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.
I would rather see a small fee on every stock and real estate transaction
You can be wealthy....but if you try to move your money around, you will pay
Please show us all a tax or fee, that it was said, "it is only a small fee" in the beginning, a small fee ot tax today?
I already pay tax on my profits when I sell stocks. I also pay taxes when I buy or sell a property.
Why should you or I PAY simply for having moved money from one investment to another?
Give me an example.Incorrect. Most loopholes are unintended consequences.You have it backwards. Business loves a complex tax system. That’s how they exploit loopholes.
Those "loopholes" you speak of were written with purpose. Thus, they aren't a "Loophole". That term is used by those that are partisan and/or conspiracy theorists.
It seems rather dubious to suggest you can actually write a bill that says "if you do X, then you get Y reduction in taxes", and then find out people are doing X, to get Y reduction in taxes, and claim that is an unintended consequence.
Give me an example. I'm open to new information.
A common one is a backdoor Roth IRA. They put limits on contributing to Roth IRAs so that very wealthy people can’t contribute. However, they never made limits on rolling over traditional IRAs into a Roth. So you just put money in a traditional IRA and roll it over into a Roth. Clearly never intended to be used that way otherwise they’d never put income limits on contributing to a Roth IRA in the first place.
There’s many others but they’re more technical.
It was put in place so that people could find a path to early retirement. It was always intended to be used and was taken into account.
Incorrect. Most loopholes are unintended consequences.You have it backwards. Business loves a complex tax system. That’s how they exploit loopholes.
Those "loopholes" you speak of were written with purpose. Thus, they aren't a "Loophole". That term is used by those that are partisan and/or conspiracy theorists.
So you think. Do you take a mortgage interest rate deduction? IF so, you are using a loophole by many people's standards.
Give me one Unintended loophole of which you speak.
How is a mortgage interest rate deduction considered a loophole?
I said many people which doesn't include me or I would have stated as such.
Give me an example.Incorrect. Most loopholes are unintended consequences.The problem is, government.
Government loves having an insane tax system, because that's how they threaten and extort money from business.
This is exactly why we were never supposed to have an income tax at all, because the founders knew this would happen.
You have it backwards. Business loves a complex tax system. That’s how they exploit loopholes.
Those "loopholes" you speak of were written with purpose. Thus, they aren't a "Loophole". That term is used by those that are partisan and/or conspiracy theorists.
It seems rather dubious to suggest you can actually write a bill that says "if you do X, then you get Y reduction in taxes", and then find out people are doing X, to get Y reduction in taxes, and claim that is an unintended consequence.
Give me an example. I'm open to new information.
A common one is a backdoor Roth IRA. They put limits on contributing to Roth IRAs so that very wealthy people can’t contribute. However, they never made limits on rolling over traditional IRAs into a Roth. So you just put money in a traditional IRA and roll it over into a Roth. Clearly never intended to be used that way otherwise they’d never put income limits on contributing to a Roth IRA in the first place.
There’s many others but they’re more technical.
Incorrect. Most loopholes are unintended consequences.Those "loopholes" you speak of were written with purpose. Thus, they aren't a "Loophole". That term is used by those that are partisan and/or conspiracy theorists.
So you think. Do you take a mortgage interest rate deduction? IF so, you are using a loophole by many people's standards.
Give me one Unintended loophole of which you speak.
How is a mortgage interest rate deduction considered a loophole?
I said many people which doesn't include me or I would have stated as such.
Okay. Why do many people call it a loophole?
Here we part company.
A National Sales Tax would be disastrous for our country. In other countries, it is called a Value Added Tax (VAT). Wherever it is in place, it started, as do all new taxes, small and insignificant, one or two percent. Now, most West European Countries have an 18 to 20 percent VAT. The last thing we need to do is to provide politicians with another huge revenue stream!
Exactly. We need to fight off the idea of a sales tax at all costs. A sales tax will destroy the poor, and the rich will be fine.
We tried this already with the Yacht tax in the 90s. The result was all the rich bought their yachts elsewhere in the world.
A national sales tax will only hit the people too poor to escape the tax. The wealthy will be fine. And the poor will end up like France, where all the poor people are burning in the streets to fight the never ending increase in taxes.
Here we have a consumption tax in our county. We pay 8 cents for every dollar we spend. It applies to everybody, the rich, the poor, the middle-class. Nobody even notices it anymore.
