Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Uhm, that is EXACTLY what I have stated. Flat tax for Everyone with no expenditures either. Do you and Ray go to the same school.?
So with no deductions, where would people work? Where would they live? Because getting rid of deductions would have an impact on those things.
Why should people get deductions because of where they live?
Why would deductions impact where someone works.
Where do you think those deductions a company has come from? They come from spending money, such as business expansion or equipment replacement. Deductions encourage companies to invest and create more jobs.
People don't get deductions because of where they live, but I do. Without deductions, I would have no choice but to drastically increase rent on my tenants. Having the dozens and dozens of deductions I have allow me to keep rent at a reasonable rate. If I didn't have them, then it costs me more money to do business, and I have to pass on that loss. None of my tenants are wealthy. They rent from me for a reason.
Bottom line is that without deductions, businesses of all kinds would have to pass that loss on to their customers.
I get it Ray you are all for corporate welfare. You do not need to explain it. I am advocating a way lower base rate with no deductions. You want them to have it all. Here is a solution for you Ray no corporations pay any kind of tax ever. Is that fair enough for you now.
Obviously I do need to explain it because you don't understand that welfare does not mean letting people keep more of what they earned. That's not welfare. It was a term created by the commies to convince voters that they are paying for companies to exist. Corporate welfare is something AOC actually believes.
Deductions encourage people to invest. Take that away, you will have much less investment, which means a much slower economy.
Like I said, I'm sorry you can't see it - specifically because you pretend to be opposed to socialism. And the kind of market manipulation you're advocating is directly in line with the socialists' agenda. They want state power over private economic decisions, and these games we play with the tax code give them that power.-- an investment you wouldn't make without the "help". Again, that's bad for markets, and it's bad for society.And they probably have good reasons for that. Pushing businesses into investments that wouldn't be profitable without the state subsidy is bad for the market. It serves the interests of Congress, and their lobbyists, but it creates market inefficiencies that harm everyone else.
You don't understand deductions then. Let's say I want to replace the windows in one of my apartments. I spend 15K in new windows. The government does not give me that 15K back in cash, What it does mean is I am refunded the tax that I paid on that money when I earned it. However with the deduction I will get from that purchase, it helps me to be able to make that investment.
Letting some people "keep more of their own money" and screwing everyone else is bad, regardless of what you call it. We should all follow the same rules, or get rid of the rules.
How is that screwing people?
Giving some people tax breaks - because they jump through whatever hoops Congress has set up - and denying those tax breaks to everyone who won't jump through those hoops - is screwing those who don't do as they're told. I'm sorry you can't see it.
That's not screwing anybody.
Do you think people who rent instead of own are getting screwed because they have no mortgage interest to write off?
Yes. But the people who get screwed even more are those who save up their money and pay cash for a house.
Outside of lottery winners, who pays cash for a house????
Wait a minute. I asked a simple question. You talk about write offs, fine, but that would mean without write-offs, they would be paying even much more of our tax burden. So once again, the question: how much more should they be paying for the rest of us?
Keyrist you are slow. They pay more of the tax burden because they make most of the fucking money. If all things are equal everyone pays the same percentage. Or close to. Why is this difficult for you to understand?
You pay a 35% effective rate? You must be part of the 1% for sure.
Where did I say that? When was the last time the Uber wealthy paid anywhere near an effective rate of 35%?
Why don't you go look at the chart I posted. You have a big surprise coming.
Ta Da!
With their expenditures they pay a lower effective tax rate then I.
Socialism is government taking away from people to give to others, so that we are all closer to equal worth.
So with no deductions, where would people work? Where would they live? Because getting rid of deductions would have an impact on those things.
Why should people get deductions because of where they live?
Why would deductions impact where someone works.
Where do you think those deductions a company has come from? They come from spending money, such as business expansion or equipment replacement. Deductions encourage companies to invest and create more jobs.
