Loose: Tax cuts are bad for the wealthy

[diuretic]

They don't pay tax anyway. They collect tax. Only wealth can be taxed. Corporations do not accumulate wealth. Any wealth they get that doesn't go right out the door in expansion is paid to workers and shareholders. You can't short shareholders, as that's the fastest way to watch your business burn, so any corporate income tax is instead paid for by either wage decreases or price increases. Corporations don't pay corporate income tax. You do.

It is, in fact, one of the most brilliant scams the government has come up with. How else would you ever get hordes of rabid people demanding to be taxed more?

Ah I get the point. How about this: a corporation is a legal entity, a "person" in the eyes of the law. It earns profits over and above its operating expenses. This legal "person" owes a share of the profits to investors who might be human beings or other corporate entities such as institutional investors. The corporation, which gets immense benefit out of being given the status of a person under law, pays tax as required, it then distributes the rest of the money among its shareholders.

As for consumers paying corporate tax for them - true, all costs are usually passed on to the consumer by corporations, what a great facility that is for the corporation. But at least it's distributed and at least we choose whether or not to buy from a particular corporation.

[loosecannon]

Not really. Sure they fork over money for tax, but it's not out of their pocket. It's collected in the price of the product they sell.

I hate to do this but using that reasoning people don't pay income tax either , they pass it along to their employers, who also don't pay because they pass it along to their customers.

So who are these customers that are paying everybody else's taxes?

[Mr. P]

I hate to do this but using that reasoning people don't pay income tax either , they pass it along to their employers, who also don't pay because they pass it along to their customers.

So who are these customers that are paying everybody else's taxes?

Don’t be ridicules, individuals do pay income tax and they don’t pass it to the employer, the Gov does.

The employer may budget $100 per day for your pay.
They must withhold $50 tax
They pay the Gov. $50 on your behalf
You file a return and maybe get $25 back
The gov keeps $25
The employer paid that missing $25 from the price of goods or service.

Have you ever heard of embedded tax? It's like the spaghetti sauce, it's in there.

[loosecannon]

Don’t be ridicules, individuals do pay income tax and they don’t pass it to the employer, the Gov does.

The employer may budget $100 per day for your pay.
They must withhold $50 tax
They pay the Gov. $50 on your behalf
You file a return and maybe get $25 back
The gov keeps $25
The employer paid that missing $25 from the price of goods or service.

Have you ever heard of embedded tax? It's like the spaghetti sauce, it's in there.

I am not gonna argue with you Mr P.

But applying that same logic to any tax is specious.

[Mr. P]

I am not gonna argue with you Mr P.

But applying that same logic to any tax is specious.

Which tax? It's all in the same pot. does it matter what it's called, income, corporate, payroll etc?

[diuretic]

Which tax? It's all in the same pot. does it matter what it's called, income, corporate, payroll etc?

It matters to whoever is paying it.

[Yurt]

=loosecannon;48275]Well sure. Tho I have yet no idea at all what your actual question is.

This is not surprising, which is one of the reasons it is a waste of time to debate you one on one.

From what I have heard and read from the dems, is that those evil tax cuts that Bush gave to the wealthy, the very wealthy, what not, were bad. In fact, the democratic platform is to increase the taxes on the wealthy, especially the very wealthy 1%.

Loosy; and here is your chance to debate, what say you regarding taxes?

That is the core issue. The very first reply in post #2 understood the question quite clearly and answered it. Why you still did not get the gist after that reply is, well, no, not puzzling, I guess it should be expected.

I left it general at the end to allow a healthy discussion regarding taxes as I wish to learn more about taxes.

Taxes are an uneccesary evil. We do not need to be taxed in the first place. There are several ways to fund nations other than taxes. But if you discount all of them, you are left with only the system of tax as a means to fund government.

I don't think they are evil. And yes, they are necessary. Certain functions of a government necessarily require funding that inherently should be taxed from its citizens. But to tax one class of citizens unfairly, no matter how wealthy, is still, unfair.

So what is taxation supposed to accomplish? Funding the gummit.

What else? Well taxation is additionally bound by two other standards: providing or retarding economic growth and being equitable in terms of progressive and regressive dynamics.

So taxes are solely about economics?

Fortunately taxing the wealthiest the most has always proven to be the best compromise in both cases.

I may be mistaken, but did not Reagan's tax system create a vibrant economy? One vastly superior to Commie Carter.

It is most equitable and provides the greatest relative stimulus to the economy. (which is still negative but not as negative as the alternatives. My favorite choices have always involved no taxes at all because all taxes drain the economy)

How is it "equitable?" Because you are not the one being taxed at an inherently unjust rate? Treating a class of people different than another class of people generally violates the equal protection clause. Even though the economic class has the lowest standard for the "gummit" to overcome, it does not, however, change the fact that the rich are being treated unequal.

So what exactly was your question?

Do you like repeating yourself? You spend all that time making a post to close with this, what a waste of time. You just have to dig don't you? You think because YOU don't understand the issues that this somehow makes my post less. Nice try.

Just ask the second poster.

[Yurt]

wealth isn't taxed while you are alive, income is. And corps do pay corporate income tax.

And corps do accumulate wealth.

I disagree that wealth is not taxed. Property tax.

Next.

[loosecannon]

I don't think they are evil. And yes, they are necessary. Certain functions of a government necessarily require funding that inherently should be taxed from its citizens.

