create jobs'. Basic economics, investing is risky if the tax on investments if too high, investments will drop. The government is trying to encourage investments (and job creation) with the lower taxes, you don't create jobs by raising taxes on investments which is essentially what you as asking.
No, this would actually give the "rich dudes" a choice between:
a) Using the $x number of dollars that they would have had to pay Uncle Sam on adding positions, thereby improving your own company, or
b) Giving Uncle Sam the money so that Uncle Sam can figure out where to spend it to improve job growth.
This new law would effectively reduce taxes for the companies that chose to use the money that they would have had to spend anyway on growing their business. Who would choose B if they had the choice? It's not your money in the first place, so as a business owner would you rather see those tax dollars go into the government coffers or to your own organization to open a new branch location or hire more people to help the business?
This would be a win-win for Americans. Either the business get to grow by creating jobs, or the government gets more money to spend on creating jobs. The end goal is that more jobs are available. That's the whole point. Don't you want more people to work?
a) is what businesses do already w/o government forcing them to do. b) is higher taxes. You are for bigger government and more government control a) and b) i am for letting the business make their own economic decisions.
We'll have to disagree on that point then. IMO, lack of government control over business is what has caused our economic mess in the first place. Businesses making their own economic decisions has caused people to become unemployed, destroying lives and families in the process. Businesses, left to their own whims, will move our jobs to China and give the American worker the shaft at every turn, because what is good for the worker is financially bad for the business.
There is no correlation between lower taxes and "job creation." No hard data at all that says "The $125,000 that we saved last year from this tax break created 100 jobs in our Wichita, KS branch." Businesses aren't going to create jobs just because Uncle Sam lets them keep more money.
Responding to the post below:
"well taxes and too much regulation (and unions) may also be chasing jobs overseas. There is a need for regulation and oversite, of course, but to say that more government control over business is going to create jobs is laughable. And to say Uncle Sam lets them' keep more money', is backwards, the money is theirs and not the government's. The government doesn't give money to people by not taxing them, because the money was never the governments in the fist place."
Its more the fact that its cheaper labor overseas than anything that is driving jobs away, not taxes. There's no incentive to keep jobs here, so businesses will do what is best for their accounting rather than what is best for America and hire some Chinese to do the work for a pittance instead of hiring Americans... This proposed rule would create an incentive to create jobs here.
Tax money belongs to the government, NOT the company. The government should dictate what to do their own money. If the companies want that tax money, then they have to earn it by creating jobs. If they don't want that money, then Uncle Sam will take it. This is a common sense proposal to me.
Not taking money from people IS giving them more money. By letting them keep more money, they then... have more money! How is this hard to understand?!?
Ex: Say I make $10 and am taxed $4. I have $6 after taxes. If the government gives me a 25% tax break, now I have to pay only $3 in taxes, and now I have $7 of my original $10. I got to keep an extra dollar, ergo Uncle Sam "gave me" a dollar. I learned this in kindergarden. Surely you are not this dense to be able to understand basic math?
You can try to keep all of your money, and Uncle Sam will gladly put you into a room with bars around it for a long time...
well taxes and too much regulation (and unions) may also be chasing jobs overseas. There is a need for regulation and oversite, of course, but to say that more government control over business is going to create jobs is laughable. And to say Uncle Sam lets them' keep more money', is backwards, the money is theirs and not the government's. The government doesn't give money to people by not taxing them, because the money was never the governments in the fist place.
Government does not tell us how to spend our money?
0 points by tomahawk99 (-2) 3 minutes ago
its their money, the government has no right to tell them anything. just like the government doesn't tell you how to spend your money.
Sure it does, it's called taxes, and we should have a say in how they are properly spent.
so, if a guy working 2 jobs to make 100k a year gets a tax break and the government says we want you to spend it on a new car and broccoli , but the guy says p off and spends it on booze and and junk food. That's his right. The government has the right to tax but your income after taxes is yours to spend how you please. Tell me the law that allows the government to do what you say. You are just making up laws.
SFB
Ever here of taxes on consumer goods and services? Practically the only thing not visibly taxed is the air that we breath. But not to worry if the pollution keeps up there will be an industry and new jobs created to help us breath the toxic fumes of industry. Then that can also be duly taxed.
what are talking about? the premise was that the government should tell the rich how to spend the money they have that hasn't be 'appropriately taxed'. You are rambling on about pollution and taxing everything that moves. We are talking about money that hasn't been taxed. Get it?
We are talking about money not being taxed or being taxed lightly so it can be used for public good ( such as job creation ). Those supposed efforts should be shown clearly in the light of day!
GET IT ?
the money not being taxed or being taxed lightly is not the government's money. You are looking at this backwards. You think that if you only tax 15% the government can then tell you what to do with the rest of your disposable income that you wouldn't have had if the government taxed you more. The government can encourage investments with lower taxes, it can't force someone to invest or investigate what they are doing with their money that they now have cause they weren't taxed more. And again if you can name a law that says the government can do this please tell me.
And you wonder (?) why people have a hard time talking to you. It "seems" that you are without a clue or that you are being "purposely" dense. I suggest you go back to the top of the page and start reading again. Understand that there is use of some sarcasm along the way and pause often to examine what you just read and how it relates overall. If you still have "honest" problems of understanding - seek a special needs instructor.
DKAtoday, a difference in opinion and policy is not ignorance. Look in the mirror you will see a narrow minded liberal with blinders on.