Jump to content


Photo
* - - - - 3 votes

Heritage foundation reporting amnesty would cost $6.3T to deficit


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#16 Panthro

Panthro

    Bunned

  • Moderators
  • 23,251 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 09:52 AM

California has a majority of moochers.  Of course it passed.

 

People will always vote themselves freebies.

 

Those that live in glass houses...of course you never vote for the politician that promises to give you the most.



#17 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,146 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 09:57 AM

Those that live in glass houses...of course you never vote for the politician that promises to give you the most.

 

If I were to vote for who gives me more...it would be liberal wanks.  I'm not rich.  I'm content.



#18 Panthro

Panthro

    Bunned

  • Moderators
  • 23,251 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 09:57 AM

If I were to vote for who gives me more...it would be liberal wanks.  I'm not rich.  I'm content.

 

liar



#19 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,891 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 09:58 AM

I asked a serious question....then put what I think the avg response will be.

 

I am very interested in knowing whether those that continuously support every liberal/socialist agenda is really willing to have their taxes increased to pay for it.  It is easy to sit on the sidelines and support things that you don't have to pay for.

 

That is the equivalent to me pleding $1M to charity (making myself feel good about how generous and caring I am).....but at the same time expecting my neighbor to be the one to actually make the financial contribution.

 

If you raised the capital gains tax to be more in line with the income tax and reigned in profit transferring so we could actually collect taxes from extremely profitable companies that are paying zero taxes because they are reporting all of their profits in the Bahamas and Cayman Islands , than you wouldn't have to raise my taxes.

 

And I don't view that as punishing the rich.  I don't think creating a way to close loopholes that allow major companies to avoid paying any taxes at all is punishment.  I don't think preventing a guy making million dollars a year off of interest pay a significantly lower tax than everyone else is punishment.  I think that would just make sense.



#20 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,146 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 09:59 AM

No lie.



#21 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,438 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 01:08 PM

No real ax to grind on this but I would expect the average life expectancy over the next 50 years to rise quite a bit.

 

On a different note California is probably a good microcosm on illegal costs on an economy.

 

Delhommey, how is it Texas has such a massive number of illegals but such a robust economy?

 

Both California and Texas have diverse economies, but California bet more heavily on housing where as Texas doubled down on oil and energy wealth. If oil prices were slumping and housing prices high, you'd be seeing more articles asking why Texas can't be more like California.

 

Cali's decline is based more off of the housing slump and Texas' ascent with strong oil prices than anything having to do with illegals. That being said, Texas is a lot more welcoming to Mexicans (legal and illegal) than California and is light years ahead regarding assimilation.



#22 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,438 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 01:13 PM

If you raised the capital gains tax to be more in line with the income tax and reigned in profit transferring so we could actually collect taxes from extremely profitable companies that are paying zero taxes because they are reporting all of their profits in the Bahamas and Cayman Islands , than you wouldn't have to raise my taxes.

 

And I don't view that as punishing the rich.  I don't think creating a way to close loopholes that allow major companies to avoid paying any taxes at all is punishment.  I don't think preventing a guy making million dollars a year off of interest pay a significantly lower tax than everyone else is punishment.  I think that would just make sense.

 

That's the thing: No one's asking to soak the rich in the US. They're just asking that the rich play by the same rules as everyone else.



#23 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,146 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 01:28 PM

943339_10152036153224657_1694335441_n.jp



#24 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,438 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 01:35 PM

943339_10152036153224657_1694335441_n.jp

 

 

 

50% eh? I thought most of us had moved past that bad info.



#25 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,874 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 01:53 PM

That's the thing: No one's asking to soak the rich in the US. They're just asking that the rich play by the same rules as everyone else.

 

 

The "rich" and companies/corporations are two different things.

 

How much should a single person, with no kids and no mortgage deductions really have to pay if they are making 150k per year?

 

What's enough?



#26 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,891 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 02:39 PM

The "rich" and companies/corporations are two different things.

