Democrats and Republicans Are Quietly Planning a Corporate Giveaway — to the Tune of $400 Billion

T

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
The corporate tax rate is the same as the corporate tax revenue, I addressed that in post #14 of this same thread. Revenue is collected at the current tax rate, if the tax rate falls, the amount of revenue collected also falls

Raising the minimum wage benefits between 35 and 38 million low wage workers
Click to expand...

Do you not speak English? The corp tax rate can't be the same as corp tax revenue. The RATE is the percentage of profit corporations pay to the government. The REVENUE is the total amount of all tax dollars collected by the government.

You can't be that dumb.

I don't favor raisin the minimum to 15 an hour. But I do favor an increase. It's just that putting 3 or 4 thousand dollars in someone's had each February can do more to help them than an extra 80 bucks a week. The min wage won't rise over night more than 50 cents on the dollar. A dollar at most. Not nationally.

The eitc target specifically those who need help. Minimum wage laws do affect a lot of those who need help, but it won't help all. Why? Becuase not everyone earning the minimum is from a poor family. And also, not everyone who needs help earns the minimum. You're not much better off at 9 an hour than you are 7.50.

The eitc targets those who need help more efficiently.


You suggested fixing the tax issue by making everyone in the top 20% of income earners pay "an average" of $45,000. I told you the top 20% of income earners includes people making $92,000 a year, meaning that if their income tax "averages" out at $45,000, they have an effective income tax rate of 49%

Then you said;

So what do you mean by "average tax"? If everyone in the top 20% paid an "average" of $45,000 in income tax, those at the top of the bracket would have much lower rates than those at the bottom (regressive)

If we did what you're suggesting - add up all the taxes the top 20% pays, then divide by the number of people in the 20% to "average" out at ~$45,000, who pays that amount? Does the guy making $92,000 a year pay that much in income taxes? Does the guy making $10,000,000 a year pay that much in income taxes?

If not, how much do they pay in income taxes, respectively, to "fix this problem"?
Click to expand...
I did not such thing. This is how I know you just gaze over what I write and don't read it.

I asked you how you wanted to fix it with taxes. Then I stated that the top 20% ALREADY have an average tax burden of about 45k per taxpayer.

This isn't a proposal. It's their current situation. It illustrates the country in fifths and shows what each pays. The top 20% is the only group that has a meaningful tax bill. The second highest average 700 per tax payer. The lower 3 fifths either pay nothing or have a net gain because of the income tax refund becuase of the eitc and other programs. So when people like you say the rich font pay their fare share, I simply don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
 
T

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
Pada, you've just demonstrated you don't know the difference between a tax rate and tax revenue... worse than that actually you think they are the same thing.

You've also failed to comprehend simple concepts relating to taxes. Like understanding how tax payers are often broken into quartile or fifths to see the difference between each.

You never seem to post your own thoughts. Only links to the thoughts of others that don't say what you claim they do.

How do you have any credibility left on this issue?
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
I'll try. We need progressive taxes to keep our economy from becoming a feudal system like medieval times, with nobility- and peasants.

Those times were nasty and brutal for everyone but the nobility, and any romanticism about those times is almost always from the point of view of the privileged.

I'm a big fan of egalitarianism and I'll continue to champion it. No one is so superior to others that he may be exalted unto such a pedestal that exempts him from decent behavior.

Oligarchs think otherwise, so we need to decide what kind of a nation we wish to pass onto our children, for they will enjoy the fruits of our choices.
 
T

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
ThickStemz said:
Only a tiny portion of minimum wage earners are also the primary income earner of the family. I'm not saying it wouldn't help. It would. Just hardly at all.

Want to fix it with taxes? Ok. The top 20% averages paying in about $45k a year. The second 20% pays $700 on average. The bottom 60% doesn't pay a federal income tax... I'm not saying they pay no taxes, strictly speaking about the income tax.
Click to expand...
This is my post that has caused you so much confusion. I've cut out all but the relevant part.

