Home Music Articles Forums Blog Chat More...      

add to bookmarks
Prev Topic | Next Topic

Author
Posts
(Read 37083 times)
Dadai.2
Forum Full Member


Registered: 09/09/08
Posts: 1288
Location: Santa Barbara, CA United States
 
Re:Occupy MacJams
Thursday, November 03 2011 @ 02:46 PM CDT

Quote by: TobinMueller
I cannot shake the feeling that I am part of the 100%.

Call it "responsibility nostalgia."



Really good thoughts, Tobin. Thanks.
bud
Forum Full Member


Registered: 06/17/05
Posts: 3618
Location: Brooklyn, NY USA
 
Re:Occupy MacJams
Thursday, November 03 2011 @ 06:09 PM CDT

Quote by: Dadai.2
Quote by: TobinMueller
I cannot shake the feeling that I am part of the 100%.

Call it "responsibility nostalgia."



Really good thoughts, Tobin. Thanks.



I second that emotion.

And now for something completely different. Meet Justin and Ketchup - two people who have been instrumental in the movement since day one. My son was arrested with Justin on day 4. Justin for using a megaphone - and Dylan for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. He had brought breakfast down to the park.


It's better to regret something you have done, than something you haven't done.
chikoppi
Forum Full Member


Registered: 04/02/04
Posts: 1659
Location: N/A
 
Re:Occupy MacJams
Thursday, November 03 2011 @ 09:21 PM CDT

This story just came out...

30 companies paid 'less than zero' taxes in recent years

"The two advocacy groups, which could be fairly described as left-leaning, claim that among the 280 most profitable U.S. companies, 30 of them paid “less than zero” in taxes in the last three years, and 78 of the companies didn’t pay any federal income tax in at least one of the last three years."

"While the statutory tax rate for corporations in the U.S. is 35 percent, the report says companies use legal tax loopholes and move business offshore to evade taxes. As a result, the average tax rate for all 280 companies was 18.5 percent over the last three years. Only 71 of the 280 companies, or about 25 percent, paid more than 30 percent in taxes over the three years, with an average tax rate of 32.3 percent."

Full Story...

Maybe one way to simplify the tax code would be a 20% flat tax (no exceptions) for corporations as well as taxing transfers (to close the offshore loopholes) to subsidiaries? It might cut down on the shenanigans and result in a 1.5% increase in corporate tax revenue.

“Ya, that idea is dildos.” Skwisgaar Skwigelf
GET SONG FEEDBACK --> MacJams Critics Circles
Bent_Axis
Forum Full Member


Registered: 01/23/11
Posts: 189
Location: City on the Edge of Forever,
 
Re:Occupy MacJams
Thursday, November 03 2011 @ 10:13 PM CDT

Hi chikoppi,

A flat tax is a "regressive" tax, it imposes a much larger burden on lower income earners who need their "20%" of income a lot more than a high income earner does. For example, an earner making 30G would pay 6G that would likely be needed quite badly whereas an earner making a million would pay 200G but still have 800G remaining. Also, "shenanigans" is a euphemism for crime or legalized corruption via cronyism, both of which would still exist in a flat tax system without regulatory enforcement that included mandatory jail time for offenders.

The current "proportional" tax rate works fine if it would ever be enforced as would laws to keep companies from off-shoring. Sadly corruption rules our country now which is why there is a major uprising occurring in every city. Mitt Romney proposed a flat tax, exempting all capital gains from it entirely leaving most of the 1%ers with no taxes at all -- a bullcrap plan from yet another corrupt politician.

This place isn't for rockers
chikoppi
Forum Full Member


Registered: 04/02/04
Posts: 1659
Location: N/A
 
Re:Occupy MacJams
Friday, November 04 2011 @ 12:18 AM CDT

Quote by: Bent_Axis
A flat tax is a "regressive" tax, it imposes a much larger burden on lower income earners who need their "20%" of income a lot more than a high income earner does.

Kinda.

Businesses don't pay income tax, they are taxed on profits. Most small businesses pay tax on a graduated scale based on yearly profits.

If your (C-Corp) small business has revenue of $10MM and expenses of $9MM (including payroll) you'll pay something like $250k to the Fed (25% of $1MM profit). $19MM in revenue and $18MM in expenses? You still only pay taxes based on the $1MM in profit.

In this sense, corporate taxes are always progressive, even under a flat tax. Also, it's pretty easy for decent-size companies to find places to hide that profit.

Many small businesses are LLCs. An LLC pays no Federal taxes (though they do pay small state taxes in some instances), irrespective of revenue or profit. The money gets taxed only when dividends are paid out to the owner/partners (as personal income tax).

“Ya, that idea is dildos.” Skwisgaar Skwigelf
GET SONG FEEDBACK --> MacJams Critics Circles


 
* Post Removed *
Friday, November 04 2011 @ 06:02 AM CDT

* This message has been removed *


 
* Post Removed *
Friday, November 04 2011 @ 06:18 AM CDT

* This message has been removed *
crissew
Forum Full Member


Registered: 07/19/09
Posts: 1059
Location: , NC United States
 
Re:Occupy MacJams
Friday, November 04 2011 @ 10:53 AM CDT

Quote by: VicDiesel
Quote by: crissew
I think that the 1.3 trillion shortfall needs to be cut from the budget... period.



Most of the deficit is debt servicing. Are you proposing that the US default? Period?

Victor



Sorry man but you are incorrect on that. If we had 1.3 trillion in debt service, we would already be finished.
crissew
Forum Full Member


Registered: 07/19/09
Posts: 1059
Location: , NC United States
 
Re:Occupy MacJams
Friday, November 04 2011 @ 11:04 AM CDT

Quote by: bud
Quote by: crissew


Bud, it has been shown over and over again. If we got another 1.3 trillion to the government to close the budget gap, they would spend another 2 trillion over that. To a politician, spending is just a number and a way to garner votes and campaign contributions. The only way to cut the government's waste is to force them to. I think that the 1.3 trillion shortfall needs to be cut from the budget... period.



You're entitled to your opinion.
Is choking off the revenue stream going to be effective if there isn't emphasis on accountability and oversight in place? Before I would cut off my kids allowance - I'd teach him about responsible money management. If I never held him accountable - I helped create the problem.
Increased pressure from the public and petitioning for oversight seems to me to be a more lasting solution than cutting the funds as a tough love approach.



Where did I say to choke off a revenue stream? I am saying don't give them MORE money to overspend. Giving the government an additional 1.3 trillion would be giving the child in your analogy MORE money to mismanage.

Where did I say there shouldn't be accountability or oversight? Of course there should be. The problem is who is going to enforce that over politicians? Who is going to oversee the president? Who is going to oversee the senate? The House? These guys are at the top of the food chain, and THEY make the rules.

 
bud
Forum Full Member


Registered: 06/17/05
Posts: 3618
Location: Brooklyn, NY USA
 
Re:Occupy MacJams
Friday, November 04 2011 @ 11:25 AM CDT

Here's some info from the Federal Budget that might clarify our debt interest spending. Each year since 1969, Congress has spent more money than its income. The Treasury Department has to borrow money to meet Congress's appropriations. This didn't happen overnight.

For the Fiscal Year 2011, the Treasury Department spent $454 Billion on interest payments to the holders of the National Debt.
Compare that to NASA at $6 Billion, Department of Education at $31 Billion, and Department of Transportation at $26 Billion.

Tough number to swallow - and a big hill to climb.

It's better to regret something you have done, than something you haven't done.