Why does the left believe a corporate tax break "steals" money from the taxpayers?

[g5000]

The only tax expenditure which has definitively been proven to increase production is the EITC.

But even that expenditure suffers from abusers.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Deductions, exemptions, and credits mean higher tax rates on EVERYONE.

I can't dumb it down any more than that for you, retards.

Your deductions, exemptions, and credits are coming out of the pockets of EVERY TAXPAYER.

YOU are the one who is stealing.

And just as I predicted, you are screaming like welfare queens to protect your theft. And just as I predicted, you are too fucking innumerate to see that you are a thief.

/----/ besides business expenses and home mortgages what deductions are you yapping about?

All of them. They cost $1.4 trillion a year.

And those "business expense" tax expenditures are in no way evenly or fairly distributed. The whole process is completely corrupt.

/----/ Thanks for a non specific answer so no one can refute you. Keep up the good work

 

[g5000]

People or entities earning identical incomes should be paying identical taxes.

They aren't. Not even close.

The government should not be rewarding and punishing taxpayers based on their behaviors. This is how we got to the point where you are punished for not buying health insurance.

This is a basic conservative/libertarian principle.

 

[g5000]

Deductions, exemptions, and credits mean higher tax rates on EVERYONE.

I can't dumb it down any more than that for you, retards.

Your deductions, exemptions, and credits are coming out of the pockets of EVERY TAXPAYER.

YOU are the one who is stealing.

And just as I predicted, you are screaming like welfare queens to protect your theft. And just as I predicted, you are too fucking innumerate to see that you are a thief.

/----/ besides business expenses and home mortgages what deductions are you yapping about?

All of them. They cost $1.4 trillion a year.

And those "business expense" tax expenditures are in no way evenly or fairly distributed. The whole process is completely corrupt.

/----/ Thanks for a non specific answer sp no one can refute you. Keep up the good work

Dude, I've been providing links all through this topic!

 

[g5000]

I mentioned Marco Rubios' tax plan earlier.

Here is Rubio's white paper: http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/...?File_id=2d839ff1-f995-427a-86e9-267365609942

Perhaps nowhere are the distortions of our broken tax code more obvious than in our system of business taxation. Simply put, the Internal Revenue Code limits economic growth, destroys jobs, and is fundamentally unfair. Americans will not experience the kind of widespread opportunity and shared prosperity they deserve unless we fix this destructive tax code.

Business taxation in the United States occurs across two separate and complex regimes – the corporate code and “pass-through” portions of the individual code. xii Our corporate tax rate is the highest in the developed worldxiii, which encourages businesses to incorporate abroad. The top tax rate on “pass through” businesses is even higher.xiv

Finally, this proposal will restore fairness to the tax code, by leveling the playing field for all businesses, providing permanence in the code, and removing patchwork exemptions and special-interest carve-outs

He totally gets it. By taking away tax expenditures, you can lower tax rates for everyone.

And he points out the unlevel business playing field.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

The only tax expenditure which has definitively been proven to increase production is the EITC.

But even that expenditure suffers from abusers.

G5000 = How to spot a sociopath
How to spot a sociopath - 10 red flags that could save you from being swept under the influence of a charismatic nut job

#10) Sociopaths are delusional and literally believe that what they say becomes truth merely because they say it!

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

People or entities earning identical incomes should be paying identical taxes.

They aren't. Not even close.

The government should not be rewarding and punishing taxpayers based on their behaviors. This is how we got to the point where you are punished for not buying health insurance.

This is a basic conservative/libertarian principle.

So someone who smokes, shouldn't have to pay more in healthcare than a non smoker?

 

[g5000]

Federal Revenues Are Projected to Increase Significantly Over the Next Two Years and Remain Steady as a Share of GDP Thereafter

Tax Expenditures Have a Significant Effect on Total Revenues
The tax rules on which CBO’s projections are based include the tax rates that apply to different types of income; they also include an array of exclusions, deductions, preferential rates, and credits, which reduce revenues, for any given level of tax rates, in both the individual and corporate income tax systems. Some of those provisions are called tax expenditures because, like government spending programs, they provide financial assistance to particular activities, entities, or groups of people. The tax expenditures that have the largest effect on revenues are the following:

• The exclusion from workers’ taxable income of employers’ contributions for health care, health insurance premiums, and long-term-care insurance premiums;
• The exclusion of contributions to and earnings of pension funds (minus pension benefits that are included in taxable income);
• Preferential tax rates on dividends and long-term capital gains; and
• The deduction of interest that homeowners pay on mortgages for their residences.