People don't get deductions because of where they live, but I do. Without deductions, I would have no choice but to drastically increase rent on my tenants. Having the dozens and dozens of deductions I have allow me to keep rent at a reasonable rate. If I didn't have them, then it costs me more money to do business, and I have to pass on that loss. None of my tenants are wealthy. They rent from me for a reason.
Bottom line is that without deductions, businesses of all kinds would have to pass that loss on to their customers.
I get it Ray you are all for corporate welfare. You do not need to explain it. I am advocating a way lower base rate with no deductions. You want them to have it all. Here is a solution for you Ray no corporations pay any kind of tax ever. Is that fair enough for you now.
Obviously I do need to explain it because you don't understand that welfare does not mean letting people keep more of what they earned. That's not welfare. It was a term created by the commies to convince voters that they are paying for companies to exist. Corporate welfare is something AOC actually believes.
Deductions encourage people to invest. Take that away, you will have much less investment, which means a much slower economy.
I am allowing people to keep more of their own money by lowering their rate to 10%. A business like a person should then be able to plan and save to improve their lives or business opportunities. Why is this difficult for you Dewey.?
Like I said, I'm sorry you can't see it - specifically because you pretend to be opposed to socialism. And the kind of market manipulation you're advocating is directly in line with the socialists' agenda. They want state power over private economic decisions, and these games we play with the tax code give them that power.-- an investment you wouldn't make without the "help". Again, that's bad for markets, and it's bad for society.You don't understand deductions then. Let's say I want to replace the windows in one of my apartments. I spend 15K in new windows. The government does not give me that 15K back in cash, What it does mean is I am refunded the tax that I paid on that money when I earned it. However with the deduction I will get from that purchase, it helps me to be able to make that investment.
How is that screwing people?
Giving some people tax breaks - because they jump through whatever hoops Congress has set up - and denying those tax breaks to everyone who won't jump through those hoops - is screwing those who don't do as they're told. I'm sorry you can't see it.
That's not screwing anybody.
That's far from socialism. Our tax code in the US is the size of two Holy Bibles. It's been going on for decades. Socialism is government taking away from people to give to others, so that we are all closer to equal worth.
"Taking away from some to give to others" exactly what this tax incentive game is all about. Open your eyes.
Like I said, I'm sorry you can't see it - specifically because you pretend to be opposed to socialism. And the kind of market manipulation you're advocating is directly in line with the socialists' agenda. They want state power over private economic decisions, and these games we play with the tax code give them that power.-- an investment you wouldn't make without the "help". Again, that's bad for markets, and it's bad for society.
Giving some people tax breaks - because they jump through whatever hoops Congress has set up - and denying those tax breaks to everyone who won't jump through those hoops - is screwing those who don't do as they're told. I'm sorry you can't see it.
That's not screwing anybody.
That's far from socialism. Our tax code in the US is the size of two Holy Bibles. It's been going on for decades. Socialism is government taking away from people to give to others, so that we are all closer to equal worth.
"Taking away from some to give to others" exactly what this tax incentive game is all about. Open your eyes.
Who are they giving it to? They're not giving it to anybody. They are just taking less from some than others.
Do you think people who rent instead of own are getting screwed because they have no mortgage interest to write off?
Yes. But the people who get screwed even more are those who save up their money and pay cash for a house.
Outside of lottery winners, who pays cash for a house????
LOL - not very many people. The mortgage interest tax write off has seen to that. The incentive that makes it easier for people to buy homes on credit makes it harder for people who wish to pay cash - they don't get any tax breaks.
In countries that don't have such a policy, lots of people pay cash for their homes. Overall, I wouldn't advocate much of anything that China does - but people there do save for homes and pay cash for them. And they don't live their lives in debt the way people here do. Have you ever asked yourself why the government wants people in debt?
Other than deceiving some of the public who do not understand that the corporations simply increase the cost of their product, what is the upside of high income taxes for a corporation?
A nominal income tax, say no more than 5 or 10% would provide an income stream and not be destructive.
