Still Hating America.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So six years of glorious and complete Republican control should have freed up those red states, happily free of limousine liberals like me, to do wonderful things. Have you found some examples yet?

Or did you not manage to read the second paragraph of the post you were responding to?

Bill Clinton. We all agree he is pretty smart, and he was educated in public schools.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I find it difficult to believe that there are people out there that don't realize that if you make more money, you will pay more taxes.

But then, I guess Richard Hatch is sitting in jail right now for not getting that basic point.

Uh, I fully realize that. It's the definition of "more" that's the troubling part of the debate. The devil is the difference in "more" under a flat tax and "more" under our present progressive system.

Secondarily, we need to examine what the truly hyper-rich pay in relation to a guy making $320k. The strident progressive think we need to soak the whole top 1%, which clearly isn't fair.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
"Tout."

Shall I look up the definition of the word and juxtapose how one "touts" something against what it means to actually implement it?

Are you suggesting that they did not implement tax cuts?

Sorry, Charlie -- even most conservatives have figured out that you can't fake fiscal responsibility, not when you've got virtually unlimited ability to borrow. "Starving the beast" through tax cuts has never, ever brought about spending decreases.

Though, perhaps, in the long term the Reagan/Bush/Bush deficits will have that effect -- we'll still be spending as much, but it will all go to service our debt to China.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I agree, but there's a lot of room for debate as to what is a "fair share".

A fair share is a guy making under $20k should pay no taxes.

Everybody above it should pay one percentage. This will grab a shitload of cash from the superrich who benefit most from our progressive system.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Bill Clinton. We all agree he is pretty smart, and he was educated in public schools.

Hmmm.... was Arkansas a Red state or a Blue state when Bill Clinton was in grammar school?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Are you suggesting that they did not implement tax cuts?

Sorry, Charlie -- even most conservatives have figured out that you can't fake fiscal responsibility, not when you've got virtually unlimited ability to borrow. "Starving the beast" through tax cuts has never, ever brought about spending decreases.

Though, perhaps, in the long term the Reagan/Bush/Bush deficits will have that effect -- we'll still be spending as much, but it will all go to service our debt to China.

No, that's not what I said. They never implemented the cuts in services and pork that go along with tax cuts. Hence, they ran red all over the place.

Nobody cuts the benefits because its political suicide. But its what we need to to do. We need a reverse New Deal - nothing but highways, defense (moderated to avoid lunacy like what we have right now) and basic services. And we should cut Social Security and Medicare and get rid of that insane prescription drug benefit. "Pork" shouldn't even exist. And our govt should not in the business of subsidizing anything the private sector can do. No earmarks for any social programs or research. No grants. No student loan programs. Cut it all and watch the price slide naturally to meet the lower amount of money available to those providing the goods and services.

Just look at what higher education and the health care industries have done since student loans and medicare have become primary revenue streams. If allowed to bill Uncle Sam, the private sector will soak him silly and inflate the cost of goods and services in every market into which his subsidies flow.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
That is how SS works. Now if they'd just admit it.

Everybody knows this. This is why old people vote.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why is there even a corporate tax at all? Assuming the right individual tax rate, why not tax dividends and k gains at the individual level only? Corps. just engage in accounting chicanery anyway. Why tax them on the fact they had a good year, when whatever income they earn will be taxed at the individual level either because they paid dividends or because their retained earnings increased their stock's value? (again, assuming we can agree on the appropriate tax rate)

You can't eliminate a corporate tax becaiuse then it creates an incentive for corporations to defer tax by accumulating profits and gains.

Theoretically, youcould treat all business entities as passthroughs, like partnerships and LLCs. But who's going to keep track of the capital account and allocable share of tax items for all the shareholders of IBM or General Mills?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
You can't eliminate a corporate tax becaiuse then it creates an incentive for corporations to defer tax by accumulating profits and gains.

Huh? That makes zero sense (and usually you make sense, even if we disagree). Why would they act to defer a tax that they don't have to pay? To the extent they're worried about future reinstitution of the corp. tax, then they'll accelerate those items.

Second, why should taxes affect incentives to accumulate profits/gains? Those profits/gains belong the shareholders. The shareholders can either take them as dividends, in which case they're taxes as income, or retain the earnings in which case they will increase the value of the stock, which will lead to shareholders' paying k-gains taxes when those gains are realized. The latter will be true regardless of whether the company sits on cash or reinvests it--either causes stock price appreciation (which causes more depends on how well it reinvests).

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Uh, I fully realize that. It's the definition of "more" that's the troubling part of the debate. The devil is the difference in "more" under a flat tax and "more" under our present progressive system.

Secondarily, we need to examine what the truly hyper-rich pay in relation to a guy making $320k. The strident progressive think we need to soak the whole top 1%, which clearly isn't fair.