Governments need money. But taxation is only one way of many that governments can raise the money they need to cover their expenses.

Why do you automatically disregard all of the other ways gummits can raise funds without even knowing what they are?

[loosecannon]

This is not surprising, which is one of the reasons it is a waste of time to debate you one on one.

I did address your question, you just didn't see the response. I said taxing the wealthy is the best way to accomplish the three goals of taxation is by taxing the wealthy.

That is actually not true, but once you accept taxation as a necesary you have pretty much blown off all of your relationship with economic truth.

Reality is that the ONLY reason why the Gummit taxes people is to make it mandatory for them to use US currency as a sole means of exchange.

And I can look and find quotes from the federal reserve itself that say exactly that. It will take 45 minutes of my life to find em, but I think it is worth it if there is sufficient interest.

Later tho. Not now.

Taxes aren't neccesary.

[loosecannon]

I may be mistaken, but did not Reagan's tax system create a vibrant economy? One vastly superior to Commie Carter.

Vibrant economy? Well actually the reagan years were the lowest point in the US economy in the last 60 years. Not all Reagan's fault by any means but vibrant would pretty much the opposite of reality.

The economy could suck ice cubes thru a straw during the reagan era.

[loosecannon]

How is it "equitable?" Because you are not the one being taxed at an inherently unjust rate? Treating a class of people different than another class of people generally violates the equal protection clause. Even though the economic class has the lowest standard for the "gummit" to overcome, it does not, however, change the fact that the rich are being treated unequal.

The rich are receiving a far greater share of government services as well.

The reality is this:

Left to our own devices nopne of us could ever become anything more than extremely poor and always struggling to survive.

It is society and society alone that integrates people into an organization that is capable of creating wealth. Adam Smith said something about how one man working alone could produce something like two of thing x in a day but with division of labor and organization each man could produce 4000 of the same objects. Maybe it was buttons.

It isn't the labor that makes that efficiency occur, or the capital that bought the machines, or the organization, or the highways, and past inventions and distant mines and forests and farm land that are reaped without sowing that produce that efficiency. It is ALL of that combined.

So each of us no matter how wealthy we are owe almost all of our wealth to the benfits of society as a whole and NOT to our own efforts ingenuity and intelligence except to a small, small degree.

To whom much is given, much is expected. The wealthy reap far, far more benfits from society than the poor who almost always work much harder for their money.

So the wealthy are actually very much priviledged to be taxed at a much higher rate and still be wealthy than to be taxed at a lower rate and be destitute working like mules everyday just to subsist, as they would be if society was not supporting them.

Taxing the rich much more is far more than fair.

And equitable merely means that it is the most fair and also does the least harm to the overall economy.

Do you like repeating yourself? You spend all that time making a post to close with this, what a waste of time. You just have to dig don't you? You think because YOU don't understand the issues that this somehow makes my post less. Nice try.

Just ask the second poster.

You are talking to yourself, start your own thread. Just a Yurt on Yurt thread and we will all read it.

[loosecannon]

I disagree that wealth is not taxed. Property tax.

Next.

Inheritance tax, that's two, but I was responding to somebody who said that income is not taxed, but wealth is.

And wealth and property are not synonomous.

A property tax is a tax on SOME of your wealth.

So is an income tax or a sales tax, etc.

[Yurt]

loosecannon;48635]I did address your question, you just didn't see the response.

Are you in special education? If so, I will stop any digs at you. If not, you are an idiot. I saw the question at the beginning of your post and at the end of your post. You did not see my response to both questions. Stuff like this is why it is a waste of time to have one on one thread with you. You are either plain ignorant or ignorant on purpose to supposedly further some point you have. Either way, it speaks ill of your alleged debating prowess which you are so fond of talking about.

I said taxing the wealthy is the best way to accomplish the three goals of taxation is by taxing the wealthy.

That is actually not true, but once you accept taxation as a necesary you have pretty much blown off all of your relationship with economic truth.

WTF? Your first sentence is incomprehensionable. I know you said taxing the wealthy is the best way, then you repeat (seems a habit with you) .. "is by taxing the wealthy." Is english your first language? For you next say that "is" (which must be an identifiable something, though we have no clue) not true, "but" if I accept taxes as necessary, then this somehow blows off my "relationship" with economic "truth?"

There is no single economic "truth." If there is one, let us know.

Reality is that the ONLY reason why the Gummit taxes people is to make it mandatory for them to use US currency as a sole means of exchange.

So you don't need roads? If not the gummit, then who? Serious, I am open to suggestions. I think it goes beyond roads, but the "road" is really the very basic of an empire/gummit. Who should pay? Should all roads by "toll?"

And I can look and find quotes from the federal reserve itself that say exactly that. It will take 45 minutes of my life to find em, but I think it is worth it if there is sufficient interest.
Later tho. Not now.

I said bring it. So bring it. Don't whine about your time, if you don't have it, don't respond. Before going to cambria this morning I perused the board, but did not respond because the misses wanted me on the road. I did not make a post telling people about that, I simply put the CP to sleep and went. Get a life.

Taxes aren't neccesary

Explain you big bad awesome great terrific superior beyond intellectual grasp debator.

[Yurt]

You are talking to yourself, start your own thread. Just a Yurt on Yurt thread and we will all read it

dickhead, you are the one spouting crap about debates, i make one, invite you personally, and allow others to join, wtf this has to do with this asinine post is beyond me.