GOP Presidential Candidates

[LittleCaesar]

This upcoming election is Obama's to lose; I thought the only person the GOP could nominate to give him a run for his money is Christie.

Increasing the minimum wage has done nothing but hurt America. It makes us less competitive on a global scale.

Until the US creates real demand for products made here, taxing the rich and other monetary policies are only stop-gap measures to reduce the deficit.

 

[02SE]

Okay, I'll ask again. What would be a "fair" tax rate for everyone to pay, in your opinion?

Here are the current Federal taxable income rates: Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2011 and 2012

 

[BrianSD_42]

Edit: I am not speaking about 02SE or anyone else on T4R. These are my thoughts in general.



A fair tax rate is WHATEVER it takes to save the country and preserve the American way of life.

Wars cost money, roads, bridges, educated citizens for employers, ensuring freedom from tyranny and oppression costs money.

The military has paid in blood. We have sacraficed everything for these causes. All I expect is for civillians to chip into the pot.

In WWII the tax rate was 90% over X amount of income. We stopped the Nazis from taking over the world. That war was funded by tax revenue and bond debt. After the war high taxes remained and the money funded US foreign policy and the cold war. We stopped the Russians from taking Europe. If you dont believe me ask a German.

The last several presidents have deceived you and the public. Gulf 1 and Gulf 2 were paid for with borrowed money. It is time to pay the debt. The military has paid in our blood, the least you can do is support paying in $ for the government debt, US debt.

:bat:

 

[02SE]

A fair tax rate is WHATEVER it takes to save the country and preserve the American way of life.

Wars cost money, roads, bridges, educated citizens for employers, ensuring freedom from tyranny and oppression costs money.

The military has paid in blood. We have sacraficed everything for these causes. All I expect is for civillians to chip into the pot.

In WWII the tax rate was 90% over X amount of income. We stopped the Nazis from taking over the world. That war was funded by tax revenue and bond debt. After the war high taxes remained and the money funded US foreign policy and the cold war. We stopped the Russians from taking Europe. If you dont believe me ask a German.

The last several presidents have deceived you and the public. Gulf 1 and Gulf 2 were paid for with borrowed money. It is time to pay the debt. The military has paid in our blood, the least you can do is support paying in $ for the government debt, US debt.

:bat:

You assume an awful lot about me, for not knowing me.

You're also essentially accusing me of not paying my taxes. Nice.


Another thing, "The least I can do"... you don't get to talk down to me. I understand all to well how the finances of this Country work (or don't work).

Let me tell you something about me.

I have paid all the taxes required of me by law. And have contributed to charitable causes. In my working life I've paid taxes while putting myself through school. No handouts from anyone.

I've paid taxes while taking huge personal risks to start a small business.
I Paid taxes while being successful enough to hire others to help with the workload.
I Paid taxes while worrying 24/7/365 how to keep the business running and profitable, thus able to keep a roof over my head and those of the employees.
I also paid taxes while selling the business after becoming tired of overbearing corporate taxes and regulations.

I'm just glad I'm not in business today.

I have a couple of business owner acquaintances that are thinking of throwing in the towel and letting a large number of, or even all of their employees go. One because his business is somewhat seasonal, and due to the mild weather this year, he can't afford the unemployment insurance payment the Government is requiring from him.

If he does layoff employees or close his doors altogether, a bunch of people with families are going to be unemployed. He doesn't want to do that, but he may not have a choice.

In your words a "fair tax" is WHATEVER it takes. How about this, are you paying 90% of your income in tax? If not, why not? Is it that a 90% tax rate somehow wouldn't be fair to you?, but it is for others?

In your own personal finances, if you spend more than you take in, you go into debt.

In business, if you spend more than you take in, you go into debt.

Neither situation is sustainable indefinitely.

You either reduce your spending, or you find a way to make more money.

Government spends far more than it takes in. That is also unsustainable.

They either have to reduce their spending, or try and tax everyone into oblivion.

Does taxation without representation ring a bell? This country was formed to escape an overbearing, tax hungry Government.

Taking so much from those such as my business owner friend that they are just saying to hell with it, and throwing in the towel, means even less in taxes going to feed the Government machine.