I asked you if you wanted to fix it with taxes. Then it is income inequality. That's the issue we've been talking about. I then give you the current tax burden of each tax paying fifth of Americans. The top fifth is the only one paying any fucking income tax.

We can't lower the income tax on they poor. How much more should the rich pay when they now pay damn near all that is paid. That's the point.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ThickStemz said:
This is my post that has caused you so much confusion. I've cut out all but the relevant part.

I asked you if you wanted to fix it with taxes. Then it is income inequality. That's the issue we've been talking about. I then give you the current tax burden of each tax paying fifth of Americans. The top fifth is the only one paying any fucking income tax.

We can't lower the income tax on they poor. How much more should the rich pay when they now pay damn near all that is paid. That's the point.
Click to expand...
Pay more.
 
T

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Pay more.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind. The person making a few hundred thousand pays the same top rate as the person making several or tens of millions of dollars a year.

How much of the money these people work for and are given in exchange for their honest efforts should society be able to claim?

Do you think if we taxed all income over 500 k at 75% it would improve our standing that much?

If the United States were a 400 pound man eating 8000 calories per day, liberals would say the problem is he doesn't exercise enough. And you call conservatives like me stupid for suggesting the fat man eat less.

Yes, a few minutes a day on the eliptical machine wouldnt hurt, it doesn't address the real issue, does it?
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
ThickStemz said:
Keep in mind. The person making a few hundred thousand pays the same top rate as the person making several or tens of millions of dollars a year.
Click to expand...
This is completely incorrect. People making millions are NOT earning it as wages; it's been shown time and again that they earn it either as unrealized paper gains in stock or asset value, or at 14% IF they decide to realize the gain and go spend it.

Ain't no wage earner paying that.

Now, this obvious red herring comparison of apples to oranges in taxes smacks less of a discussion of facts and more of transparent propaganda in the service of an extremist's viewpoint.

Occam's razor, son. You need a good long look in the mirror and a shave.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ThickStemz said:
The corp tax rate can't be the same as corp tax revenue.
Click to expand...

ThickStemz said:
I don't favor raisin the minimum to 15 an hour. But I do favor an increase. It's just that putting 3 or 4 thousand dollars in someone's had each February can do more to help them than an extra 80 bucks a week. The min wage won't rise over night more than 50 cents on the dollar. A dollar at most. Not nationally.
Click to expand...


EITC does very little in the way of financial support for people without kids. It is not enough. It also incentivizes poor people to have kids in order to receive more from the tax credit - the same justification that's frequently used to oppose welfare. It also doesn't help people making between $20,000-$30,000, which is still considered poor in most parts of the country. And it also maxes out at $6,000 if you have 3 or more dependents, that money is not going to be spent on new cars, numbnuts, it's going to food, medical needs, clothes and school.
ThickStemz said:
The eitc target specifically those who need help. Minimum wage laws do affect a lot of those who need help, but it won't help all. Why? Becuase not everyone earning the minimum is from a poor family. And also, not everyone who needs help earns the minimum. You're not much better off at 9 an hour than you are 7.50.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't, it targets poor people with kids, which is great! But it's not enough. There are millions of poor people without kids, what about them?

"We shouldn't raise the minimum wage because the people who already have money don't need it."

What about the people who don't have enough money? Don't they need it?

"Not everyone who needs help earns minimum wage."

What about the 35 to 38 million people who would benefit from raising the minimum wage?
ThickStemz said:
The eitc targets those who need help more efficiently.
Click to expand...
How's it do that exactly when poor people without kids are eligible for less than $1,000?
ThickStemz said:
I did not such thing. This is how I know you just gaze over what I write and don't read it.
Click to expand...
I read and respond - with quotes, see, here I am quoting you - to everything you say. You haven't addressed a single thing I've said directly this entire thread. You say something, then I counter that, then you just gloss over it and move onto more of your nonsensical, unsubstantiated opinions.
ThickStemz said:
I asked you how you wanted to fix it with taxes. Then I stated that the top 20% ALREADY have an average tax burden of about 45k per taxpayer.