I am unaware of any such tax. If such a tax even exists, it must be extremely limited on what it applies to.
If you are ever in this area, stop by a store and buy something. You will pay that sales tax.
Ohio has a 5.75% sales tax.
But there is no national sales tax. If you go to a state like Oregon, where they have no sales tax, you will not pay any sales tax.
Same faulty and inconsentent logic and popular, nonsensical myths and assumptions.That's a non-sequitur, that's ultimately up to the company's delegation or discretion, on the basis of what their priorities and goals are; it doesn't just magically "happen".Any money that it taken away from the corporation, is money that comes from one of two areas. Either it comes from employees in lower benefits, or it comes from customers in higher prices.
Not necessarily the places you arbitrarily define based on this imaginary scenario.Companies do not have magic trees from which to pick off the dollars leaves, and pay taxes with. The money has to come from someplace.
That's an argument from consequentialism, which is based on the myth or blind faith assumption that this "always" happens, or that the company automatically under some obligation or necessity to do this, which isn't necessarily the case, and I'm sure would vary quite a bit from company to company, based on priorities, goals, business models, and so forth.So whether you lay the burden directly on the public, from a sales tax, or income tax on employees or consumers.... or whether you indirectly lay the taxes on employees and consumers, by placing it on corporations that pass on those costs to employees or consumers.... either way... the employees and the consumers are who pay the tax.
That's again just a myth or presumption, which says nothing in regards to what type of advertising the company is doing, what the actual costs are - it's just another silly assumption automatically presuming a "fixed" cause and effect which always happens as if by "magic", when in reality there is no "guaranteed" cause and effect, people merely forecast and make various predictions on what the cause and effect will be, with greater or lesser degrees of accuracy.Now to clarify, it is rare that you end up a company that directly cuts employee compensation, although that does in fact happen. I worked at a company laid everyone off, and then sent out a letter to rehire everyone, at a dollar less an hour.
However, most of the time, the way you pay taxes on the back of employees, is by simply not having yearly cost of living raises.
Take a company with $10 Million in gross profits. You have $2 Million for advertising. $2 Million in upkeep funds. $4 Million in R&D. $1 Million for shareholders. $1 Million for pay increased to employees, either through better benefits or higher direct pay.
Now if you increase taxes by $1 Million, who is going to get cut? Advertising? Of course not. Without advertising, the company will lose more in sales, and everything else will have to be cut.
Even there the logic is faulty.The upkeep? So when the heater on the roof goes out, we just don't fix it? When the roof starts leaking, we just issue buckets to the employees?
Of course not. Upkeep has to be paid for.
The shareholders? The people who invested and own the company? And then we'll pay millions in legal fees, fighting the shareholders because they rightfully should get a benefit since they own the company? Which we'll lose by the way.
Or we can cut the R&D budget which is our only hope for a future? So in the short term, everything is great, but then in a few years, our competitors will be rolling us, because we didn't keep pace with them by investing in our future?
And most R&D projects have a set budget. I actually got this from an example with a car company from some years ago, where they set aside $400 Million for a specific product. When things got tight, they had to cut everything but the R&D budget, because you can't partially build a car, and just stop.
So there is only one thing on the budget that can be cut.... the compensation increase for the employees.
In the assumptions made in regards to every above scenario, this whole mythical scenario is just based on automatically assuming the "worst case" scenario in regards to all of the above, but not making the same line of assumption in regards to the employees... for some reason or another.
(For example; worst case scenario - if we cut compensation increase for the employee; all of the employees quit and go work for another company which offers them $0.01 more per hour).
So I'll say it again....
Companies do not have magic money trees to pay for taxation. Money to pay taxes comes from either the employees, or the consumers.
(Worst case scenario - we raise prices on consumers and they all boycott us and visit the other pizzeria which offers them pizza for $0.01 cent less)
So no, everything you're saying is bunk, and just based on fixed set of assumptions or presumptions, of which there is no "mathematical formula" for predicting with any inerrant measure of accuracy anyway.
You're merely blindly assuming a "worst" case scenario in regards to cuts in certain areas (e.x. advertising, etc) while assuming "no effect" in regards to costs to employees or consumers.
Give me an example.Incorrect. Most loopholes are unintended consequences.The problem is, government.
Government loves having an insane tax system, because that's how they threaten and extort money from business.