Tell me again how punitive taxes will somehow improve the National Debt, when the outcome will be even less money coming in to Government coffers, with simultaneously higher unemployment?

 

[LittleCaesar]

Here is one blog for your argument Brian:
Were the Bush tax cuts worse for progressivity or for revenues? « Consider the Evidence

 

[BrianSD_42]

Edited for clarification.

No I don't know you or anyone personally. These are my thoughts alone.

Yes I do believe I am right.

Also please don't be upset if we disagree. This is the off topic section of an internet forum. I really do wish everyone the best.

 

[BrianSD_42]

Here is one blog for your argument Brian:
Were the Bush tax cuts worse for progressivity or for revenues? « Consider the Evidence

Yes that blog does agree with me.

I stand by my comments. If taxes are needed to save the nation then we need to pay them rich and poor alike.

I would of course prefer those with over $250k in income pay more and I cite WWII as a historical example, when the top rate was 90%. See my previous post.

 

[02SE]

Yes that blog does agree with me.

I stand by my comments. If taxes are needed to save the nation then we need to pay them rich and poor alike.

I would of course prefer those with over $250k in income pay more and I cite WWII as a historical example, when the top rate was 90%. See my previous post.

As you can see from the tax rates that I posted earlier, they DO pay more.

So lets consider that 90% tax rate on the top 1% of taxpayers. How high do you think tax rates would have to get, before those people that would be subjected to having such a high percentage of their income (that in most cases worked very hard to earn) taxed away before they had enough and decided it was easier to not work as hard, and only make enough to stay in a lower tax bracket? Or simply move out of the Country?

I can guarantee it's far less than a 90% tax rate.

If any extra effort is just taxed away, there's no incentive to work harder to be more successful, which if you're a business owner creates jobs. Or in this case jobs that never materialize.

From my time in a SBA, and from talking to other SBO's, I can tell you that decisions not to expand a business, thus not hiring more employees, or even laying off employees, happens if it means jumping up to a higher tax bracket.

 

[02SE]

You sound like a true SERF (servus).


During WWII the top tax rate was 88% and at its highest point in 1944 it was 94% on incomes over $2.4M / year (2012 dollars).

No-one moved out of the county. And anyone who did well good riddance to that scum and I hope they enjoyed Russia, Germany, China or whereever they went.

I will say it again. Societies cost money. All the talk-radio lies about income and stealing your wealth is BULL$HIT. The tax rate only applies to earned income over a set amount. In 1944 that ceiling was $2.4M profit. The tax rates proposed by Obama, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates call for moderately higher taxes only on income > $1 or 2 Million.

I doubt any of you business friends are making over $1 Million in pure profit. They are probably just not very good and blame the government for their failing industry. If they were making over $1M and faced a 75% tax on all income greater to pay for the war, what do you think they would do? Would they say "no I won't work for $1 M + 25% of additional income per year, I will go to Mexico and shut my business" --- that would be pretty stupid from an accounting perspective.


To the open question: What is a fair tax rate?

My answer:


:smashputer:

You have a hard time replying without being insulting, don't you. Once again, you don't get to talk down to me.

I have not called you any names. Nor have I made any false, unfounded accusations about you, your friends, or associates.

For the record, I am not, nor have I ever been a slave..

I don't listen to any talk radio shows. I have better things to do with my time.

Do you always make such broad, baseless assumptions about people you know nothing about?

All you really know about me is that I was a business owner. I know other business owners. And I still own an old 4Runner that makes a good winter driver, and occasional fourwheeling vehicle.

For the record, I can make a historically valid case that lower taxes improve an economy.

Have a nice day.

 

[02SE]

I see that you have edited your post to be less insulting.

Shame that I had already quoted it and was replying.

Actions and words have consequences.

Have a nice day.

 

[tbst]

Increasing the minimum wage has done nothing but hurt America. It makes us less competitive on a global scale.

This doesn't make any sense at all.

Explain how no minimum wage would help makes us more competitive? The working poor could be poorer and we would finally be able to compete with China, wage wise?

