 N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: Worth repeating - corporations don't pay taxes-customers do said by fAcEtIOUs: It is worth repeating that it is the customers of these companies who pay the taxes thru higher prices. Anyone cheering for corporations paying higher taxes are really just cheering to pay more taxes themselves - unless you are one of those very few people who never buy any product or service.
See, now that's specious reasoning IMHO. Especially if the corporation is turning a decent profit.
Consumers pay what the MARKET will bear, regardless of the structure of the corporate tax code. If a corporation can't provide a service at a competitive price, the consumer goes elsewhere.
The real benefit of the current tax structure is to the SHAREHOLDER, and not to the CONSUMER. Corporations aren't going to charge me less just because their taxes are lower. They're going to charge the maximum amount they think they can for their product. The ultimate driving force here is not to charge less, or even pay less taxes, but to maximize profit. The obvious (and some would say proper) primary goal of the corporation.
I seriously doubt Verizon, GE, and Boeing are spending billions on lobbyists in the interests of end consumers like you and me.
These corporations enjoy the protections of the rule of law (both patent law & contract law via the courts). They have a duty to contribute SOMETHING to society.
I'm not saying tax the rich to feed the poor until their "int no rich no more", but pay SOMETHING.
Of course, I could pay nothing in taxes if I had a herd of corporate lawyers & lobbyists too. But since I'm just one person with one vote I have no real voice in this country anymore.
Money talks, bullshit (and the individual) walks.
--
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by N3OGH:I'm not saying tax the rich to feed the poor until their "int no rich no more", but pay SOMETHING. Exactly. I'd love to say that the 47% of people who paid no federal income tax. It isn't fair that all of these people get a free ride at the expense of everyone who paid something.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. |
|
|
|
N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | I LOVE how people throw that one out there all the time without doing their own research first.
It's not 47% of people, it's 47% of all those who filed as being single who don't pay any federal income tax.
Along with that, 38% of joint filers will pay no federal income tax, and 72% of those who file as "head of household" end up owing no federal income taxes.
Of course these statistics are taken from a year that was smack dab in the middle of a recession, where all kinds of tax breaks were thrown out there to try and "stimulate" the economy. An effort that was obviously an epic fail, but that's a topic for another time.
On it's surface, the number sounds grotesque, but in fact it's the facts taken and twisted into a talking point to serve an agenda. Something I used to think only the left did.
Now I know they all do it......
--
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by N3OGH:I LOVE how people throw that one out there all the time without doing their own research first.
It's not 47% of people, it's 47% of all those who filed as being single who don't pay any federal income tax.
Along with that, 38% of joint filers will pay no federal income tax, and 72% of those who file as "head of household" end up owing no federal income taxes. Wow. The problem is much worse than I knew it to be. All of these people should be paying something. Every last one of them.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. |
|
 ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 | reply to pnh102
Re: Worth repeating - corporations don't pay taxes-customers do I'm assuming this is sarcasm. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:All of these people should be paying something. Every last one of them.
Ridiculous. People who are so poor that they collect from the system should then pay some of it back? That makes no sense whatsoever.
The top 1% should be taxed heavily... the 99% shouldn't pay anything. |
|
 Rogue WolfAte Your Homework, And Framed The Dog
join:2003-08-12
Troy, NY | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:said by N3OGH:I LOVE how people throw that one out there all the time without doing their own research first.
It's not 47% of people, it's 47% of all those who filed as being single who don't pay any federal income tax.
Along with that, 38% of joint filers will pay no federal income tax, and 72% of those who file as "head of household" end up owing no federal income taxes. Wow. The problem is much worse than I knew it to be. All of these people should be paying something. Every last one of them. So you can do it one of two ways.
1. Tax them some trivial amount- a lot of people say one dollar. You end up spending more for enforcement, collection and tracking than you gain.
2. You tax them a significant amount of their income to make it worth the effort, which for quite a few people who are already barely holding on would prove ruinous.
Waste money for pointless symbolism, or put no small amount of already-poor people on the streets. Which do you choose?
--
Justin Timberlake brought sexy back. I'm putting it away again.
This content may not be retransmitted by your cable company without significant rate increases! |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to CXM_Splicer
said by CXM_Splicer:The top 1% should be taxed heavily... the 99% shouldn't pay anything. Please stop with this arbitrary 1% whining. Perhaps you should focus your efforts on fixing the tax code, reducing government waste and spending, and growing our economy. The result of being financially successful shouldn't be a punishment. |
|
| You are right, 1% is arbitrary... we could make it 1.5% if you prefer. I would LOVE to revise the tax code and I have already explained how to grow the economy. The result of being a hard worker shouldn't be poverty. |
|
ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 Reviews:
 ·DSL EXTREME
| reply to CXM_Splicer
Problem is, wherever you draw the border between tax & taxless, there would be a huge problem. Using your 1% example, that means if I'm in the top 1.1%, I pay no tax. The moment I cross over to the 1% - boom, huge tax hit.
In that model, your citizens had better either be pretty-rich-but-not-quite-enough, or Monopoly-man-super-rich. If your income puts you between these two camps, prepare for taxes to punish you harder than if you were a 1.1%-er. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to CXM_Splicer
said by CXM_Splicer:You are right, 1% is arbitrary... we could make it 1.5% if you prefer. Now your ignorance is shining through.said by CXM_Splicer:The result of being a hard worker shouldn't be poverty. Never suggested that it should be.
Your suggestion to grow the economy is? How about the tax code revision? |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to Thaler
said by Thaler:I'm assuming this is sarcasm.
Nope. I am very serious. Why should anyone get a free ride? Even if it is $1 or $10 or so... pay something and have some skin in the game.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to CXM_Splicer
said by CXM_Splicer:Ridiculous. People who are so poor that they collect from the system should then pay some of it back? That makes no sense whatsoever.
The top 1% should be taxed heavily... the 99% shouldn't pay anything. Sorry, but your second sentence shows you really have no clue about who pays the bills in this country. The top 1% pay a huge chunk of the taxes.
And yes, I sincerely believe that everyone should pay something in tax. We have rights and responsibilities in this country. Paying taxes sucks, but it is a responsibility. If the job of government is to do things that benefit people collectively, then why shouldn't that burden be spread to everyone?
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to Rogue Wolf
said by Rogue Wolf:1. Tax them some trivial amount- a lot of people say one dollar. You end up spending more for enforcement, collection and tracking than you gain. Well government never was intended to run as a profit.
said by Rogue Wolf:2. You tax them a significant amount of their income to make it worth the effort, which for quite a few people who are already barely holding on would prove ruinous. Indeed. The whole point is for everyone to feel a sting.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. |
|
ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:Nope. I am very serious. Why should anyone get a free ride? Even if it is $1 or $10 or so... pay something and have some skin in the game.
So for the people below the poverty line and struggling to feed themselves, they should cough up something at the same rate proportionally as a billionaire? Also, I wouldn't call struggling to pay rent & food exactly a "free ride".
I guess they could pay their taxes at the end of the year with lint, but that's just a silly concept to begin with. |
|
ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:said by Rogue Wolf:2. You tax them a significant amount of their income to make it worth the effort, which for quite a few people who are already barely holding on would prove ruinous. Indeed. The whole point is for everyone to feel a sting. Sales tax alone at that income level is a hard sting. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to Thaler
said by Thaler:So for the people below the poverty line and struggling to feed themselves, they should cough up something at the same rate proportionally as a billionaire? Also, I wouldn't call struggling to pay rent & food exactly a "free ride". It doesn't have to be that high. Just something to make them remember that government is not free.
Personally I support a form of national retail non-VAT sales tax (the FairTax or something like it) to accomplish this. Under such a system, assuming all forms of federal income and payroll taxes are abolished, it will be assured that everyone pays something. Those who buy more pay more, those who buy less pay less. What could be more fair?
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. |
|
 unsub
join:2000-06-21
Newton Upper Falls, MA | reply to pnh102
How can you not see that the reason that the top 1% pay so large of a share is because they have a obscenely disproportionate amount of the wealth.
We have a wealth disparity in this country that we haven't seen in a hundred years.
The gap is so wide that taxing the bottom 50% of the country would be absolutely meaningless and would generate no income.
We have lowered the taxes on the mega rich so drastically over the last 20 years that we have created an absolute nightmare.
I don't think you fully appreciate just how bad it is out there. |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to openbox9
>Now your ignorance is shining through.
Gee thanks  If your position is considered 'educated' then I would much rather be ignorant. I haven't seen anything but criticism from you, perhaps a suggestion of how we can do things differently to better the current situation?
>Never suggested that it should be.
And yet that is exactly the direction we are heading. Forgiving corporate tax (more than we already do) will make the situation worse. That is glaringly obvious.
Your suggestion to grow the economy is? How about the tax code revision?
Both are already in this thread... please read back. |
|