This is exactly why we were never supposed to have an income tax at all, because the founders knew this would happen.
You have it backwards. Business loves a complex tax system. That’s how they exploit loopholes.
Those "loopholes" you speak of were written with purpose. Thus, they aren't a "Loophole". That term is used by those that are partisan and/or conspiracy theorists.
It seems rather dubious to suggest you can actually write a bill that says "if you do X, then you get Y reduction in taxes", and then find out people are doing X, to get Y reduction in taxes, and claim that is an unintended consequence.
Give me an example. I'm open to new information.
A common one is a backdoor Roth IRA. They put limits on contributing to Roth IRAs so that very wealthy people can’t contribute. However, they never made limits on rolling over traditional IRAs into a Roth. So you just put money in a traditional IRA and roll it over into a Roth. Clearly never intended to be used that way otherwise they’d never put income limits on contributing to a Roth IRA in the first place.
There’s many others but they’re more technical.
Give me an example.Incorrect. Most loopholes are unintended consequences.Those "loopholes" you speak of were written with purpose. Thus, they aren't a "Loophole". That term is used by those that are partisan and/or conspiracy theorists.
It seems rather dubious to suggest you can actually write a bill that says "if you do X, then you get Y reduction in taxes", and then find out people are doing X, to get Y reduction in taxes, and claim that is an unintended consequence.
Give me an example. I'm open to new information.
A common one is a backdoor Roth IRA. They put limits on contributing to Roth IRAs so that very wealthy people can’t contribute. However, they never made limits on rolling over traditional IRAs into a Roth. So you just put money in a traditional IRA and roll it over into a Roth. Clearly never intended to be used that way otherwise they’d never put income limits on contributing to a Roth IRA in the first place.
There’s many others but they’re more technical.
It was put in place so that people could find a path to early retirement. It was always intended to be used and was taken into account.
Then why did they put income limits on contributions to Roth IRAs?
Incorrect. Most loopholes are unintended consequences.Those "loopholes" you speak of were written with purpose. Thus, they aren't a "Loophole". That term is used by those that are partisan and/or conspiracy theorists.
So you think. Do you take a mortgage interest rate deduction? IF so, you are using a loophole by many people's standards.
Give me one Unintended loophole of which you speak.
How is a mortgage interest rate deduction considered a loophole?
I said many people which doesn't include me or I would have stated as such.
Okay. Why do many people call it a loophole?
It's much harder than it should be - largely because of the government manipulation you support.Huh?? You say that no one buys homes for cash, then you post a link showing that 23% of home buyers do. Now you're saying that people don't take out home mortgages because of the tax incentive. Obviously, the incentive encourages more people to take on home debt. That's the fucking point.
Are you on drugs again?
That may be true, but that 23% are likely not middle-class people who saved every dollar they earned for 20 years or more. They are either wealthy, or their previous home was paid off and they simply used the money from the sale of that home for their next one.
Maybe. So what?
So what is the fact is that it's virtually impossible to buy a home for cash.
No, it's because it takes a long time to save that amount of money. If it were easy, everybody would be paying cash for a house.
Just the reality; there are no guarantees in business or other endeavors as the poster above was asserting; people have to make predictions based on the data or information available, but it's always a "gamble".Same faulty and inconsentent logic and popular, nonsensical myths and assumptions.That's a non-sequitur, that's ultimately up to the company's delegation or discretion, on the basis of what their priorities and goals are; it doesn't just magically "happen".Any money that it taken away from the corporation, is money that comes from one of two areas. Either it comes from employees in lower benefits, or it comes from customers in higher prices.
Not necessarily the places you arbitrarily define based on this imaginary scenario.Companies do not have magic trees from which to pick off the dollars leaves, and pay taxes with. The money has to come from someplace.
That's an argument from consequentialism, which is based on the myth or blind faith assumption that this "always" happens, or that the company automatically under some obligation or necessity to do this, which isn't necessarily the case, and I'm sure would vary quite a bit from company to company, based on priorities, goals, business models, and so forth.So whether you lay the burden directly on the public, from a sales tax, or income tax on employees or consumers.... or whether you indirectly lay the taxes on employees and consumers, by placing it on corporations that pass on those costs to employees or consumers.... either way... the employees and the consumers are who pay the tax.