Those and other tax expenditures have a major effect on the federal budget. On the basis of estimates prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, CBO expects that under current law, tax expenditures will total $1.4 trillion in 2014—or 8.2 percent of GDP—if their effects on social insurance taxes as well as on income taxes are included. That amount equals nearly half of all federal revenues projected for the year and exceeds projected spending on Social Security, defense, or Medicare (see the figure below).

 

[g5000]

People or entities earning identical incomes should be paying identical taxes.

They aren't. Not even close.

The government should not be rewarding and punishing taxpayers based on their behaviors. This is how we got to the point where you are punished for not buying health insurance.

This is a basic conservative/libertarian principle.

So someone who smokes, shouldn't have to pay more in healthcare than a non smoker?

WTF does that have to do with tax expenditures?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I mentioned Marco Rubios' tax plan earlier.

Here is Rubio's white paper: http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/...?File_id=2d839ff1-f995-427a-86e9-267365609942

Perhaps nowhere are the distortions of our broken tax code more obvious than in our system of business taxation. Simply put, the Internal Revenue Code limits economic growth, destroys jobs, and is fundamentally unfair. Americans will not experience the kind of widespread opportunity and shared prosperity they deserve unless we fix this destructive tax code.

Business taxation in the United States occurs across two separate and complex regimes – the corporate code and “pass-through” portions of the individual code. xii Our corporate tax rate is the highest in the developed worldxiii, which encourages businesses to incorporate abroad. The top tax rate on “pass through” businesses is even higher.xiv

Finally, this proposal will restore fairness to the tax code, by leveling the playing field for all businesses, providing permanence in the code, and removing patchwork exemptions and special-interest carve-outs

He totally gets it. By taking away tax expenditures, you can lower tax rates for everyone.

And he points out the unlevel business playing field.

If there was a 15% consumption tax, then everyone would have to pay. The poor would pay less, because the poor buys less. The rich pay more, because the rich buy more. No regressive income tax, but 1 flat tax, no deductions.

 

[g5000]

The only tax expenditure which has definitively been proven to increase production is the EITC.

But even that expenditure suffers from abusers.

G5000 = How to spot a sociopath
How to spot a sociopath - 10 red flags that could save you from being swept under the influence of a charismatic nut job

#10) Sociopaths are delusional and literally believe that what they say becomes truth merely because they say it!

Hey dumbshit: EITC and Child Tax Credit Promote Work, Reduce Poverty, and Support Children’s Development, Research Finds

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Federal Revenues Are Projected to Increase Significantly Over the Next Two Years and Remain Steady as a Share of GDP Thereafter

Tax Expenditures Have a Significant Effect on Total Revenues
The tax rules on which CBO’s projections are based include the tax rates that apply to different types of income; they also include an array of exclusions, deductions, preferential rates, and credits, which reduce revenues, for any given level of tax rates, in both the individual and corporate income tax systems. Some of those provisions are called tax expenditures because, like government spending programs, they provide financial assistance to particular activities, entities, or groups of people. The tax expenditures that have the largest effect on revenues are the following:

• The exclusion from workers’ taxable income of employers’ contributions for health care, health insurance premiums, and long-term-care insurance premiums;
• The exclusion of contributions to and earnings of pension funds (minus pension benefits that are included in taxable income);
• Preferential tax rates on dividends and long-term capital gains; and
• The deduction of interest that homeowners pay on mortgages for their residences.

Those and other tax expenditures have a major effect on the federal budget. On the basis of estimates prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, CBO expects that under current law, tax expenditures will total $1.4 trillion in 2014—or 8.2 percent of GDP—if their effects on social insurance taxes as well as on income taxes are included. That amount equals nearly half of all federal revenues projected for the year and exceeds projected spending on Social Security, defense, or Medicare (see the figure below).

You do realize that the CBO predicted that the Unaffordable Healthcare act was a great thing for America. The CBO is a bunch of liberal retards.

 

[g5000]

I mentioned Marco Rubios' tax plan earlier.