This isn't a proposal. It's their current situation. It illustrates the country in fifths and shows what each pays. The top 20% is the only group that has a meaningful tax bill. The second highest average 700 per tax payer. The lower 3 fifths either pay nothing or have a net gain because of the income tax refund becuase of the eitc and other programs. So when people like you say the rich font pay their fare share,
Click to expand...
Why are you framing it as an average? That does not make any sense in the context of this discussion. As already explained to you, the tax brackets are not broken up in 20% increments;



Your "Top 20%" includes four current tax brackets; 28%, 33%, 35% and 39.6%, anyone making $92,000 or more is in the "Top 20%". People who make $450K and up do not pay the same percentage as people making $92K, so to include both of them in your retarded average makes zero mathematical sense.

If we're averaging how much fucked up fruit we have, sure, add them together, but if I want to know the average amount of fucked up apples per barrel, why would you include oranges too?
ThickStemz said:
I simply don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Click to expand...
That is very clear at this point
ThickStemz said:
This is my post that has caused you so much confusion. I've cut out all but the relevant part.

I asked you if you wanted to fix it with taxes. Then it is income inequality. That's the issue we've been talking about. I then give you the current tax burden of each tax paying fifth of Americans. The top fifth is the only one paying any fucking income tax.

We can't lower the income tax on they poor. How much more should the rich pay when they now pay damn near all that is paid. That's the point.
Click to expand...
I've been talking about the corporate tax rate this entire thread, you're the one talking about the income tax rate, an entirely separate issue. Though personally, I think they should definitely pay more, at least 50% for the top income earners
 
Grandpapy

Grandpapy

Well-Known Member
As a wage earner I now have to forfeit two more hours of my life that could be spent instilling family values.

$13.00 per man, women and child, not so much to allow more for time stuck in traffic.

I'd ventrue to say "WE" have spent way more then 440B this year in Navy expenses to insure Commerce can take place for these "american" companies.


images.jpeg Same chit different day.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Elwood Diggler said:
same place you do numbnuts.....selling goods and services. do you pay taxes out of your paycheck?


you do understand the difference between taxes on earnings and a company just collecting sales taxes and passing them on right?
Click to expand...
The companies don't collect sales tax, the retailer does. Are you really that stupid that you can't recognize that all the money that corporations acquire comes from the consumer? You are so fixated on your fantasy of benefiting from someone else's money that you can't see the obvious.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
ThickStemz said:
Red, I agree with you, in general, but please stop saying customers becuase it isn't true. I know what you mean, Pada doesn't and he is twisting your words.

Use individuals... eventually competition limits how much of that tax a company can put on customers. It then has to turn to employees, shareholders, and also potential employees becuase they might not make an expansion they otherwise would have.
Click to expand...
The competition pays those same taxes, so the effect applies equally. Now you can raise taxes beyond what the consumer is willing to pay. An example is your ISP. The taxes on internet service in Florida is almost equal to the cost of the service. Many just forgo having the service in their home because of the high expense.
 
Elwood Diggler

Elwood Diggler

Well-Known Member
Red1966 said:
The companies don't collect sales tax, the retailer does. Are you really that stupid that you can't recognize that all the money that corporations acquire comes from the consumer? You are so fixated on your fantasy of benefiting from someone else's money that you can't see the obvious.
Click to expand...


what's up sparky?

do you pay taxes out of your check?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Pretty attractive if there's no downside, hmmmmm?

Isn't this the last piece of corporate transnationalism, leaving mega corps effectively beyond the control of nations and their citizens?

That's a terrifying prospect; corporations who care about nothing but money, constrained by no one.
Click to expand...
Who are also allowed to fund US elections.. Forget about some Manchurian candidate, international corporations based in foreign countries are legally allowed to donate unlimited amounts to American political campaigns
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Who are also allowed to fund US elections.. Forget about some Manchurian candidate, international corporations based in foreign countries are legally allowed to donate unlimited amounts to American political campaigns
Click to expand...
Sooooooooo... That means corporations with no country to be accountable to can manipulate American elections at will.

That doesn't shoehorn into any definition of 'democracy' of which I am aware.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top