That's again just a myth or presumption, which says nothing in regards to what type of advertising the company is doing, what the actual costs are - it's just another silly assumption automatically presuming a "fixed" cause and effect which always happens as if by "magic", when in reality there is no "guaranteed" cause and effect, people merely forecast and make various predictions on what the cause and effect will be, with greater or lesser degrees of accuracy.Now to clarify, it is rare that you end up a company that directly cuts employee compensation, although that does in fact happen. I worked at a company laid everyone off, and then sent out a letter to rehire everyone, at a dollar less an hour.
However, most of the time, the way you pay taxes on the back of employees, is by simply not having yearly cost of living raises.
Take a company with $10 Million in gross profits. You have $2 Million for advertising. $2 Million in upkeep funds. $4 Million in R&D. $1 Million for shareholders. $1 Million for pay increased to employees, either through better benefits or higher direct pay.
Now if you increase taxes by $1 Million, who is going to get cut? Advertising? Of course not. Without advertising, the company will lose more in sales, and everything else will have to be cut.
Even there the logic is faulty.The upkeep? So when the heater on the roof goes out, we just don't fix it? When the roof starts leaking, we just issue buckets to the employees?
Of course not. Upkeep has to be paid for.
The shareholders? The people who invested and own the company? And then we'll pay millions in legal fees, fighting the shareholders because they rightfully should get a benefit since they own the company? Which we'll lose by the way.
Or we can cut the R&D budget which is our only hope for a future? So in the short term, everything is great, but then in a few years, our competitors will be rolling us, because we didn't keep pace with them by investing in our future?
And most R&D projects have a set budget. I actually got this from an example with a car company from some years ago, where they set aside $400 Million for a specific product. When things got tight, they had to cut everything but the R&D budget, because you can't partially build a car, and just stop.
So there is only one thing on the budget that can be cut.... the compensation increase for the employees.
In the assumptions made in regards to every above scenario, this whole mythical scenario is just based on automatically assuming the "worst case" scenario in regards to all of the above, but not making the same line of assumption in regards to the employees... for some reason or another.
(For example; worst case scenario - if we cut compensation increase for the employee; all of the employees quit and go work for another company which offers them $0.01 more per hour).
So I'll say it again....
Companies do not have magic money trees to pay for taxation. Money to pay taxes comes from either the employees, or the consumers.
(Worst case scenario - we raise prices on consumers and they all boycott us and visit the other pizzeria which offers them pizza for $0.01 cent less)
So no, everything you're saying is bunk, and just based on fixed set of assumptions or presumptions, of which there is no "mathematical formula" for predicting with any inerrant measure of accuracy anyway.
You're merely blindly assuming a "worst" case scenario in regards to cuts in certain areas (e.x. advertising, etc) while assuming "no effect" in regards to costs to employees or consumers.
You seem to just blither on and provide no value in the discussion excepting your opinion of everything. You must feel very self-important. Even your writing oozes with contempt for others and your value you place upon the throne you sit.
And? Does it work or not?Exactly. We need to fight off the idea of a sales tax at all costs. A sales tax will destroy the poor, and the rich will be fine.
We tried this already with the Yacht tax in the 90s. The result was all the rich bought their yachts elsewhere in the world.
A national sales tax will only hit the people too poor to escape the tax. The wealthy will be fine. And the poor will end up like France, where all the poor people are burning in the streets to fight the never ending increase in taxes.
Here we have a consumption tax in our county. We pay 8 cents for every dollar we spend. It applies to everybody, the rich, the poor, the middle-class. Nobody even notices it anymore.
I am unaware of any such tax. If such a tax even exists, it must be extremely limited on what it applies to.
If you are ever in this area, stop by a store and buy something. You will pay that sales tax.
Ohio has a 5.75% sales tax.
But there is no national sales tax. If you go to a state like Oregon, where they have no sales tax, you will not pay any sales tax.
Yes, but in Cuyahoga county, there is an additional 2.25% tax. That brings it up to 8 cents on the dollar. No revolutions in the streets as of yet. But the beauty of a consumption tax is everybody has skin in the game, and that means new social spending issues would have to be considered by the voters. Right now, nearly half the country could care less what they charge the wealthy people, so they vote for representatives that promise to take money from those wealthy to give to them.
How we going to pay for Medicare for all? Tax the rich.
How are we going to pay for free college? Tax the rich.
So if you are not paying any federal income tax, why not vote for those people?