Here is Rubio's white paper: http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/...?File_id=2d839ff1-f995-427a-86e9-267365609942

Perhaps nowhere are the distortions of our broken tax code more obvious than in our system of business taxation. Simply put, the Internal Revenue Code limits economic growth, destroys jobs, and is fundamentally unfair. Americans will not experience the kind of widespread opportunity and shared prosperity they deserve unless we fix this destructive tax code.

Business taxation in the United States occurs across two separate and complex regimes – the corporate code and “pass-through” portions of the individual code. xii Our corporate tax rate is the highest in the developed worldxiii, which encourages businesses to incorporate abroad. The top tax rate on “pass through” businesses is even higher.xiv

Finally, this proposal will restore fairness to the tax code, by leveling the playing field for all businesses, providing permanence in the code, and removing patchwork exemptions and special-interest carve-outs

He totally gets it. By taking away tax expenditures, you can lower tax rates for everyone.

And he points out the unlevel business playing field.

If there was a 15% consumption tax, then everyone would have to pay. The poor would pay less, because the poor buys less. The rich pay more, because the rich buy more. No regressive income tax, but 1 flat tax, no deductions.

I'm a big fan of the Fair Tax. I believe a tax on consumption is superior to a tax on production.

But no tax scheme will work if you allow deductions, exemptions, or credits. Simple fact.

A consumption tax is just as wide open to corruption as any other tax scheme.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

The only tax expenditure which has definitively been proven to increase production is the EITC.

But even that expenditure suffers from abusers.

G5000 = How to spot a sociopath
How to spot a sociopath - 10 red flags that could save you from being swept under the influence of a charismatic nut job

#10) Sociopaths are delusional and literally believe that what they say becomes truth merely because they say it!

Hey dumbshit: EITC and Child Tax Credit Promote Work, Reduce Poverty, and Support Children’s Development, Research Finds

When enough money is funded, a research will find the results wanted for that money.....

 

[g5000]

Federal Revenues Are Projected to Increase Significantly Over the Next Two Years and Remain Steady as a Share of GDP Thereafter

Tax Expenditures Have a Significant Effect on Total Revenues
The tax rules on which CBO’s projections are based include the tax rates that apply to different types of income; they also include an array of exclusions, deductions, preferential rates, and credits, which reduce revenues, for any given level of tax rates, in both the individual and corporate income tax systems. Some of those provisions are called tax expenditures because, like government spending programs, they provide financial assistance to particular activities, entities, or groups of people. The tax expenditures that have the largest effect on revenues are the following:

• The exclusion from workers’ taxable income of employers’ contributions for health care, health insurance premiums, and long-term-care insurance premiums;
• The exclusion of contributions to and earnings of pension funds (minus pension benefits that are included in taxable income);
• Preferential tax rates on dividends and long-term capital gains; and
• The deduction of interest that homeowners pay on mortgages for their residences.

Those and other tax expenditures have a major effect on the federal budget. On the basis of estimates prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, CBO expects that under current law, tax expenditures will total $1.4 trillion in 2014—or 8.2 percent of GDP—if their effects on social insurance taxes as well as on income taxes are included. That amount equals nearly half of all federal revenues projected for the year and exceeds projected spending on Social Security, defense, or Medicare (see the figure below).

You do realize that the CBO predicted that the Unaffordable Healthcare act was a great thing for America. The CBO is a bunch of liberal retards.

Now you are just being a retard with nothing to back up your opinions about tax expenditures in the face of overwhelming facts.

The only question about the $1.4 trillion is how much plus or minus. But the fact it is in the trillion dollar ballpark is indisputable.

Idiot.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I mentioned Marco Rubios' tax plan earlier.

Here is Rubio's white paper: http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/...?File_id=2d839ff1-f995-427a-86e9-267365609942

Perhaps nowhere are the distortions of our broken tax code more obvious than in our system of business taxation. Simply put, the Internal Revenue Code limits economic growth, destroys jobs, and is fundamentally unfair. Americans will not experience the kind of widespread opportunity and shared prosperity they deserve unless we fix this destructive tax code.

Business taxation in the United States occurs across two separate and complex regimes – the corporate code and “pass-through” portions of the individual code. xii Our corporate tax rate is the highest in the developed worldxiii, which encourages businesses to incorporate abroad. The top tax rate on “pass through” businesses is even higher.xiv

Finally, this proposal will restore fairness to the tax code, by leveling the playing field for all businesses, providing permanence in the code, and removing patchwork exemptions and special-interest carve-outs

He totally gets it. By taking away tax expenditures, you can lower tax rates for everyone.

