Welcome to PatsFans.com

Ryan Budget - Romney should pay <1%

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatsFanInVa, Aug 17, 2012.

  1. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,384
    Likes Received:
    482
    Ratings:
    +1,052 / 15 / -9

  2. Hamar

    Hamar In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    3,216
    Likes Received:
    142
    Ratings:
    +465 / 3 / -3

    #11 Jersey

    Where is Obama's plan?

    And, even if Mitt pays 1% it is still more by a huge factor than you pay. You are so wrong thinking that Obama is any different than Mitt. They are both power hungry rich people that do not care about anyone else.

    Obama had the chance to cancel the Bush tax cuts, nothing could have stopped him and the democratic super majority, and yet they did not. Explain that... The truth is, they (our rich politicians) all benifit from it so it is not going away, no matter who is PResident.
     
  3. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,599
    Likes Received:
    169
    Ratings:
    +461 / 12 / -14

    Well what getting rid of Capital Gains Taxes does is end the double taxation of Corp profits.

    You own corp xyz, you make a 1M profit congrats you are rich, first 40% goes to the feds and say 6% to your state, hey you still have 540K so you take that as a capital gain.

    So now the Feds take (currently 15% and the state takes (depending on the local laws) another 6%, so another 85k for the government.

    So from the 1M the corp makes 455k is left, of course Obama wants to raise the cap gains rate to 40% so he wants to take another 170K, so under the Obama plan that 1,000,000 magically turns into 280k.

    See you are the greedy owner of a corp you didn't build and in order the pay your fair share Obama thinks you should only get 280K of the 1M profits.


    I do favor a Flat Tax where cap gains as taxed as regular income to H Reid B Gates Romney and Obama all pay the same rate. I would eliminate business taxes to stop the double taxation of corp profits.

    BTW there is a relationship between business taxes and salaries paid to employees a topic for another thread.
     
  4. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,621
    Likes Received:
    174
    Ratings:
    +431 / 8 / -4

    That's why most business owners set up their companies so they aren't subject to double taxation, 13...

    And btw, capital gains and corporate income taxes are 2 separate, though sometimes related, constructs.
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2012
  5. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,384
    Likes Received:
    482
    Ratings:
    +1,052 / 15 / -9

    It's very interesting that the notion of putting the money back into the business does not seem to be an option -- but of course, that's a particular niche of Capitalism, the kind that produces a product. You know, old-school: Hey, I can make more widgets with more employees and capital investment!

    Of course however good that is for the national economy, it's not a make-money-out-of-other-money scheme. That makes it too slow a way to get rich, by present standards.

    As Chico points out, however, nobody actually pays the corporate rate. Interestingly, both campaigns favor lowering it regardless.

    A final point: I too pay the corporate rate precisely as Romney does. I have a 401(k) plan. Many of you do too. Many also have brokerage accounts. Investors indirectly pay the corporate rate in relation to their investments, to the extent that the companies they're invested in pay the corporate rate. That extent, as we've discussed, is by and large minimal. In Romney's case, I would guess it is particularly minimal.

    However, according to Romney, he no longer outright owns one particular company he's identified with. He's just another investor, albeit one with a particularly good tax attorney. He pays the terrible monstrous corporate rate precisely as you and I do, just less so.

    A final coda: Whatever savant declared that "if Romney pays 1%, that's still more than you!"... how much do you have to kowtow to these guys before you feel you've appropriately served your lords and masters in the moneyed elites? Jeez - unbelievable.

    Lookit: Make taxes simpler, and make them more (not less) progressive, and I'm with ya.

    Talk about how rates have to be flat, and you'll just strike me as naive.

    Insisting on a regressive tax on the premise that the raw sum of money is very big even at 1%, and I'm sorry but you don't pass the laugh test.

    PFnV
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2012
  6. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    That works great for sole proprietorships, but just can't be done for those drawing income from corporate capital gains. Of course, sole proprietorships aren't taxed at the long term capital gains rates, so the government gets them too.
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2012
  7. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    What in the world are you babbling about? Of course that's an option, and one Romney has used many, many times over. You guys down in VA love research, so I'm surprised you don't know that. I look forward to 5,000 words on my desk from you by morning.
    I don't know why you people think what Romney is doing is so terribly complicated. His personal income is overwhelmingly the product of long term capital gains, and are taxed at the long term capital gains rate. It is not - nor should it be - taxed as ordinary income.