Give me an example.Incorrect. Most loopholes are unintended consequences.You have it backwards. Business loves a complex tax system. That’s how they exploit loopholes.
Those "loopholes" you speak of were written with purpose. Thus, they aren't a "Loophole". That term is used by those that are partisan and/or conspiracy theorists.
It seems rather dubious to suggest you can actually write a bill that says "if you do X, then you get Y reduction in taxes", and then find out people are doing X, to get Y reduction in taxes, and claim that is an unintended consequence.
Give me an example. I'm open to new information.
A common one is a backdoor Roth IRA. They put limits on contributing to Roth IRAs so that very wealthy people can’t contribute. However, they never made limits on rolling over traditional IRAs into a Roth. So you just put money in a traditional IRA and roll it over into a Roth. Clearly never intended to be used that way otherwise they’d never put income limits on contributing to a Roth IRA in the first place.
There’s many others but they’re more technical.
So lets review.
They fully intended for people to make traditional IRA contributions? Yes.
They fully intended to allow people to convert traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs? Yes.
So doing what they allowed for you to do, is a "loophole"?
It was never intended to be used that way?.... but they wrote the law specifically to allow you to use it that way.... but you shouldn't, and it's a loophole.
See my problem? They wrote the law to allow you to make traditional IRA contributions, and they wrote the law to allow you to covert a traditional to a roth.... and then you claim doing what they specifically wrote the law to allow you to do is a loophole.
By the way, I have done this. With my massive $25K yearly income, I've done exactly what you wrote here. Guess I'm engaged in a massive loophole....
You provided no evidence to back up your blithering. Please throw me a line and give me some evidence to those things you've stated.[/QUOTE]Just the reality; there are no guarantees in business or other endeavors as the poster above was asserting; people have to make predictions based on the data or information available, but it's always a "gamble".Same faulty and inconsentent logic and popular, nonsensical myths and assumptions.That's a non-sequitur, that's ultimately up to the company's delegation or discretion, on the basis of what their priorities and goals are; it doesn't just magically "happen".Any money that it taken away from the corporation, is money that comes from one of two areas. Either it comes from employees in lower benefits, or it comes from customers in higher prices.
Not necessarily the places you arbitrarily define based on this imaginary scenario.Companies do not have magic trees from which to pick off the dollars leaves, and pay taxes with. The money has to come from someplace.
That's an argument from consequentialism, which is based on the myth or blind faith assumption that this "always" happens, or that the company automatically under some obligation or necessity to do this, which isn't necessarily the case, and I'm sure would vary quite a bit from company to company, based on priorities, goals, business models, and so forth.So whether you lay the burden directly on the public, from a sales tax, or income tax on employees or consumers.... or whether you indirectly lay the taxes on employees and consumers, by placing it on corporations that pass on those costs to employees or consumers.... either way... the employees and the consumers are who pay the tax.
That's again just a myth or presumption, which says nothing in regards to what type of advertising the company is doing, what the actual costs are - it's just another silly assumption automatically presuming a "fixed" cause and effect which always happens as if by "magic", when in reality there is no "guaranteed" cause and effect, people merely forecast and make various predictions on what the cause and effect will be, with greater or lesser degrees of accuracy.Now to clarify, it is rare that you end up a company that directly cuts employee compensation, although that does in fact happen. I worked at a company laid everyone off, and then sent out a letter to rehire everyone, at a dollar less an hour.
However, most of the time, the way you pay taxes on the back of employees, is by simply not having yearly cost of living raises.
Take a company with $10 Million in gross profits. You have $2 Million for advertising. $2 Million in upkeep funds. $4 Million in R&D. $1 Million for shareholders. $1 Million for pay increased to employees, either through better benefits or higher direct pay.
Now if you increase taxes by $1 Million, who is going to get cut? Advertising? Of course not. Without advertising, the company will lose more in sales, and everything else will have to be cut.
Even there the logic is faulty.The upkeep? So when the heater on the roof goes out, we just don't fix it? When the roof starts leaking, we just issue buckets to the employees?
Of course not. Upkeep has to be paid for.
The shareholders? The people who invested and own the company? And then we'll pay millions in legal fees, fighting the shareholders because they rightfully should get a benefit since they own the company? Which we'll lose by the way.
Or we can cut the R&D budget which is our only hope for a future? So in the short term, everything is great, but then in a few years, our competitors will be rolling us, because we didn't keep pace with them by investing in our future?