Secondly, US workers are the most productive in the world. So who are we going to trump?

Everything on Fox News isn't reality.

Keeping the working poor down isn't going to help the country. Period.

 

[tbst]

Here is one blog for your argument Brian:
Were the Bush tax cuts worse for progressivity or for revenues? « Consider the Evidence

From the article:

One of the chief rationales for progressive taxation is that those with high income can afford to contribute a larger share of that income.

Percentage wise? Why am I paying 28% tax and Romney is paying 13.9%? It's ridiculous. All $ that goes into your bank account should be treated as "net income" not "capital gains".

 

[RunninInGA]

From the article:



Percentage wise? Why am I paying 28% tax and Romney is paying 13.9%? It's ridiculous. All $ that goes into your bank account should be treated as "net income" not "capital gains".

This would kill the financial, real estate, technology, medical, and many other sectors immediately. Investors EMPLOY people and provide what we know of as places of employment and the resulting paycheck.

 

[tbst]

Ok, so you are saying that what will happen when taxes are raised is that investors (aka our masters who we shall never question or raise their taxes or hold accountable) will just give up and walk away? And go where? To another nation that has as many oppurunities as the US? No.

Raising taxes will spur them to stop just sitting on loads of $ a they are now and actually invest the $ so more $ can be made to offset their taxes.

Also, taxes and unemployment have a negative correlation. Look into it.

This is all a scare tactic by people who don't want to pay higher taxes. I am not going to buy into the hysteria and anyone who has their own reasonable thoughts won't either.

 

[02SE]

Investments are a calculated risk. Anyone with any business acumen will do their due diligence when deciding whether to risk their own money that they already paid net income taxes on.

Still, there is a very real risk of losing their entire investment. If the taxes on capital gains are raised to the point that the idea of risking your earned money becomes too unappealing, investments in new ideas, businesses, etc. as previously stated, will definitely decrease.

The good news is anyone can be an investor and risk their money. And with a bit of luck see a return on that money, for which they will be taxed at the capital gains rate.

 

[RunninInGA]

Ok, so you are saying that what will happen when taxes are raised is that investors (aka our masters who we shall never question or raise their taxes or hold accountable) will just give up and walk away? And go where? To another nation that has as many oppurunities as the US? No.

Negative - I didn't say that. Those were your words. But yeah, kinda. Not the mom and pop small to medium sized businesses because the barriers to entry into that game is too high. Small to medium sized investors couldn't afford to go to Europe or South America or another country / continent because of the costs and risks associated with that. The Warren Buffetts, Sam Walton family (Wal-Mart), and George Soros' of the world CAN.

Raising taxes will spur them to stop just sitting on loads of $ a they are now and actually invest the $ so more $ can be made to offset their taxes.

Extremely unlikely. Their incentive to invest in THIS country will be gone. It would take MORE money to make the same as today - or put another way, they would be making LESS money with the same investment. At some point, the diminishing returns would not justify the potential investment risks - each investment / industry / sector has its own specific risk rate.

Also, taxes and unemployment have a negative correlation. Look into it.

Not disputing you. We are on the same side, you just need to hone your economics knowledge a little.

This is all a scare tactic by people who don't want to pay higher taxes. I am not going to buy into the hysteria and anyone who has their own reasonable thoughts won't either.

Again, we are on the same side. Not disputing you.

 

[tbst]

I think that I should clarify that I am not proposing raising taxes on capital gains to 90%. That WOULD shock the economy.

What I am proposing, and what most people who make their money off capital gains can acknowledge, is that they cannot precisely predict how much they are going to make in a given year from capital gains. So if the capital gains tax is raised from 15% to 18%, this will not shock the economy. A 3% difference will not change the outcome of a year. Bottom line.

Either way, it is ridiculous the way the tax structure is set up, looking at it from a gain/benefit. Yeah, sure, "poor people" get food stamps. Elderly get SS and Medicare. They are getting something out of it, no doubt.

But who is making LARGE sums of money off of the government benefits they receive? The wealthiest Americans. The Waltons. Koch brothers. Warren Buffet. Soros (not sure on him). Either way, they are having a great benefit from government spending.

Not to even delve in defense and how much money has been made in "homeland security" over the last 11 years alone.

*Note: It is not JUST Republicans who have huge sums of money. Both sides and their politicians do. However, for the most part, it is the Republicans who want to continue the unfair taxation cycle, by continuing to pass tax cuts for the rich and those who do not deserve tax cuts.

And the whole idea behind appealing to and doing the things the "job creators" want appalling. It is a term created by John Boehner to classify Americans and justify ridiculous proposals.

 

[tbst]

Investments are a calculated risk. Anyone with any business acumen will do their due diligence when deciding whether to risk their own money that they already paid net income taxes on.

Still, there is a very real risk of losing their entire investment. If the taxes on capital gains are raised to the point that the idea of risking your earned money becomes too unappealing, investments in new ideas, businesses, etc. as previously stated, will definitely decrease.

The good news is anyone can be an investor and risk their money. And with a bit of luck see a return on that money, for which they will be taxed at the capital gains rate.

This is once again going into the hysteria. Raising the capital GAINS tax will not stop people from investing. Yes, raising it to 90% would be unreasonable. However, raising is slowly for the next 10 years will not stop people from investing. Capital gains taxes are only levied on GAINS.

 

[RunninInGA]

I think that I should clarify that I am not proposing raising taxes on capital gains to 90%. That WOULD shock the economy.

What I am proposing, and what most people who make their money off capital gains can acknowledge, is that they cannot precisely predict how much they are going to make in a given year from capital gains. So if the capital gains tax is raised from 15% to 18%, this will not shock the economy. A 3% difference will not change the outcome of a year. Bottom line.

Either way, it is ridiculous the way the tax structure is set up, looking at it from a gain/benefit. Yeah, sure, "poor people" get food stamps. Elderly get SS and Medicare. They are getting something out of it, no doubt.

But who is making LARGE sums of money off of the government benefits they receive? The wealthiest Americans. The Waltons. Koch brothers. Warren Buffet. Soros (not sure on him). Either way, they are having a great benefit from government spending.

Not to even delve in defense and how much money has been made in "homeland security" over the last 11 years alone.

*Note: It is not JUST Republicans who have huge sums of money. Both sides and their politicians do. However, for the most part, it is the Republicans who want to continue the unfair taxation cycle, by continuing to pass tax cuts for the rich and those who do not deserve tax cuts.

And the whole idea behind appealing to and doing the things the "job creators" want appalling. It is a term created by John Boehner to classify Americans and justify ridiculous proposals.

I agree the tax structure is set up for the benefit of the wealthy - no doubt. Where you and I disagree is in your lack of completing the thought all the way through and the affect of the double-edged sword effect. In your example above, let's say I make $1,000,000 off my investment in a year - capital gain on my much larger investment. At 15%, I pay $150K in gains tax. Raising that your 3% makes me pay $180K and although that is a 3 percentage-point increase, it is actually a 20% increase in tax liability. Do the math. That's fairly significant, no? What if the price of your beloved Big Mac increased by 20%, or a gallon of gas increased by 20%, or those tires you have on your truck increase 20%? That's exactly what will happen if the investors do in fact stay in this country and invest as they have, all things being equal. The will pass those costs to the consumer or end user - if not more. All increases in government mandated taxes or regulations are filtered down to the consumer / end user. This disproportionally affects the lower classes I will agree - and so they (we) get a double whammy in affect.

I'm not trying to beat you up at all - just get you to think of the cause and affect further.

 

[02SE]

This is once again going into the hysteria. Raising the capital GAINS tax will not stop people from investing. Yes, raising it to 90% would be unreasonable. However, raising is slowly for the next 10 years will not stop people from investing. Capital gains taxes are only levied on GAINS.

Yes, I believe I already said that in my post that you quoted:

The good news is anyone can be an investor and risk their money. And with a bit of luck see a return on that money, for which they will be taxed at the capital gains rate.

Call it hysteria if you want.

People make decisions based on a myriad of possibilities every day whether to invest their money or not. Reduce the potential reward for seeing a return on your investment, and obviously the decision to invest in the first place, will be a harder decision to justify.