Uhm, that is EXACTLY what I have stated. Flat tax for Everyone with no expenditures either. Do you and Ray go to the same school.?
So with no deductions, where would people work? Where would they live? Because getting rid of deductions would have an impact on those things.
Why should people get deductions because of where they live?
Why would deductions impact where someone works.
Where do you think those deductions a company has come from? They come from spending money, such as business expansion or equipment replacement. Deductions encourage companies to invest and create more jobs.
People don't get deductions because of where they live, but I do. Without deductions, I would have no choice but to drastically increase rent on my tenants. Having the dozens and dozens of deductions I have allow me to keep rent at a reasonable rate. If I didn't have them, then it costs me more money to do business, and I have to pass on that loss. None of my tenants are wealthy. They rent from me for a reason.
Bottom line is that without deductions, businesses of all kinds would have to pass that loss on to their customers.
Why should the public pay for a company to upgrade to make more money. Glad you are so into corporate welfare!!!!
It also means housing prices would go down. And people would learn to live within their means, instead of constantly chasing debt. Do you think that's a bad thing???Do you think people who rent instead of own are getting screwed because they have no mortgage interest to write off?
Yes. But the people who get screwed even more are those who save up their money and pay cash for a house.
Outside of lottery winners, who pays cash for a house????
LOL - not very many people. The mortgage interest tax write off has seen to that. The incentive that makes it easier for people to buy homes on credit makes it harder for people who wish to pay cash - they don't get any tax breaks.
In countries that don't have such a policy, lots of people pay cash for their homes. Overall, I wouldn't advocate much of anything that China does - but people there do save for homes and pay cash for them. And they don't live their lives in debt the way people here do. Have you ever asked yourself why the government wants people in debt?
Okay, let's look at that. Nobody buys a home until they save enough cash for it. That means the rental market would be even more flooded than it is now.
So with no deductions, where would people work? Where would they live? Because getting rid of deductions would have an impact on those things.
Why should people get deductions because of where they live?
Why would deductions impact where someone works.
Where do you think those deductions a company has come from? They come from spending money, such as business expansion or equipment replacement. Deductions encourage companies to invest and create more jobs.
People don't get deductions because of where they live, but I do. Without deductions, I would have no choice but to drastically increase rent on my tenants. Having the dozens and dozens of deductions I have allow me to keep rent at a reasonable rate. If I didn't have them, then it costs me more money to do business, and I have to pass on that loss. None of my tenants are wealthy. They rent from me for a reason.
Bottom line is that without deductions, businesses of all kinds would have to pass that loss on to their customers.
Why should the public pay for a company to upgrade to make more money. Glad you are so into corporate welfare!!!!
On the flip side, why should government have the power to manipulate society that way?
They should not that is why the flat tax rate with 0 expenditures makes the playing field more even.
-- an investment you wouldn't make without the "help". Again, that's bad for markets, and it's bad for society.And they probably have good reasons for that. Pushing businesses into investments that wouldn't be profitable without the state subsidy is bad for the market. It serves the interests of Congress, and their lobbyists, but it creates market inefficiencies that harm everyone else.
You don't understand deductions then. Let's say I want to replace the windows in one of my apartments. I spend 15K in new windows. The government does not give me that 15K back in cash, What it does mean is I am refunded the tax that I paid on that money when I earned it. However with the deduction I will get from that purchase, it helps me to be able to make that investment.
Letting some people "keep more of their own money" and screwing everyone else is bad, regardless of what you call it. We should all follow the same rules, or get rid of the rules.
How is that screwing people?
Giving some people tax breaks - because they jump through whatever hoops Congress has set up - and denying those tax breaks to everyone who won't jump through those hoops - is screwing those who don't do as they're told. I'm sorry you can't see it.
That's not screwing anybody. Our economic system is setup to encourage growth. It's like the lower capital gains rates. Why are they lower? Because it encourages people with money to invest in the market. When that happens, the economy grows, little people with their IRA money invested in the market get a more secure retirement account, which in the end, is less burden on our government. Companies use that money others invested in their industry to make investments of their own and create jobs.