And most R&D projects have a set budget. I actually got this from an example with a car company from some years ago, where they set aside $400 Million for a specific product. When things got tight, they had to cut everything but the R&D budget, because you can't partially build a car, and just stop.
So there is only one thing on the budget that can be cut.... the compensation increase for the employees.
In the assumptions made in regards to every above scenario, this whole mythical scenario is just based on automatically assuming the "worst case" scenario in regards to all of the above, but not making the same line of assumption in regards to the employees... for some reason or another.
(For example; worst case scenario - if we cut compensation increase for the employee; all of the employees quit and go work for another company which offers them $0.01 more per hour).
So I'll say it again....
Companies do not have magic money trees to pay for taxation. Money to pay taxes comes from either the employees, or the consumers.
(Worst case scenario - we raise prices on consumers and they all boycott us and visit the other pizzeria which offers them pizza for $0.01 cent less)
So no, everything you're saying is bunk, and just based on fixed set of assumptions or presumptions, of which there is no "mathematical formula" for predicting with any inerrant measure of accuracy anyway.
You're merely blindly assuming a "worst" case scenario in regards to cuts in certain areas (e.x. advertising, etc) while assuming "no effect" in regards to costs to employees or consumers.
You seem to just blither on and provide no value in the discussion excepting your opinion of everything. You must feel very self-important. Even your writing oozes with contempt for others and your value you place upon the throne you sit.
So his scenario is unrealistic, and just pure speculation based on a bunch of assumptions taken for granted.
The reality is that lowering salary for employees or raising costs for customers could have a negative effect, and cause a company to go out of business, much as companies could potentially make cuts to advertising without losing business (in some cases, terrible advertisements could end up chasing customers away from the company, and cutting them would be a benefit; some companies, usually smaller ones with dedicated clients don't advertise at all but are based on referrals (this is the case with some high fashion companies, for example).
So it was all just an oversimplification, as per usual. This is why people should honestly learn how to make "bets" or predictions based on data (there's a book by a business expert called Superforcasting which explains this), rather than merely blindly repeating a "bet" they take as guaranteed simply because it's in popular jargon, or whatever.
It doesn’t limit the loophole at all. The income limit is pointless.Give me an example.Incorrect. Most loopholes are unintended consequences.You have it backwards. Business loves a complex tax system. That’s how they exploit loopholes.
Those "loopholes" you speak of were written with purpose. Thus, they aren't a "Loophole". That term is used by those that are partisan and/or conspiracy theorists.
It seems rather dubious to suggest you can actually write a bill that says "if you do X, then you get Y reduction in taxes", and then find out people are doing X, to get Y reduction in taxes, and claim that is an unintended consequence.
Give me an example. I'm open to new information.
A common one is a backdoor Roth IRA. They put limits on contributing to Roth IRAs so that very wealthy people can’t contribute. However, they never made limits on rolling over traditional IRAs into a Roth. So you just put money in a traditional IRA and roll it over into a Roth. Clearly never intended to be used that way otherwise they’d never put income limits on contributing to a Roth IRA in the first place.
There’s many others but they’re more technical.
And, BTW, you can only get so much benefit. Helpful, but for those that put a shit ton of money into their Roth IRA because they are rich, it will only help so much.
Give me an example.Incorrect. Most loopholes are unintended consequences.
It seems rather dubious to suggest you can actually write a bill that says "if you do X, then you get Y reduction in taxes", and then find out people are doing X, to get Y reduction in taxes, and claim that is an unintended consequence.
Give me an example. I'm open to new information.
A common one is a backdoor Roth IRA. They put limits on contributing to Roth IRAs so that very wealthy people can’t contribute. However, they never made limits on rolling over traditional IRAs into a Roth. So you just put money in a traditional IRA and roll it over into a Roth. Clearly never intended to be used that way otherwise they’d never put income limits on contributing to a Roth IRA in the first place.
There’s many others but they’re more technical.
It was put in place so that people could find a path to early retirement. It was always intended to be used and was taken into account.
Then why did they put income limits on contributions to Roth IRAs?
I don't know... Maybe to limit the "loophole" they provided.
Exactly. We need to fight off the idea of a sales tax at all costs. A sales tax will destroy the poor, and the rich will be fine.
We tried this already with the Yacht tax in the 90s. The result was all the rich bought their yachts elsewhere in the world.