Actually, all I've ever advocated is that the guy making $200k, the guy making $350k and the guy making $320m all pay the same 35%. In other words, at thet op of the income scale, what I've argued for all along is a flat tax.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Hmmm.... was Arkansas a Red state or a Blue state when Bill Clinton was in grammar school?

you're proud to have been behind segregated schools? Figures. I wonder what Penske would have posted right now.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Huh? That makes zero sense (and usually you make sense, even if we disagree). Why would they act to defer a tax that they don't have to pay? To the extent they're worried about future reinstitution of the corp. tax, then they'll accelerate those items.

Second, why should taxes affect incentives to accumulate profits/gains? Those profits/gains belong the shareholders. The shareholders can either take them as dividends, in which case they're taxes as income, or retain the earnings in which case they will increase the value of the stock, which will lead to shareholders' paying k-gains taxes when those gains are realized. The latter will be true regardless of whether the company sits on cash or reinvests it--either causes stock price appreciation (which causes more depends on how well it reinvests).

Suppose you and I have a corporation, in which we have each invested $100. The corporation earns $10 annually. If we have the corporation hold that $10 each year until we retire and are no onger earning a salary, then we are taxed at a lower rate, because we have a lower income, and the corporation has had the use of that money to invest and generate still more income, which is also not subject to tax currently.

You do agree that a dollar of tax paid five years from now is worth less than a dollar paid today, don't you?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Suppose you and I have a corporation, in which we have each invested $100. The corporation earns $10 annually. If we have the corporation hold that $10 each year until we retire and are no onger earning a salary, then we are taxed at a lower rate, because we have a lower income, and the corporation has had the use of that money to invest and generate still more income, which is also not subject to tax currently.

You do agree that a dollar of tax paid five years from now is worth less than a dollar paid today, don't you?

So you're saying the way to solve the realization problem is to retain the tax? I agree with the second proposition, but don't see why that's a problem, especially since one can already defer tax by not selling an asset.

First off, with a public company, at best the incentive you note means that no dividends are paid. Yet dividends are paid now, despite being taxed at the personal level and not being deductible at the corporate level. How would eliminated the corporate tax change that? If shareholders demand dividends, they still will. And say they don't pay dividends, becuse shareholders prefer retained earnings (as with microsoft for years). Well, there are still gains to the company. If anyone sells, they pay the tax on those gains. Only the people who don't sell can "defer" the tax. But that's been a problem for years, and has nothing to do withthe coproate tax. It's a problem with the personal income tax and the way it treats realization events.

So you're down to closely held/private/S corps. Same reasoning applies, though. If you and I have that corporation, I'll leave my money in it so long as there's food on teh table. But if we're running a good business, I suspect that once in a while we'll agree to pay out dividends to ourselves and go enjoy a nice steak and bottle of Bordeaux at Mortons. And we'll pay the tax we have to. And, if we decide to keep it in the corporation for perpetuity for some reason, why should it be taxed? If you're worried about that problem, change the k-gain rule here too and require realization of gains at more frequent intervals than upon sale.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No, that's not what I said. They never implemented the cuts in services and pork that go along with tax cuts. Hence, they ran red all over the place.

Nobody cuts the benefits because its political suicide. But its what we need to to do. We need a reverse New Deal - nothing but highways, defense (moderated to avoid lunacy like what we have right now) and basic services. And we should cut Social Security and Medicare and get rid of that insane prescription drug benefit. "Pork" shouldn't even exist. And our govt should not in the business of subsidizing anything the private sector can do. No earmarks for any social programs or research. No grants. No student loan programs. Cut it all and watch the price slide naturally to meet the lower amount of money available to those providing the goods and services.

Just look at what higher education and the health care industries have done since student loans and medicare have become primary revenue streams. If allowed to bill Uncle Sam, the private sector will soak him silly and inflate the cost of goods and services in every market into which his subsidies flow.

This isn't "starve the beast." This is political will to make radical changes. "Starve the beast" is the bullshit philosophy that if you cut taxes, spending cuts will follow. Reality says you should cut spending, then cut taxes in recognition of that.

As for higher education, I disagree. Student loans aren't driving up the price, and I doubt that they are even the main revenue stream anymore.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you're proud to have been behind segregated schools? Figures. I wonder what Penske would have posted right now.

Translation: My name is Hank. I railed on and on that Democrats, mainly rich Democrats, were responsible for bad schools. So I was asked the obvious question, which is to identify someplace where Republicans, who've held so much power for so long, have created a model school system. After trying to fart this off with a few stupid responses, I finally came up with the facile answer of saying Bill Clinton is really smart. I forgot, of course, that his home state was run by Democrats while he was in public school. Having been revealed, once again, as a snide idiot with nothing of substance to say, I will accuse Sidd -- and, in fact, all Democrats -- of being racists. And I will long for Penske to come post the picture of Byrd that he loves to post, which we all know has been altered to falsely suggest that Byrd was a member of the Klan sometime after the Korean War.