Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They need to be part of America or get out. Corporations that are not paying their share should be NATIONALIZED and then sold off by the Government to pay off our debt
Darn, everyone. Please absorb into your mind...BUSINESS DOES NOT PAY TAXES. They pass every dime of tax assessed against them down the line to finally be paid by the consumer who cannot write it off! Be careful of what you ask for!
Of course they have their $'s at risk...any stock they receive in place of paid salary is at risk. If the Company goes bankrupt, folds, etc., they have lost their equity. The main idea behind substituting stock for payroll checks is that it gives "incentive" to the recipient to make sure the Company is successful or he/she loses the $'s equity paid via stock.
That's mere baloney. This particular tax break, known as the carried-interest loophole, allows hedge fund managers to treat the money they receive from investors as capital gains, subject to a 15 percent tax rate. Though this money is a paycheck received for services, just like a movie star receiving a bonus if her movie does well, it’s treated as investment income.
Darn, everyone. Please absorb into your mind...BUSINESS DOES NOT PAY TAXES. They pass every dime of tax assessed against them down the line to finally be paid by the consumer.
That is blatantly untrue. Some businesses are capable of reducing costs without passing them on to the consumer.
Too bad Buffet won't be affected by this. This is why he suggests a million plus. He makes only 100k on the books. It will be tax evasion as usual for Mr. Buffet.
Too bad Buffet won't be affected by this. This is why he suggests a million plus. He makes only 100k on the books. It will be tax evasion as usual for Mr. Buffet.
He's lying. Obama is not stupid enough to tax the Ultra-Rich. they are the ones who put him in office.
The entire analogy is flawed from the beginning, I'm just extending it. Wealth is two parts work, ten parts luck. If "hard work" was all you needed to become wealthy, 99% of people would be billionaires. Instead, like anything else, it's a matter of being in the right place at the right time. Bill Gates bought code from someone else, modified it, and resold it to IBM. Thirty years later, and he's wealthy than some countries. Soros broke the bank of England in a bet. Murdoch bought some long standing news corporations, and just sat back and fueled politicians to make him even wealthier.
It's a simple math equation. how is it flawed?
It became flawed when you added your inept reasoning to the equation.
Darn, everyone. Please absorb into your mind...BUSINESS DOES NOT PAY TAXES. They pass every dime of tax assessed against them down the line to finally be paid by the consumer.
Let's see, before you make that declaration, perhaps nine figure executive salary can be trimmed a little and they don't need those gold plated bathroom sinks.
It also matters who the consumer is. Maybe those consumers are foreigners and our taxes get passed on to them.
It's also not demonstrated that if oil companies had to pay higher taxes, they'd increase prices even higher instead of declaring lower profits.
But most of you don't even know what's in the President's plan:
HIGHER TAXES FOR THE RICH The Obama plan would allow the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans — individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and households earning more than $250,000 — to expire at the end of 2012. That would restore the top two marginal tax rates to 36 percent and 39.6 percent, up from 33 percent and 35 percent today. It would also restore the estate tax, which vanished completely in 2010, and raise the capital gains tax on wealthy individuals from 15 percent to 20 percent.
...
Republicans are undaunted. Their main claim — delivered in a conveniently populist tone — is that the higher rates will penalize small businesses that file as individuals. Small businesses are undeniably major engines of job creation. But only about 2.5 percent of all small-business owners (and 4 percent of those reporting positive income) earn enough to be taxed at the top two rates, according to the Treasury’s Office of Tax Analysis. Even more important, the argument ignores the fact that the higher income tax rate would apply to business profits, not revenues. Small businesses would still be able to deduct or amortize payrolls and investments. THE ‘BUFFETT RULE’ President Obama has said that tax reform should follow the principle that no household making $1 million or more should pay a smaller share of its income in taxes than a middle-class family. Republicans say this is an act of “class warfare.” But it is clearly unjust to have a tax system that, today, allows 22,000 households earning more than $1 million to pay less than 15 percent of their income in federal income and payroll taxes — less than half of what a middle-class family pays. CAPPING DEDUCTIONS FOR THE WEALTHY Many wealthy Americans reap bigger gains from their tax deductions — of mortgage payments, charitable contributions and the like — than the middle class. Taxed at the top marginal rate of 35 percent, they get back 35 cents out of every dollar of authorized deductions. Middle-class filers, who pay a marginal rate of 28 percent, get only 28 cents back.
¶ The president’s proposal would cap the benefit at 28 percent for wealthy taxpayers... CORPORATE LOOPHOLES Mr. Obama is also calling for eliminating unnecessary tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies, the coal industry and others to raise about $300 billion over 10 years. That is drawing fierce criticism from Republicans and some Democrats, eager to shield big campaign donors. These scams need to go.
Mr. Obama was right when he told Congress that the country has choices to make. “Should we keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires? Or should we put teachers back to work so our kids can graduate ready for college and good jobs? Right now, we can’t afford to do both.” His argument is sound, and so is the economics behind it. That won’t stop his critics. He needs to keep pushing back.
It's also not demonstrated that if oil companies had to pay higher taxes, they'd increase prices even higher instead of declaring lower profits.
What do you think oil companies will do? Do you think they will hold gasoline prices steady?
We all see price at the pump rise almost immediately after the price of crude jumps. Even thought the gasoline in the ground at the gas station was bought before the crude price changed.
So the oil comopanies are MOST likely to pass on any increase in corporate income taxes to consumers. The people who will most be impacted by an increase in taxes on oil companies are those with the least discretionary income. It will not cause their executives to earn less unless profits fall (assuming some form of incentive tied to profits).
That said - I favor eliminating almost all tax incentives/deductions - for corporations and individuals.
No way. I'm not paying extra at the Golden Corral.
Oh wait, you mean a BuffeTT tax.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