A national sales tax will only hit the people too poor to escape the tax. The wealthy will be fine. And the poor will end up like France, where all the poor people are burning in the streets to fight the never ending increase in taxes.
Here we have a consumption tax in our county. We pay 8 cents for every dollar we spend. It applies to everybody, the rich, the poor, the middle-class. Nobody even notices it anymore.
I am unaware of any such tax. If such a tax even exists, it must be extremely limited on what it applies to.
If you are ever in this area, stop by a store and buy something. You will pay that sales tax.
Ohio has a 5.75% sales tax.
But there is no national sales tax. If you go to a state like Oregon, where they have no sales tax, you will not pay any sales tax.
Yes, but in Cuyahoga county, there is an additional 2.25% tax. That brings it up to 8 cents on the dollar. No revolutions in the streets as of yet. But the beauty of a consumption tax is everybody has skin in the game, and that means new social spending issues would have to be considered by the voters. Right now, nearly half the country could care less what they charge the wealthy people, so they vote for representatives that promise to take money from those wealthy to give to them.
How we going to pay for Medicare for all? Tax the rich.
How are we going to pay for free college? Tax the rich.
So if you are not paying any federal income tax, why not vote for those people?
It's much harder than it should be - largely because of the government manipulation you support.That may be true, but that 23% are likely not middle-class people who saved every dollar they earned for 20 years or more. They are either wealthy, or their previous home was paid off and they simply used the money from the sale of that home for their next one.
Maybe. So what?
So what is the fact is that it's virtually impossible to buy a home for cash.
No, it's because it takes a long time to save that amount of money. If it were easy, everybody would be paying cash for a house.
May I point out that the single greatest bar to becoming wealthy, accumulating wealth......is taxation.
Know which party is responsible for that?
But he did identify what he called “tactical lessons.” He let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat.” Education of a President
Just the reality; there are no guarantees in business or other endeavors as the poster above was asserting; people have to make predictions based on the data or information available, but it's always a "gamble".Same faulty and inconsentent logic and popular, nonsensical myths and assumptions.That's a non-sequitur, that's ultimately up to the company's delegation or discretion, on the basis of what their priorities and goals are; it doesn't just magically "happen".Any money that it taken away from the corporation, is money that comes from one of two areas. Either it comes from employees in lower benefits, or it comes from customers in higher prices.
Not necessarily the places you arbitrarily define based on this imaginary scenario.Companies do not have magic trees from which to pick off the dollars leaves, and pay taxes with. The money has to come from someplace.
That's an argument from consequentialism, which is based on the myth or blind faith assumption that this "always" happens, or that the company automatically under some obligation or necessity to do this, which isn't necessarily the case, and I'm sure would vary quite a bit from company to company, based on priorities, goals, business models, and so forth.So whether you lay the burden directly on the public, from a sales tax, or income tax on employees or consumers.... or whether you indirectly lay the taxes on employees and consumers, by placing it on corporations that pass on those costs to employees or consumers.... either way... the employees and the consumers are who pay the tax.
That's again just a myth or presumption, which says nothing in regards to what type of advertising the company is doing, what the actual costs are - it's just another silly assumption automatically presuming a "fixed" cause and effect which always happens as if by "magic", when in reality there is no "guaranteed" cause and effect, people merely forecast and make various predictions on what the cause and effect will be, with greater or lesser degrees of accuracy.Now to clarify, it is rare that you end up a company that directly cuts employee compensation, although that does in fact happen. I worked at a company laid everyone off, and then sent out a letter to rehire everyone, at a dollar less an hour.
However, most of the time, the way you pay taxes on the back of employees, is by simply not having yearly cost of living raises.
Take a company with $10 Million in gross profits. You have $2 Million for advertising. $2 Million in upkeep funds. $4 Million in R&D. $1 Million for shareholders. $1 Million for pay increased to employees, either through better benefits or higher direct pay.
Now if you increase taxes by $1 Million, who is going to get cut? Advertising? Of course not. Without advertising, the company will lose more in sales, and everything else will have to be cut.
Even there the logic is faulty.The upkeep? So when the heater on the roof goes out, we just don't fix it? When the roof starts leaking, we just issue buckets to the employees?
Of course not. Upkeep has to be paid for.
The shareholders? The people who invested and own the company? And then we'll pay millions in legal fees, fighting the shareholders because they rightfully should get a benefit since they own the company? Which we'll lose by the way.