 

How much should a single person, with no kids and no mortgage deductions really have to pay if they are making 150k per year?

 

What's enough?

 

I understand your point, but that is a different point from what i was saying.

 

The point I was trying to make using your example, is I feel that a single person with no kids and no mortgage deductions and makes 150k per year should pay the same amount as another individual under the same circumstances, but receives its income in a different manner.

 

Meaning that a single person with no kids and no mortgage deductions, but receives their 150k salary through a payroll should pay the same amount of taxes as a single person with no kids and no mortgage deductions but receives their 150k income through long term capital gains and/or interest. 

 

Right now that 150k person on a payroll would pay significantly more on income taxes than an individual who made that same income through capital gains and/ or interest (28% marginal rate payroll income, at most 15% on long term capital gains).

 

So I guess my question back to you is, do you feel that someone making a million dollars income should pay significantly more taxes than someone else making a million dollars income based solely on how they made that income?



#27 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,874 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 02:44 PM

I understand your point, but that is a different point from what i was saying.

 

The point I was trying to make using your example, is I feel that a single person with no kids and no mortgage deductions and makes 150k per year should pay the same amount as another individual under the same circumstances, but receives its income in a different manner.

 

Meaning that a single person with no kids and no mortgage deductions, but receives their 150k salary through a payroll should pay the same amount as a single person with no kids and no mortgage deductions but receives their 150k income through long term capital gains and/or interest. 

 

Right now that 150k person on a payroll would pay significantly more on income taxes than an individual who made that same income through capital gains and/ or interest (28% marginal rate income, at most 15% on long term capital gains).

 

So I guess my question back to you is, do you feel that someone making a million dollars income should pay significantly more taxes than someone else making a million dollars income?

 

I think that they should all pay less, but I know that's not the question you were asking.

 

How many times is that money to be taxed is my questioning.  If you earned it through regular payroll, and it was taxed at your level then, IMO you shouldn't pay any more taxes on that money ever again, nor what it generates.

 

So I guess the simple answer is yes, I am OK with the capitol gains taxes being what they are, but am not OK with the income taxes being where they are.



#28 Panthro

Panthro

    Bunned

  • Moderators
  • 23,251 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 02:48 PM

I think that they should all pay less, but I know that's not the question you were asking.

 

How many times is that money to be taxed is my questioning.  If you earned it through regular payroll, and it was taxed at your level then, IMO you shouldn't pay any more taxes on that money ever again, nor what it generates.

 

So I guess the simple answer is yes, I am OK with the capitol gains taxes being what they are, but am not OK with the income taxes being where they are.

 

i agreed up until the bold



#29 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,891 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 03:06 PM

I think that they should all pay less, but I know that's not the question you were asking.

 

How many times is that money to be taxed is my questioning.  If you earned it through regular payroll, and it was taxed at your level then, IMO you shouldn't pay any more taxes on that money ever again, nor what it generates.

 

So I guess the simple answer is yes, I am OK with the capitol gains taxes being what they are, but am not OK with the income taxes being where they are.

 

Although I agree that you should only get taxed once for income, I don't really agree on the fact that you shouldn't pay money on what your money generates, and let me explain why.

 

First off, if that was the case, just about any investor would only be taxed only once on their first deal, no matter how small or how large, and then technically every other investment that person ever made would be tax exempt forever because they would only be taxed on their initial profit (ie income). 

 

The other thing is that most people (including the rich) obtain capital to purchase assets that result in capital gains through bank loans and/or private investors.  They may only have a small portion of their own money in the game.  Sometimes, none of their own money.

 

So how would you handle a person who gets capital gains off of other people's money?



#30 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,438 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 03:09 PM

I think that they should all pay less, but I know that's not the question you were asking.

 

How many times is that money to be taxed is my questioning.  If you earned it through regular payroll, and it was taxed at your level then, IMO you shouldn't pay any more taxes on that money ever again, nor what it generates.

 

 

So, no more sales tax then.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.