And he points out the unlevel business playing field.

If there was a 15% consumption tax, then everyone would have to pay. The poor would pay less, because the poor buys less. The rich pay more, because the rich buy more. No regressive income tax, but 1 flat tax, no deductions.

I'm a big fan of the Fair Tax. I believe a tax on consumption is superior to a tax on production.

But no tax scheme will work if you allow deductions, exemptions, or credits. Simple fact.

A consumption tax is just as wide open to corruption as any other tax scheme.

If you would of read what I said "If there was a 15% consumption tax, then everyone would have to pay. The poor would pay less, because the poor buys less. The rich pay more, because the rich buy more. No regressive income tax, but 1 flat tax, no deductions. "

 

[g5000]

The only tax expenditure which has definitively been proven to increase production is the EITC.

But even that expenditure suffers from abusers.

G5000 = How to spot a sociopath
How to spot a sociopath - 10 red flags that could save you from being swept under the influence of a charismatic nut job

#10) Sociopaths are delusional and literally believe that what they say becomes truth merely because they say it!

Hey dumbshit: EITC and Child Tax Credit Promote Work, Reduce Poverty, and Support Children’s Development, Research Finds

When enough money is funded, a research will find the results wanted for that money.....

Prove the research is wrong, asshole.

After asking me to source my claims, all you have is nothing but opinion, hypocrite.

 

[sealybobo]

How many times have you heard "Corporate tax breaks are being subsidized by the tax-paying public" or "The tax payers are having to foot the bill for a private company"?

Those are ignorant statements. A tax break given to a corporation isn't existing money the government has already collected from taxpayers, it's some of the money those corporations have earned on their own. Money which they don't have to pay to the government. They earned it, and they own it.

That would be equivalent to saying that the general public has some right to a corporation's earnings which anyone can tell you, is socialism.

 

[Dragonlady]

lol. to try to get better benefits for the poor instead of simply giving tax breaks for the rich at the expense of the poor.

Got an example of a tax break that hurts the poor?

A tax break that assists companies moving overseas.

There is no tax break for moving overseas.

Yes there is. The company gets deductions for shipping equipment overseas, for sending employees over to train the workers, and every trip they make to the offshore manufacturer to negotiate the deal, check on their manufacturing site and every phone call they make, as well as the costs of shipping the raw materials to the manufacturer and the finished goods to the customers.

W's changes to the tax code are credited with encouraging employers to offshore.

The company gets deductions for shipping equipment overseas

Excellent! Because that other claim is just moronic.
If IBM sends a new piece of equipment to their London plant, they get to deduct that shipping expense.
Just like they get to deduct all their legitimate business expenses.

W's changes to the tax code are credited with encouraging employers to offshore

Sounds awful! Any backup? Or is this just something you heard?

This bill would have ended that tax break. Republicans refused to pass it.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...-block-bill-to-end-tax-breaks-for-outsourcing

 

[sealybobo]

How many times have you heard "Corporate tax breaks are being subsidized by the tax-paying public" or "The tax payers are having to foot the bill for a private company"?

Those are ignorant statements. A tax break given to a corporation isn't existing money the government has already collected from taxpayers, it's some of the money those corporations have earned on their own. Money which they don't have to pay to the government. They earned it, and they own it.

That would be equivalent to saying that the general public has some right to a corporation's earnings which anyone can tell you, is socialism.

Wake up dummy

Overall, taxes stayed low until 1940, spiked during World War II, remained high through the Korean conflict, and eased slightly in the mid ’60s. From there, they held steady, until President Carter emancipated poverty-level wagemakers with his tax-free under-$8000 bracket, creating the blue wedge in our graph. Three years later, Reagan entered office and began turning the tables, finishing in 1988 with his retrograde 28% upper rate. The rich were now on tax vacation, at the expense of the poor and middle class.

A modified Reagan-era tax system lingers to this day. To his credit, Dubya did reduce taxes on very low earners, so they’re no longer getting hammered. But, the people at our economy’s core – the full-time workers earning between $20,000 and $150,000 a year – still pay at up to double the rate of the ultra-wealthy, relative to what history suggests they should.

So are you wealthy or really fucking stupid?

Shifting Burdens – U.S. Taxes By Income Level Over The Years