Or we can cut the R&D budget which is our only hope for a future? So in the short term, everything is great, but then in a few years, our competitors will be rolling us, because we didn't keep pace with them by investing in our future?
And most R&D projects have a set budget. I actually got this from an example with a car company from some years ago, where they set aside $400 Million for a specific product. When things got tight, they had to cut everything but the R&D budget, because you can't partially build a car, and just stop.
So there is only one thing on the budget that can be cut.... the compensation increase for the employees.
In the assumptions made in regards to every above scenario, this whole mythical scenario is just based on automatically assuming the "worst case" scenario in regards to all of the above, but not making the same line of assumption in regards to the employees... for some reason or another.
(For example; worst case scenario - if we cut compensation increase for the employee; all of the employees quit and go work for another company which offers them $0.01 more per hour).
So I'll say it again....
Companies do not have magic money trees to pay for taxation. Money to pay taxes comes from either the employees, or the consumers.
(Worst case scenario - we raise prices on consumers and they all boycott us and visit the other pizzeria which offers them pizza for $0.01 cent less)
So no, everything you're saying is bunk, and just based on fixed set of assumptions or presumptions, of which there is no "mathematical formula" for predicting with any inerrant measure of accuracy anyway.
You're merely blindly assuming a "worst" case scenario in regards to cuts in certain areas (e.x. advertising, etc) while assuming "no effect" in regards to costs to employees or consumers.
You seem to just blither on and provide no value in the discussion excepting your opinion of everything. You must feel very self-important. Even your writing oozes with contempt for others and your value you place upon the throne you sit.
Incorrect. Most loopholes are unintended consequences.Sounds like a good case for a flat tax, no? Everyone pays the same rate, no loopholes, no deductions.I think it’s pretty dumb that the wealthiest Americans can wind up paying smaller tax rates than average Joes. But then again, the country is run by wealthy Americans so I shouldn’t be surprised that they give themselves loopholes.
The problem is, government.
Government loves having an insane tax system, because that's how they threaten and extort money from business.
This is exactly why we were never supposed to have an income tax at all, because the founders knew this would happen.
You have it backwards. Business loves a complex tax system. That’s how they exploit loopholes.
Those "loopholes" you speak of were written with purpose. Thus, they aren't a "Loophole". That term is used by those that are partisan and/or conspiracy theorists.
Thank god I don't eat at European McDonald's.Here we have a consumption tax in our county. We pay 8 cents for every dollar we spend. It applies to everybody, the rich, the poor, the middle-class. Nobody even notices it anymore.
I am unaware of any such tax. If such a tax even exists, it must be extremely limited on what it applies to.
If you are ever in this area, stop by a store and buy something. You will pay that sales tax.
Ohio has a 5.75% sales tax.
But there is no national sales tax. If you go to a state like Oregon, where they have no sales tax, you will not pay any sales tax.
Yes, but in Cuyahoga county, there is an additional 2.25% tax. That brings it up to 8 cents on the dollar. No revolutions in the streets as of yet. But the beauty of a consumption tax is everybody has skin in the game, and that means new social spending issues would have to be considered by the voters. Right now, nearly half the country could care less what they charge the wealthy people, so they vote for representatives that promise to take money from those wealthy to give to them.
How we going to pay for Medicare for all? Tax the rich.
How are we going to pay for free college? Tax the rich.
So if you are not paying any federal income tax, why not vote for those people?
Ok, now I understand where you are going with this.
Yes, of course they are going to blither on about taxing the rich. And yes, of course people who don't know any better, are going to vote for whoever claims they will tax the rich, and fund everything they want.
But of course if you actually look Europe, and specifically Bernies Nordic Socialism ideals..... they all have 20% taxes on sales. And while you say we have 8% tax here.... a national sales tax would just be an additional sales tax, not a replacement.
So how would you like 28% tax? I still have a photo copy of a receipt at McDonald's in Germany for 4-pc chicken nuggets, and 3 regular ice teas. Cost? $20. And 1/4 of the bill is just tax.
Sure, there's always some "cause and effect", that's a given.And when you look at most of Europe, every single government is demanding even more tax.
So my problem with a national sales tax, is that it is just going to be an additional tax, resulting in additional spending, and 10-years from now, they'll be demanding even more taxes, even with a national sales tax.