It's just like dependent write-offs. They were designed to help our country grow, to encourage people to have families, encourage a spouse to stay home and raise those children. Do you think people who rent instead of own are getting screwed because they have no mortgage interest to write off?
Yrs, they are. Why should two people that make the exact same amount pay different rates based upon whether they have debt or not?
Keyrist you are slow. They pay more of the tax burden because they make most of the fucking money. If all things are equal everyone pays the same percentage. Or close to. Why is this difficult for you to understand?
You pay a 35% effective rate? You must be part of the 1% for sure.
Where did I say that? When was the last time the Uber wealthy paid anywhere near an effective rate of 35%?
Why don't you go look at the chart I posted. You have a big surprise coming.
Ta Da!
With their expenditures they pay a lower effective tax rate then I.
Go look at the chart. It will tell you what they are paying over the years.
What expenditures are you speaking of?
-- an investment you wouldn't make without the "help". Again, that's bad for markets, and it's bad for society.And they probably have good reasons for that. Pushing businesses into investments that wouldn't be profitable without the state subsidy is bad for the market. It serves the interests of Congress, and their lobbyists, but it creates market inefficiencies that harm everyone else.
You don't understand deductions then. Let's say I want to replace the windows in one of my apartments. I spend 15K in new windows. The government does not give me that 15K back in cash, What it does mean is I am refunded the tax that I paid on that money when I earned it. However with the deduction I will get from that purchase, it helps me to be able to make that investment.
Letting some people "keep more of their own money" and screwing everyone else is bad, regardless of what you call it. We should all follow the same rules, or get rid of the rules.
How is that screwing people?
Giving some people tax breaks - because they jump through whatever hoops Congress has set up - and denying those tax breaks to everyone who won't jump through those hoops - is screwing those who don't do as they're told. I'm sorry you can't see it.
That's not screwing anybody. Our economic system is setup to encourage growth. It's like the lower capital gains rates. Why are they lower? Because it encourages people with money to invest in the market. When that happens, the economy grows, little people with their IRA money invested in the market get a more secure retirement account, which in the end, is less burden on our government. Companies use that money others invested in their industry to make investments of their own and create jobs.
It's just like dependent write-offs. They were designed to help our country grow, to encourage people to have families, encourage a spouse to stay home and raise those children. Do you think people who rent instead of own are getting screwed because they have no mortgage interest to write off?
Yrs, they are. Why should two people that make the exact same amount pay different rates based upon whether they have debt or not?
To encourage house purchases, that's why.
Why should people get deductions because of where they live?
Why would deductions impact where someone works.
Where do you think those deductions a company has come from? They come from spending money, such as business expansion or equipment replacement. Deductions encourage companies to invest and create more jobs.
People don't get deductions because of where they live, but I do. Without deductions, I would have no choice but to drastically increase rent on my tenants. Having the dozens and dozens of deductions I have allow me to keep rent at a reasonable rate. If I didn't have them, then it costs me more money to do business, and I have to pass on that loss. None of my tenants are wealthy. They rent from me for a reason.
Bottom line is that without deductions, businesses of all kinds would have to pass that loss on to their customers.
I get it Ray you are all for corporate welfare. You do not need to explain it. I am advocating a way lower base rate with no deductions. You want them to have it all. Here is a solution for you Ray no corporations pay any kind of tax ever. Is that fair enough for you now.
Obviously I do need to explain it because you don't understand that welfare does not mean letting people keep more of what they earned. That's not welfare. It was a term created by the commies to convince voters that they are paying for companies to exist. Corporate welfare is something AOC actually believes.
Deductions encourage people to invest. Take that away, you will have much less investment, which means a much slower economy.
I am allowing people to keep more of their own money by lowering their rate to 10%. A business like a person should then be able to plan and save to improve their lives or business opportunities. Why is this difficult for you Dewey.?
