unemployment vs welfare

[Bfish]

Bprice, it my understanding (limited) that dividends and other investment income is taxed at a much much lower rate than personal income. Also it should be noted that LLC do not pay income tax (none). The 4.6% increase is only on personal income, I don't know many engineering firms that are set-up as sole proprietorships due to liability reasons. Even if the companies you were thinking of were set-up as sole proprietorships, an individual employee would have to make over $250k income for the tax increase. Most soleP's that I know, would rather add wife, kids, etc to the pay role before reaching that magical 250k.

Bprice - 7/20/2010 5:37 PM

outcaster - Any small/medium business owner (not publicly traded), that pays himself a quarter million dollar salary needs a new accountant.

</p>

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm interested to hear where they should put the money?  If they make a robust profit and invest (in yielding funds) their slice well, they should receive nice dividends, which they must claim and be taxed on.  They could invest in their company, but there comes a time when you can over invest or not have the desire to grow your company outside of your "niche" range.  I think many small business owners that I know who make in the $250-500k range (Huntsville has a lot of great small engineering firms who do VERY well) are willing to accept a tax hike, and I don't think it will truly affect their company.  What it will affect is how much money they put back in the economy.  There is just no way of getting around that when you have 5% less cash on hand.</p>

 

[Eyeman2]

In a LLC your personal property is included into the business, with a SCorp you only add what part of the business is actually the businjess. You have to file quarterly in a SCorp, where under a LLC you could loose everything, and if you add family and friends you still have to pay SSI-FICA, state and federal taxes, etc. So be carefull how you list your company. A SCorp cost only $100 in TN,even though it might require more paper work and less taxes, it is the best for me, maybe you also.
NOw under this NEW VOTE , under Obama, you have to file a 1099 for each transaction over $900, and that suks. $900 isn't much when you are buying stuff for your business. The only jobs this has created is in the OMB, and they are hiring about 1000 government workers to handle the 1099 paper work,,taxpayer $$, union workers, retirement, benefits all the bells & whistles..stupid politicians!!!! you voted for 'em, not me!

 

[Bfish]

Eyeman2 - 7/22/2010 7:30 PM

In a LLC your personal property is included into the business

Not necessarily. At least according to my lawyer friend that sets those things up for a living. emoRain

 

[Bfish]

SpurHunter - 7/20/2010 7:23 PM

Why is it a sin to make money??

Why is it a sin to pay your proportionate share of the taxes on all income sources?

 

[foodsaver]

Bfish - 7/22/2010 9:26 PM

SpurHunter - 7/20/2010 7:23 PM

Why is it a sin to make money??

Why is it a sin to pay your proportionate share of the taxes on all income sources?

Why can't we tax consumption instead of earning? And why should a larger percentage of anyones income be devoted to taxes?

 

[Bfish]

foodsaver - 7/23/2010 8:03 AM
Why can't we tax consumption instead of earning?

Equitability is big reason why consumption based tax is not a good idea (IMO). It is pretty simple in that the lower tax brackets spend a larger percentage of their income (ie less discretionary spending, more spending on necessities). While the top tax brackets spend very little of their income (way more discretionary spending, way less (percentage wise) on necessities). Also the top tax brackets have many investment and tax shelters that shield income from a consumption based tax.

Essentially a consumption based tax shifts the tax burden from the middle class to the lower classes, and IMO would create a wider gap between the rich and the poor and erode the middle class at the same time.

And why should a larger percentage of anyones income be devoted to taxes?

When society uses a greater amount of government goods and services (roads, airports, locks and dams, health care, border patrol, disaster relief, increased educational levels, and global military presence, etc), then society has to pay for those services. Hopefully the payments are equitable so we can all share the burden equally.

 

[foodsaver]

If you look at the fair tax the consumption tax is subsidised for the poor. People keep saying society has to pay for the services but only a little more than half of society pays anything at all and the bottom third or so actually look forward to april 15 as they get a big fat payday.

 

[Sniperchoke]

A consumption tax or sales tax is regressive by definition. That being said wealthier people usually consume more than the poor. It would be like paying 10% on purchase of a Mercedes or 10% on purchase of a Hundai.

 

[foodsaver]

It isn't regressive if you subsidize some set living standard IE the fairtax concept that subsidizes whatever level of basic needs an individual has. The concept allows everyone to receive whatever is determined to be the poverty level's tax as a check each month. If you only eat that much then you don't pay any tax out of pocket at all. IF you live above the poverty level than you reach in your pocket for the difference. Removes all the problems of shifting the tax burden to the poor. Look at your paycheck You would probably get a 25%-30% raise just by not paying taxes,SSI,Medicare,medicaid each month. Also if you tax consumption you have effectively found a way to tax illegal activities and you no longer have an IRS to tax plan around. No more loopholes in tax code because you know the right guy in washington. Everything would be Fair all the way up to the wealthiest...

 

[Eyeman2]

A flat tax is much better than a consumtion tax. Europe has a consumtion tax and it is a tax on mos t everything bought, but they still have state taxes, it's just another tax on top of a tax.
A flat tax would be like a consumtion, but NO income tax would be taken out of your check. If you made $1000 per week, you would get that $1000 minus SS, health care, company benefits, and maybe state taxes. You only pay a tax on products when you buy them. Of course the RICH would pay more, because they buy More Stuff. No more IRS, the tax would be collected by the seller and submitted to either the state or a government collection agency. Plain & simple..no more threats by IRS, no reason to cheat, no more HR Block etc, tax lawyers, which are politicians..Oh how happy we would be.