    There's really nothing complicated about it whatsoever, despite the fact that it befuddles you so.
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2012
  8. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,599
    Likes Received:
    169
    Ratings:
    +461 / 12 / -14

    Of course the example was simplified, the money that is taken out of the business as dividends or cap gains is doubled taxed.


    Point is go to a Falt Tax with No corp taxes and clean up a lot of corruption.

    People who want to use the doling out of tax favors for campaign case of course abhor this idea.
     
  9. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,621
    Likes Received:
    174
    Ratings:
    +431 / 8 / -4

    It's not just sole proprietorships. Most businesses are set up as passthroughs, whether S-corps, LLCs, LPs, etc.
     
  10. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,621
    Likes Received:
    174
    Ratings:
    +431 / 8 / -4

    Except that a lot of money taken out of businesses isn't taxed twice, no matter how many times you claim that it is.

    Nobody advocates a true flat tax -- all pols want to use the tax code to dole out favors and gain influence.
     
  11. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,384
    Likes Received:
    482
    Ratings:
    +1,052 / 15 / -9

    Once again: a "true flat tax" would be naive. You need progressivity in your tax code. "Since this has been recognized for several thousand years, it is a profoundly conservative principle," as I heard it put recently.
     
  12. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,384
    Likes Received:
    482
    Ratings:
    +1,052 / 15 / -9

    Why? because you post like a huffy adolescent?

    Do some of your own kid.

    PFnV
     
  13. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    That's ok.... I know that if I goad your wife enough then I'd quite easily be able to get her to do the research (thus giving you a nice evening off to enjoy some of the preseason games on NFLN - no need to thank me, Mr...!!)

    But I know it's true, so I really don't care if anyone does the research or not.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2012
  14. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,384
    Likes Received:
    482
    Ratings:
    +1,052 / 15 / -9

    Yeah, you like goading the other members don't you?

    How does that play in real life, anyway? Ya got fulfilling personal relationships? A loving home with a companion who shares your ups and downs, and loves you? Perhaps loving children, a community that embraces you?

    Or is goading everybody and spending most of your time name-calling something short of a party-starter?

    Just axing.

    PFnV
     
  15. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I didn't mean some proprietorships exclusively, I just meant when it comes to corporate capital gains, you cannot avoid the double taxation. As for those other entities, owners get charged as if it were ordinary income. So it's not like they get to have their cake and eat it too.

    The bottom line is you have to pay the piper one way or another. Romney's way is actually the way the results in paying MORE than those other methods, not less.
     
  16. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Well, I'll tell you this: I don't live in a household where my wife and I spend about 35 hours a week posting to this forum, writing 10,000 word essays, researching anything and everything someone says, filing, reference and cross checking every post anyone makes, and acting as the the forum's spelling, abbreviation and grammar nazis. :rofl: :rofl:

    And I certainly don't do those things all while whining incessantly about the big bad mean wolf who says not-nice things!! :rofl: :rofl:
     
  17. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,621
    Likes Received:
    174
    Ratings:
    +431 / 8 / -4

    Yes, owners are taxed on income -- never said otherwise. But that's very different from double taxation. Other than a very small amount (1-2%), most businesses have one level of taxation.

    Double taxation does occur at very large corporations, at least in theory, and I agree that when it does occur, there's not much rationale for it. If the loopholes were done away with, corporations could pay income tax and then distribute their earnings (if they saw fit) with no further tax obligation.

    But let's not exaggerate a legitimate point by claiming the average businessman is paying a 75% rate due to "double taxation," as 13 portrayed. And let's also not confuse capital gains with corporate income tax, as 13 also did. A corporate income tax's existence is not a rationale to do away with capital gains taxes.
     
  18. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    16,425
    Likes Received:
    404
    Ratings:
    +782 / 14 / -6

    #24 Jersey

    If you're trying to say you're not a whiner r that you don't complain about imagined "slights," I suggest you go count the number of posts you made in relation to the number of total posts in the recently closed "contest."

    (Hint: You, alone, made more than half of them.)
     
  19. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Maybe that's because I, alone, am the target of well over half of the personal attacks and venom in this forum.
     
  20. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I think the problem is that half of us are talking in generalizations, while the other half are talking about Romney specifically, and those conversations are intersecting in a confusing fashion.

    All I'm trying to say is that this "13%" figure that liberals have been throwing at us incessantly for weeks now is highly misleading, and deliberately so. Romney's 13% figure is much more like 50% when you factor in the double taxation. And that's why I don't get terribly outraged at the idea of lowering - or even doing away with - our long term capital gains tax. We need investment in this country, and we need to stop punishing the investors so heavy handedly.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>