You are dense. If your tax idea were to be implemented, some would save money, but many others would lose money. Not many would invest, because it wouldn't make financial sense to invest.
Why should people get deductions because of where they live?
Why would deductions impact where someone works.
Where do you think those deductions a company has come from? They come from spending money, such as business expansion or equipment replacement. Deductions encourage companies to invest and create more jobs.
People don't get deductions because of where they live, but I do. Without deductions, I would have no choice but to drastically increase rent on my tenants. Having the dozens and dozens of deductions I have allow me to keep rent at a reasonable rate. If I didn't have them, then it costs me more money to do business, and I have to pass on that loss. None of my tenants are wealthy. They rent from me for a reason.
Bottom line is that without deductions, businesses of all kinds would have to pass that loss on to their customers.
I get it Ray you are all for corporate welfare. You do not need to explain it. I am advocating a way lower base rate with no deductions. You want them to have it all. Here is a solution for you Ray no corporations pay any kind of tax ever. Is that fair enough for you now.
Obviously I do need to explain it because you don't understand that welfare does not mean letting people keep more of what they earned. That's not welfare. It was a term created by the commies to convince voters that they are paying for companies to exist. Corporate welfare is something AOC actually believes.
Deductions encourage people to invest. Take that away, you will have much less investment, which means a much slower economy.
I am allowing people to keep more of their own money by lowering their rate to 10%. A business like a person should then be able to plan and save to improve their lives or business opportunities. Why is this difficult for you Dewey.?
You are dense. If your tax idea were to be implemented, some would save money, but many others would lose money. Not many would invest, because it wouldn't make financial sense to invest.
It also means housing prices would go down. And people would learn to live within their means, instead of constantly chasing debt. Do you think that's a bad thing???Do you think people who rent instead of own are getting screwed because they have no mortgage interest to write off?
Yes. But the people who get screwed even more are those who save up their money and pay cash for a house.
Outside of lottery winners, who pays cash for a house????
LOL - not very many people. The mortgage interest tax write off has seen to that. The incentive that makes it easier for people to buy homes on credit makes it harder for people who wish to pay cash - they don't get any tax breaks.
In countries that don't have such a policy, lots of people pay cash for their homes. Overall, I wouldn't advocate much of anything that China does - but people there do save for homes and pay cash for them. And they don't live their lives in debt the way people here do. Have you ever asked yourself why the government wants people in debt?
Okay, let's look at that. Nobody buys a home until they save enough cash for it. That means the rental market would be even more flooded than it is now.
Uhm, that is EXACTLY what I have stated. Flat tax for Everyone with no expenditures either. Do you and Ray go to the same school.?
So with no deductions, where would people work? Where would they live? Because getting rid of deductions would have an impact on those things.
Why should people get deductions because of where they live?
Why would deductions impact where someone works.
Where do you think those deductions a company has come from? They come from spending money, such as business expansion or equipment replacement. Deductions encourage companies to invest and create more jobs.
People don't get deductions because of where they live, but I do. Without deductions, I would have no choice but to drastically increase rent on my tenants. Having the dozens and dozens of deductions I have allow me to keep rent at a reasonable rate. If I didn't have them, then it costs me more money to do business, and I have to pass on that loss. None of my tenants are wealthy. They rent from me for a reason.
Bottom line is that without deductions, businesses of all kinds would have to pass that loss on to their customers.
Why should the public pay for a company to upgrade to make more money. Glad you are so into corporate welfare!!!!
You really think that companies pay taxes? The taxes they pay are passed on to the consumer. It's a wash.
You pay a 35% effective rate? You must be part of the 1% for sure.
Where did I say that? When was the last time the Uber wealthy paid anywhere near an effective rate of 35%?
Why don't you go look at the chart I posted. You have a big surprise coming.
Ta Da!
With their expenditures they pay a lower effective tax rate then I.
Go look at the chart. It will tell you what they are paying over the years.
What expenditures are you speaking of?
The uber wealthy have incentives I can never get to because not wealthy enough.