 

[Bfish]

Sniperchoke - 7/23/2010 10:49 AM

A consumption tax or sales tax is regressive by definition. That being said wealthier people usually consume more than the poor. It would be like paying 10% on purchase of a Mercedes or 10% on purchase of a Hundai.

That is very true and the fair tax works well for comparing lower middle and upper middle class. However at some point the uber-rich (aka filthy rich) consumption levels off. Does someone that makes 100 million really consume 10x more than someone who makes "only" 10 million? Sure the 100 mil spends more but 2x or 3x, not 10x. Same can be said of someone who makes 50k vs 500k.

foodsaver - 7/23/2010 11:21 AM

It isn't regressive if you subsidize some set living standard IE the fairtax concept that subsidizes whatever level of basic needs an individual has. The concept allows everyone to receive whatever is determined to be the poverty level's tax as a check each month.

Do you really want more people on the government dole? What provisions are their to get people to move out of the poverty bracket?

..Look at your paycheck You would probably get a 25%-30% raise just by not paying taxes,SSI,Medicare,medicaid each month.

Unfortunately a 10% fair tax does not raise the same amount of money as the current system. It would need to be around 30% to meet current spending levels.

Also if you tax consumption you have effectively found a way to tax illegal activities and you no longer have an IRS to tax plan around. No more loopholes in tax code because you know the right guy in washington.

These are both positives, but bartering and underground tax evasion issues still abound.

Everything would be Fair all the way up to the wealthiest...

Except you have increased taxes on the lower income brackets and decreased it on the upper brackets.

 

[beetlespin]

not really... Super rich are good at getting out of paying taxes. A consumption tax would be great. Groceries could be exempted for the tax. That would pretty much level things.

 

[SpurHunter]

Bfish - 7/22/2010 8:26 PM

SpurHunter - 7/20/2010 7:23 PM Why is it a sin to make money??

Why is it a sin to pay your proportionate share of the taxes on all income sources?

</p>

Who said it was??? Typical Democrat, thinking nobody wants to pay taxes. The funny thing is, the people I know that chet on thier taxes the most...Democrats. I even had one tell me I was an idiot for claiming all my income one time. He works under the table, says "other people" will cover his share of the taxes. </p>

 

[SpurHunter]

beetlespin - 7/24/2010 4:18 PM not really... Super rich are good at getting out of paying taxes. A consumption tax would be great. Groceries could be exempted for the tax. That would pretty much level things.

</p>

This pretty much ends BFish's argument right there. </p>

 

[Bfish]

Spurhunter, it doesn't. A consumption tax actually reduces taxes for the rich, increases the tax on the lower brackets, and IMO it would have devastating affects on the economy.

 

[outcaster]

Bfish - 7/25/2010 12:25 AM

Spurhunter, it doesn't. A consumption tax actually reduces taxes for the rich, increases the tax on the lower brackets, and IMO it would have devastating affects on the economy.

That's why Republicans (the Party by the Rich and for the Rich) want to see it done. What amazes me, is that lower and middle income conservative minded people are so willing to do their bidding for them, as if they actually believe "Trickle Down Economics" actually is a viable financial system. I simply don't trust the rich, especially to give them all the money and all the power, and hope they have mercy and throw some of it my way. Even though the rich have most of the money they still have only one vote per person. What they do have is a huge group of lower and middle income folks convinced that their own livelihood depends on them. And now (thanks to Republicans on the Supreme Court) the rich now have no money restrictions on how much money they can spend to decide who gets elected to office, and who doesn't. That's your "TRUE" re-distribution of wealth.

 

[Sniperchoke]

outcaster - 7/25/2010 9:16 AM

Bfish - 7/25/2010 12:25 AM

Spurhunter, it doesn't. A consumption tax actually reduces taxes for the rich, increases the tax on the lower brackets, and IMO it would have devastating affects on the economy.

That's why Republicans (the Party by the Rich and for the Rich) want to see it done. What amazes me, is that lower and middle income conservative minded people are so willing to do their bidding for them, as if they actually believe "Trickle Down Economics" actually is a viable financial system. I simply don't trust the rich, especially to give them all the money and all the power, and hope they have mercy and throw some of it my way. Even though the rich have most of the money they still have only one vote per person. What they do have is a huge group of lower and middle income folks convinced that their own livelihood depends on them. And now (thanks to Republicans on the Supreme Court) the rich now have no money restrictions on how much money they can spend to decide who gets elected to office, and who doesn't. That's your "TRUE" re-distribution of wealth.

So you give your money to the gov't instead and hope they have mercy and throw some scraps off of their table.

 

[outcaster]

I'll take the gubment over the Rich any day of the week and twice on Sundays. At least for now I can vote for/against the people I want in my Gov't. I don't get to decide on the character and honesty of who is, or becomes wealthy. I suppose you would support going back to the system where only white, male landowners had the right to vote.

 

[brushhog]

i feel sorry for the future generations.

 

[Sniperchoke]

outcaster - 7/25/2010 11:11 AM

I'll take the gubment over the Rich any day of the week and twice on Sundays. At least for now I can vote for/against the people I want in my Gov't. I don't get to decide on the character and honesty of who is, or becomes wealthy. I suppose you would support going back to the system where only white, male landowners had the right to vote.

And the race card is played. Once again this proves if you can't make an intelligent comment just do what all liberals do so well and call some one a racist. Its funny you talk about character and honesty and the gov't in the same sentence. I believe most Americans right now would trust their neighbor over the government.