GG Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 That's what I meant. But I keep hearing from Mock that rich guys paying more than they do now is bad. But Mock is not the rich guy that you're talking about, who can easily take a year's worth of income and stash it away in Cyprus and them sail there on his yacht to drink the champagne from a diamond slipper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Drop the personal tax rate to 20%, eliminate all deductions. Easy. And what do you drop corporate tax rates to? Personal service corporations and personal holding companies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 And what do you drop corporate tax rates to?Personal service corporations and personal holding companies? Drop the corporate tax rate to 20%, and keep the same rate on repatriating offshore income to bring capital back to the US. Personal service corporations and personal holding companies are just legal incorporations, they are taxed at the personal rate. A progressive tax code is only good for getting politicians elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Drop the corporate tax rate to 20%, and keep the same rate on repatriating offshore income to bring capital back to the US. Personal service corporations and personal holding companies are just legal incorporations, they are taxed at the personal rate. A progressive tax code is only good for getting politicians elected. No arguments here. I was just curious if you wanted to lower rates even more on not-so-evil corporations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 No arguments here.I was just curious if you wanted to lower rates even more on not-so-evil corporations. I would not be averse to reducing the corporate rate to zero. In the end, their profits get taxed either as dividends to shareholders or subsequent capital gains by the shareholders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 That's what I meant. But I keep hearing from Mock that rich guys paying more than they do now is bad. Because we both know the people who don't have any money are the ones who keep the economy growing and bring more jobs into the fold. So the solution is to just take more from the rich, and then generously and mindlessly hand it to the people who have no money, no prospects, no incentives and no personal accountability because the way to fix this economy is to increase the number of Scratchers that get sold every Friday. Spread the wealth, baby. Scratchers for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 I would not be averse to reducing the corporate rate to zero. In the end, their profits get taxed either as dividends to shareholders or subsequent capital gains by the shareholders. That was my sneaking suspicion. I have to wonder whether such a policy would be subject to abuse by folks way smarter than me. And there's a lot of 'em! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Drop the corporate tax rate to 20%, and keep the same rate on repatriating offshore income to bring capital back to the US. Personal service corporations and personal holding companies are just legal incorporations, they are taxed at the personal rate. A progressive tax code is only good for getting politicians elected. What about the windfall tax rate? Do we keep that at 100%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 What about the windfall tax rate? Do we keep that at 100%? Define windfall profits, and then we can talk.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 That was my sneaking suspicion.I have to wonder whether such a policy would be subject to abuse by folks way smarter than me. And there's a lot of 'em! How would someone abuse a 0% tax rate? It makes planning much simpler because you wouldn't be utilizing any of your employees time to try to find the best after-tax return. To prevent companies from hoarding cash to avoid paying taxes, you can mandate minimum dividend or reinvestment provisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted October 16, 2008 Author Share Posted October 16, 2008 Because we both know the people who don't have any money are the ones who keep the economy growing and bring more jobs into the fold. So the solution is to just take more from the rich, and then generously and mindlessly hand it to the people who have no money, no prospects, no incentives and no personal accountability because the way to fix this economy is to increase the number of Scratchers that get sold every Friday. I never realized what slackers 95% of the population were. I think I'll stay in bed tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 No. It's only perfectly ok for everyone to pay the same rate. Sounds good to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Sounds good to me. But people that pay nothing now are actually going to have to contribute. That's not going to go over real well. The Dems would never let that happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 I never realized what slackers 95% of the population were. I think I'll stay in bed tomorrow. I forgot that many people on the left read this, and we all know they can't get through the day without a few juicy easily misinterpreted over-sensationalized generalizations. Next time I will be more specific and say something like "generously and mindlessly hand it to many people who have no money, no prospects, no incentives and no personal accountability." Feel better, or should we raise my taxes again for offending someone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Naturally the media should investigate a guy who actually ask Obama a question that he answered like a good Marxist. The media can investigate this guy but can't even investigate the actual Presidential Candidate himself. You people on the left are truly pathetic. Obama wouldn't even be able to get a security clearance based on the questions they ask about associations to radical groups and anti-American activities. But if he's an elected official it all doesn't matter. He'll have the keys to the car and drive it right off the cliff. Amen brother! well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Because we both know the people who don't have any money are the ones who keep the economy growing and bring more jobs into the fold. So the solution is to just take more from the rich, and then generously and mindlessly hand it to the people who have no money, no prospects, no incentives and no personal accountability because the way to fix this economy is to increase the number of Scratchers that get sold every Friday. Spread the wealth, baby. Scratchers for everyone. No one is taking your bag of $1400 and handing it to some guy standing on a street corner to buy cigarettes and cough syrup. Training, education, family planning, youth programs, cops, firemen...your characterization is completely wrong. And those people who don't have "no money, no prospects, no incentives," maybe they need a little help getting out of that situation. Single moms/dads, people who've lost their jobs, families crippled by massive healthcare debt, all the people who end up on the outside when you have unregulated capitalism. What the hell is wrong with sending these people some relief? That's where the disconnect is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 But people that pay nothing now are actually going to have to contribute. That's not going to go over real well. The Dems would never let that happen. Contribute what? The counter argument would be to get them to a point where they can afford to contribute, much like the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 No one is taking your bag of $1400 and handing it to some guy standing on a street corner to buy cigarettes and cough syrup. Training, education, family planning, youth programs, cops, firemen...your characterization is completely wrong. And those people who don't have "no money, no prospects, no incentives," maybe they need a little help getting out of that situation. Single moms/dads, people who've lost their jobs, families crippled by massive healthcare debt, all the people who end up on the outside when you have unregulated capitalism. What the hell is wrong with sending these people some relief? That's where the disconnect is. How did we make a living before the days of big gov't? How do oyu expect the gov't to do all you propose when they can't even pass the biggest bail out bill without loading it with f pork? Put the kool aid down and take responsibility for your own actions. Good Lord! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Contribute what? The counter argument would be to get them to a point where they can afford to contribute, much like the rest of us. 20% of their income when many are only paying 10% or even nothing. If we stop giving them shiit they may just figure out how to fend for themselves. I figured it out and I'm not all that smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted October 17, 2008 Author Share Posted October 17, 2008 I forgot that many people on the left read this, and we all know they can't get through the day without a few juicy easily misinterpreted over-sensationalized generalizations. Next time I will be more specific and say something like "generously and mindlessly hand it to many people who have no money, no prospects, no incentives and no personal accountability." Do people like you get to decide who's worthy? That sure makes me feel confident about the future. I'll start building my bunker tomorrow, rather than sleeping in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts