Unfair taxation on the working class

[speyfly]

Just by searching your web browser you will find a ton of info about how companies are evading paying their fare share of the taxes. While corporations are doing this, it is undermining the taxes that are needed to run this country AND burdening the working class with unfair taxation. Here is a browsing link for you.
Can't get the link to work so just type in "corporate offshore tax loopholes"

[ 02-19-2003, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: speyfly ]

[speyfly]

Here is a great link that explains a lot.
HERE

[Thumper]

Originally posted by speyfly:
...... companies are evading paying their fare share of the taxes.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Spey ... I love you man. The old "corporations don't pay enough taxes" gambit.

Big news here! Corporations don't pay taxes. They merely add the "taxes" they pay to the price of their goods. YOU pay the taxes. Surprise!

Consumers pay all the taxes. Corporations pay none.

[ 02-19-2003, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: Thumper ]

[speyfly]

Yes, in some cases you are right Thumper. Most big corporations are just interested in price increases in their stocks. Their goal is to drive the stock as high as possible. Setting up offshore decreases tax liabilities, increases profits and drives the price of the stock up. Makes the upper level of stockholder very rich. That said, if they were forced to play on an even playing field they run the risk of not being as competitive thus makes it really tuff for smaller business to compete. Ya know thumper the consumer will only pay what the market price is and no more.

You have been sold on a fantasy when you say that we will have to pay more for their good and services. No we won't, we will find a less expensive alternative. Now when the government (under pressure form special interest lobbies) deregulate industries like power, water, telecommunications etc. etc., Then they do have a strangle hold on you and I. Enron and the gouging of California electric, well we know what happened there. Portland General Electric was/is a subsidiary of Enron, overcharged California and now they have to pay back much of what they stole. The funny part is that they increased our rates to do that. Yes I this case we have to pay the extortion money but if there were an alternative, obviously we would choose the one that gave the best rate.

[ 02-19-2003, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: speyfly ]

[Thumper]

Well, Speyfly, that is all very heavy stuff. But it is postulated on the premise that corporations actually pay taxes, or should. A favorite theme of the liberal establishment. But they don't. You and I pay them. No mystery here.......

[speyfly]

Thumper, I do have some experience in this area. I was a President and CEO of a corporation and I know how the game is played. Though it was not a large company, it was my job to understand the rules so to speak. The consumer is always the last to know of the game and it’s rules. To just roll over and say that there is nothing we can do about it is excepting defeat.

[Thumper]

I am not sure what your point is?

[Hogmaster]

OK, fine. I'll jump in this one. speyfly, I am the owner of a small business. If my business is made to pay more taxes, I am forced to make a decision. Absorb those costs off of any bottom line profits, or pass the increased expense on in the price of the products and services the corporation provides.

The suggestion that companies won't do the latter because of competition doesn't work if all corporations face the tax increase. A company that doesn't increase prices but instead is willing to shave margins will eventually result in an unhealthy balance sheet which jepordizes its very existance and/or puts other companies out of business and reduces competition, which invariably results in increased prices downstream.

Now, if there are corporations that don't have to pay the increased taxes (like offshore corporations) then that is not so good either.

So I have to agree with Thumper. Whether the company is large or small, increased expense of a company (in this case taxes, but it could be virtually any expense item from fuel to salaries) are ultimately passed on.

[ 02-19-2003, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: Hogmaster ]

[speyfly]

My quote, "Now when the government (under pressure form special interest lobbies) deregulate industries like power, water, telecommunications etc. etc., Then they do have a strangle hold on you and I".

My point is for tax paying Americans to get involved in the political process, do the homework and take back what is yours! If we don't you and I will pay the price.

Just don't by into the spin that we hear and read. We need to think for ourselves because our lives depend on it.

[Thumper]

Well, you are a smarter guy than I Speyfly. I have no clue what you are talking about..........

[speyfly]

Hogmaster, that is my point. If the playing field were even you would not have the tax burden that you have right now.

When a city of gives a tax-exempt status to a business that is looking to locate or relocate here they are taking the money from your pocket and putting it in theirs. These are huge companies and yes the city and state receives more tax revenue from the employed (that is the addiction of government) but you were the one that subsidized the transaction. I saw this happen in Eugene when Hundi moved there. Eugene paid them huge amounts of money in tax exemptions and they were only their for a few years. Big business should be paying their own way and not relying on taxpayers to foot the bill.

[speyfly]

Thumper, I am no smarter than the next guy. I just barely made it through high school and did not finish collage. I did work hard and educated myself later in life than most.

We all have a very busy life and there is not enough time in the day to work and get a PHD in economics. We cannot trust in our government to take care of us. The deck has been stacked against us by people a lot smarter them most taxpayers or me. The net is a wonderful place to get an education. You just have to wade through a lot of BS. Wish I would have had the net 20 years ago.

[Thumper]

Originally posted by speyfly:
Big business should be paying their own way and not relying on taxpayers to foot the bill.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">That is exactly my point. "Big business" pays absolutely no taxes. The consumer (i.e., the taxpayer) pays all the taxes by way of increased prices. You can't get blood out of the corporation. It just passes the taxes along to the consumer.

If the corporation can't remain viable in the real market it goes belly up, and other corporate competitors sell more products and likewise pass along their taxes to the consumer. There ain't no free lunch.

[Silver Hilton]

Originally posted by Thumper:
[That is exactly my point. "Big business" pays absolutely no taxes. The consumer (i.e., the taxpayer) pays all the taxes by way of increased prices. You can't get blood out of the corporation. It just passes the taxes along to the consumer.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Actually, that's only true if the company has pricing power, which isn't usually the case, especially in a global economy. Consider GM and Toyota selling trucks, and the market price for a half ton truck is, say $20,000. If GM's taxes get raised, they can't necessarily pass that tax on to the customers, because that raises the price of the truck in relationship to Toyota, which will cause them to lose sales. So, in that situation, GM might elect to pass all, some, or none, of the tax on through to the price paid by the consumer.

The same is true of any company that sells a product that is viewed as a commodity, rather than a unique good. A record company can pass on the tax, because if you want Johnny Cash, only Johnny Cash will do, even if it does cost 15% more. But for most of the goods that we buy, competitive products exist, so the tax increases can't be instantly passed on without killing business.

In the longest of runs, the tax rate gets figured into the normal return on capital, and then is shared between the company and the customer at some rate. But in the short run, a tax increase hurts the company's margins.

I can tell you through three real world examples that the reality is that taxes do not get passed through to the customer. Look at the recent (last three weeks) stock prices of FWHT, POSS, and ESPD. These companies all, in their most recent earnings release, announced that they were going to have to start paying income taxes again, and that paying the taxes would reduce thier income from what had been anticipated by the markets. The market kicked those stocks in the teeth, because the companies couldn't raise their prices to make up for the difference.

[Silver Hilton]

Originally posted by speyfly:

We all have a very busy life and there is not enough time in the day to work and get a PHD in economics. We cannot trust in our government to take care of us.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Especially since the various branches of government tend to not listen to economists anyway. When you get the degree (that's what mine is in) you learn that there is a reason it is called the dismal science. Most of the revelations are not real happy. A couple of them are:

1) You have to tax rich people the most. That's where the money is. But rich people have the power, and tend to reject being taxed. It'd be a lot better of there was more wealth to be taxed at moderate levels of income, but,

2) In a capitalist economy, disparity in wealth is inevitable, because of the inherent return of income to capital. If you have capital, you can get more income. If you don't, have capital, it is harder to get income. So, you could redistribute income, but

3) Redistribution of income programs tend to cause great inefficiency, dragging down the incomes of most citizens to transfer income to the few. They have historically creating ever growing classes of the entitled, and there is a train wreck coming with all of these programs as the size of the income earning class shrinks, while the size of the entitled class grows.

4) However, the income transfer programs create income for these entitled folks, who spend it, creating momentum in our economy. If we stop these programs, the economy stalls.

5) Savings is good, because it creates capital. However, savings is bad, because it reduces consumption, which reduces GNP and incomes for all.

See, it makes your head hurt.

[speyfly]

OK Thumper, if you want to look at it that way, you are right. My point is that without the competition and manufacturing in this country we have based our whole economy on the stock markets that produce nothing other than paper (money) and import every thing. In your theory that we will pay higher prices because corporations will pass the tax to the consumer is right to a point. Completion will take care of that. I am old enough to remember when the first import vehicles (from Japan) came to this country, they were less money and very reliable. US auto manufactures just laughed and said that they were made out of beer cans and could never compete but look what has happened. The Japanese saw the need and filled it. Believe me, competition will take care of higher pricing on most consumables but we can’t allow businesses to leave this country for lower labor costs and reduced taxes. Nike is another example where they pay huge sums of money to professional athletes. There is nothing wrong with making money and paying endorsements to sports figures but they do not employ us workers. They have sold you on the fact that if they have to pay US wages they can’t compete or would have to raise the price. Well I think that someone somewhere would see the need and fill it if Nike were to go away because they could not compete. The shoes might not be as good looking but so what. I don’t know about you, but I buy nothing that has a logo other than my fly fishing gear and I shop around to get the best price or I won’t buy it.

This is where our government is not on your side. Things like campaign finance reform come into play. We have to cut the ties between big business and government and make sure that if they won’t employ US workers and pay their share in taxes then we don’t need their products. I don’t know about you but I think things have really gotten out of hand.

[speyfly]

Thanks SH.

[Thumper]

Originally posted by speyfly:
We have to cut the ties between big business and government and make sure that if they won’t employ US workers and pay their share in taxes then we don’t need their products. I don’t know about you but I think things have really gotten out of hand.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">That is where we differ. I am a free market kinda guy. I have limited dollars and I buy the best value for my money no matter where it is made. For me that might include Shimano reels, Chinese-made rod blanks, etc. Heck, even G-Loomis is owned by the Japanese. I believe in a world-based economy, and it is nearly impossible these days to "buy American".

Do you own any Shimano reels or G-Loomis rods?

But let's go back to your original thread question. Where is there unfair taxation on the working class???

[ 02-20-2003, 05:58 AM: Message edited by: Thumper ]

[speyfly]

Thumper, in the attempt to answer your questions, I only buy American made when possible so no I don't own fishing gear that was made by overseas worker. Now to your main question. This is what the working class can look forward too and I need to add that this tax proposal is unpatriotic.

Three quarters of all US households pay more in federal payroll taxes, which fund Social Security and Medicare, than they pay in federal income taxes.

Unlike the income tax, which is graduated, the payroll tax is calculated as a flat percentage of income. Moreover, the payroll tax is levied only on the first $70,000 or so in income.

This ceiling means that for high income taxpayers, the payroll tax is a much lower proportion of their income than for middle and lower income families—barely 1 percent for a millionaire, compared to 15.3 percent for the average worker.

By maintaining unchanged the tax which weighs most heavily on working people and cutting those taxes which affect the rich, the Bush plan amounts to a redistribution of income from the bottom to the top.

According to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), the top 1 percent of income earners would get a bigger tax cut than the bottom 80 percent of all taxpayers combined. These upper income families currently pay 20 percent of all federal taxes, but they would get 36 percent of the Bush tax cut. This is under conditions where the top 1 percent has seen their incomes grow by 40.4 percent over the past decade, compared to a 5.2 percent increase for the bottom 90 percent. Bush is targeting his tax cut so that these wealthy families with an average pretax income of over $800,000 in 1998, and an average after-tax income of nearly $600,000 would receive tax cuts of more than $60,000 apiece. In effect, the federal government will send a check to every member of the top 1 percent which is larger than the annual pretax income of the average American family. Meanwhile, the average family will get a cut of about $720. For the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers, the average reduction would be only $256.

Many low-income working families will receive nothing. According to CBPP figures, over 12 million families with 24 million children, one of every three children in the US, will receive no tax cut at all, including more than half of black and Hispanic children.

A two parent family of four with income of $26,000 would indeed have its income taxes eliminated under the Bush plan, which is being portrayed as a 100 percent reduction in taxes. The family, however, owes only $20 in income taxes under current law.

Income taxes will decline by $958 billion over the next 10 years, with nearly half this amount accruing to the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers. For working families, the bill will provide either no benefits at all, if they are among the millions of low income families who pay no income tax, or a cut averaging a few hundred dollars for those of middle income.

While I am an independent voter The House of Representatives voted down the Democratic counterproposal, which would have cost $585 billion over 10 years. This alternative, while introduced as a political maneuver, nonetheless spotlights the narrow social interests behind the tax cut drive. House Democrats deliberately drew up a bill that provides the same or slightly larger tax cuts than the White House bill for every income group below the top 5 percent of all taxpayers. Virtually the entire difference between the two bills lies in the treatment of the top 1 percent, who would receive $10.6 billion in tax reduction, 2 percent of the total, under the Democratic bill, and $424 billion in tax reduction, or 44.3 percent of the total, under the Republican bill. This brazen class legislation in favor of the top 1 percent one million families with taxable incomes over $1 million each won unanimous Republican support.

[ 02-20-2003, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: speyfly ]

[Hogmaster]

speyfly -

Please be specific and enlighten me on what gear you have for fishing that is only made in the USA by USA companies only. I would love to buy "Only American".

All of the arguments about the cap on income being taxed for payroll to fund Medicare and SS ignores a pretty basic consideration. To tax above that level means those who worked hard to earn extra income will be taxed for a benefit they will not be able to use. Remember that SS and Medicare also have caps on the benefits provided. So if you want to suggest that a higher cap needs to be in place, then you are arguing for more of a welfare state in general. Difference in philosophy, granted.

I personally grew up in a very lower middle class environment. Just above the poverty line. I also personally worked my way through education and effort to get out of that space. A safety net? Sure. An entitlement? Get to work!

Everyone seems to begroan the "tax breaks" the rich get. If you pay $75,000 a year in taxes alone and then get a 2% tax break, it is still a 2% tax break. That $1500 is a huge number compared to the $20 the 26 K wage earner gets back. But the high income earner still paid $73,500 in taxes! Why is this so hard to understand?

It is back to this type of parable:

50,000 people go to a baseball game, but the game was rained out and a
refund was then due the attendees. The team was about to mail refunds
when the Congressional Democrats stopped them and suggested sending
refund amounts based on the Democrat National Committee's interpretation
of fairness. After all, if the refunds were made based on the price
each person paid for the tickets, most of the money would go to the
wealthiest ticket holders and that would be unconscionable.

The DNC plan lays down the following criterion:

A. People in the $10 seats will get back $15 because they have less
money to spend. Call it an "Earned" Income Ticket Credit." Persons
"earn" it by demonstrating little ambition, few skills and poor work
habits, thus keeping them at entry-level wages.

B. People in the $25 seats will get back $25 because that's only fair.

C. People in the $50 seats will get back $1 because they already make
a lot of money and don't need a refund. If they can afford a $50 ticket
then they must not be paying enough taxes.

D. People in the $75 luxury seats will have to pay another $50 because
they have way too much money to spend.

E. People driving by the stadium who couldn't afford to watch the game
will get $10 each. Even though they didn't pay anything or attempt to
go to the game, they get a refund because they need the most help.

[Thumper]

Originally posted by speyfly:


Three quarters of all US households pay more in federal payroll taxes, which fund Social Security and Medicare, than they pay in federal income taxes.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Man do we have a communications gap. That is because the three quarters pay nearly nothing in federal taxes. The upper income folks pay the bulk of those taxes. Many of those in the low income bracket even get an outright gift --- the earned income credit. A pure unearned gift from one class of Americans to another. Nice, eh?

As you state, federal payroll taxes (which are not really a tax) fund SS and Medicare. Those fund dollars come right back to those low earners who pay into the program. So now you don't want them to pay anything there either???

Life is not a free ride, though for some it is getting closer to that all the time. Americans who bust their butts to get ahead now pay nearly all the federal income taxes. The low income earners get a nearly free ride, plus the income credit gift. Now the liberals want us to give them SS and Medicare free too.

Speyfly, that's just not fair to the rest of America.

[ 02-20-2003, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: Thumper ]

[northriver1]

Not bad Hogmaster, but please do not give them any more ideas.

[speyfly]

Originally posted by Hogmaster:
speyfly -

Please be specific and enlighten me on what gear you have for fishing that is only made in the USA by USA companies only. I would love to buy "Only American".

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Hog, top quality fly fishing gear is 100% MADE IN AMERICA. Now you can look at the numbers any way you want and that is your right to do so. Please remember that our young troops that this administration wants to send to the Middle East to fight a war to protect the AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE comes from the average working class. These patriotic youngsters are there not because they love to wage war and kill people, they are there to get an education and try to better their lives. It is UNPATRIOTIC for the wealthy in this country to ask the less fortunate to carry that kind of burden while the more fortunate just expect it to be so.

[Hogmaster]

spey -

Sorry, but I am seeing more twists than a tornado here!

I asked you to be specific. You weren't. So the only fishing anyone should do is flyfishing because the rest of the methods are anti-american?

Sure, most of the soldiers are from the average middle class because that is where the population is! How are the rich supposed to protect our way of life? Only the one percent should fight for it?

[speyfly]

Originally posted by Hogmaster:
spey -

Sorry, but I am seeing more twists than a tornado here!

I asked you to be specific. You weren't. So the only fishing anyone should do is flyfishing because the rest of the methods are anti-american?

Sure, most of the soldiers are from the average middle class because that is where the population is! How are the rich supposed to protect our way of life? Only the one percent should fight for it?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Hog, I can't answer your question about the gear that you choose to use to fish with but I would think that there is American made fishing rods that are available.

I don’t know what the numbers are but I would suspect that 99% of the US fighting troops are from lower to middle class families. If you have accurate numbers I would love to see them.

I guess it is OK for you to ask the working class to do a job that the wealthy is unwilling to do. Just my $.02

[ 02-20-2003, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: speyfly ]

[crabbait]

I think that. if you want to find US made gear you can. Aren't Rainshadow blanks made here by a small American company? They make some of the best rods going and can be custom built for less than the cost of the "Japanese" rods. Harrington/Harnell rods are also 100% made in the U.S.A. in good old Missouri and are tough as Missouri mules, to boot!

Their are also some small companies making top-of-the-line milled aluminum casting reels in level and non-level wind.

If it matters to you, you can find U.S.A. goods, or do you just want to complain about the unavailability?

On another note, people who make more money per year than the average American makes in a lifetime and then whine about how much they have to pay in taxes make me want to puke. Greed knows no bounds.

Many of the extremely wealthy did absolutely nothing to "earn" the money, mummy and daddy left it to them. Others are making multi-million dollar bonuses while the companies they run are failing and their employees are joining the unemployment line! Still others are making billions because they moved the industry to another country, putting Americans out of work, and are enjoying the profits of sweat-shop labor.

I don't buy the "worked my way up and so can you, so I don't owe" philosophy. We are all in this boat together and no one should constantly take more than they can use without helping those who are in need and feel good about it.

Just my $.02.

[ 02-20-2003, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: crabbait ]

[Cool Texan]

Spey....run for office, get elected, and change the process. As soon as you do, CPA's and finance people like me will analyze your rules and find the new loopholes. System sucks....but it will always suck, as loopholes will always exist to any rule.

[speyfly]

Kind of off the topic but I think it fits.

"To know past history is to know the future". I forget who the author was but it is profound insight.

When I was active in my formal education, history was my favorite subject. Though out the ages, many civilizations had the wealthy (Nobles) that had everything (the power) and the poor (Serfs) had nothing (could barley survive). History has been proven to repeat it’s self and in todays world there is a movement in the extreme right (the wealthy) to perpetuate a seperation of the classes. Not that I agree with an even distribution of wealth but I see an agenda driven by the wealthiest in this country to do just that. Maybe it is not an intentional thought but I believe this is motivated by extreme greed. This is just my view but I do see the gap between the wealthy and the poor to be growing. Is history repeating it’s self?

[speyfly]

SH, I think that you have done a much better job on the analytical end of the spectrum than I. Thanks, I always enjoy reading your thread.

[monoman]

SH
Very good post by the way! I don't think the problems are at the top, or at the poorest levels. It is all those of us in the middle. Here in Oregon we can't even pass a tax to help the schools, it was not the rich that voted 28 down. People believe they are being tax to much, it does not matter which tax bracket you are in the guy below you isn't paying his fare share. Flat tax, maybe. The first 20k not taxed than every penny after that is. Can't do that for business or there won't be a lunch crowd at the local pub. Look into Bush's plan for consumption tax, everything sold has a tax. Maybe, there are a lot of holes in any tax plan, but I'm open for a new one.

[Hogmaster]

Crabbait -

I have purchased products I thought to be american, but when you peel back the layers, how american are they really? If you think all the parts in your Merc are made in america, I believe you are mistaken. With my new Lami rod I was shocked to see had a blank that was "made in China". Are you sure the line guides put on those Rainshadow blanks were made in america? The glue? The ferrel wrap? The global economy is a reality.

As far as taxation issue go, let me quote:

(sorry northriver1)


Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson in Economics


Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day
ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid
their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:


The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing

The fifth would pay $1

The sixth would pay $3

The seventh would pay $7

The eighth $12

The ninth $18

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59


So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant
every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until one day the owner
threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to
reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now the dinner for the ten
only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our
taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free.
But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up
the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"? The six men
realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from
everybody's share, then the fifth and sixth men would each end up being "paid"
to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to
reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount and he proceeded to work
out the amounts that each should pay. And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)

The sixth man now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings)

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings)

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings)

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings)

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings)


Each of the men was better off than before, and the first four continued to
eat for free. But, once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare
their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20" declared the sixth man. He pointed to
the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when
I only got $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night, the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat
down and ate without him. But, when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them
for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax
system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from
a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they
just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants
in Europe and the Caribbean.

David R. Kamershen, Ph.D

Distinguished Professor of Economics

University of Georgia

[speyfly]

The wealthy have already moved their business off shore, they should go too. New Zealand, take their money and they can't take it out, France 60% on the dollar taxation, buy a third world country, they will need an army to defend their wealth etc. etc. They might consider the Middle East.

[ 02-20-2003, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: speyfly ]

[speyfly]

Hog, for the sake of accuracy here ya go.

HERE YA GO HOG, THEY DON'T HAVE IT SO BAD!

[ 02-20-2003, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: speyfly ]

[northriver1]

Hogmaster, if my taxes go up because of you I am going to track you down. And believe me, I am not in a happy camper. Just got the call from the CPA. My partner, Uncle Sam, made a killing, without the risk, off my sorry self. It makes you think, who is the dumby here, me or the 50% of USA citizens who pay very little or nothing at all in taxes. But than again, I look at the paid for boat in the driveway and all is well.

[ 02-20-2003, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: crabbait ]

[Hogmaster]

All very interesting stuff. :grin:

And spey, please use "they" not "you". In my dinner example I would be lucky to be considered the $7 guy. All I was trying to explain was the position that if those who are providing the largest majority of the percentage of tax revenue stream (regardless of their individual actual percentage compared to their wealth or income) are treated in ways that they feel are too excessive compared to other alternatives, they will choose other alternatives.

Sure, that is why Companies are going offshore. Expense reduction. But if, as is implied, let the door hit the butts of the wealthy as they leave the U.S. is the attitude that causes them to really go, where is the 50, 60 or 70% (pick your percentage here) of the ACTUAL TAX REVENUES COLLECTED going to come from?

Be careful what you ask for...

[ 02-20-2003, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: crabbait ]

[Cool Texan]

Spey,

Actually, I was being sarcastic. Just pointing out that while some might feel it is unfair, changing the law wont eliminate the problem. Loopholes will always exist, no matter what you do...that's just how it goes.

[speyfly]

Hogmaster, changes made and you have my apology. CT, I just can't call political corruption a status quo that I will support nor excuse.

[Cool Texan]

Spey....dont get me wrong. I neither support it nor excuse it. Merely pointing out a simple fact....loopholes will always be. Dont read into that trying to find my opinion of things....just stating the fact that no matter how we craft the rules and laws, there will always be a way around it.

[Silver Hilton]

Mono,

You're absolutely right, many people believe that they are taxed too much. I think it's becase we have these various media pundits railing on the subject, who moan about the taxes, without contrasting it with the services and benefits that those taxes pay for. Like the schools that Oregon will not do with less of.

It's interesting because at the same time we moan about being taxed too much, we continue to want the high level of government and services that necessitates the taxes.

When the income tax was first imposed at the turn of the century, we had no medicare, medicaid, highway system, urban development, farm price supports, SEC, FBI, CIA, and all the rest of the alphabet soup. We had only a minscule military, and the federal government had NO police power as we know it today.

Now, we have all this stuff, and each piece has it's constiuency, and our leaders are afraid to link the services to the funding.

We have since been taught, mostly by the media, that we can have these services, and have our tax bill lowered.

Interestingly, our average tax rates hardly exhorbitant, when compared to the rest of the civilized world. See the table here..

It is interesting that the US average tax rate runs on the lower end of the spectrum, despite our carrying a bulk of the military costs for some of these nations.

We could lower our taxes at the federal level probably 15% if we cut our military expenditures in half. We could cut them another 6% if we ended the war on drugs. Who would like income taxes reduced by 20% with no impact on the deficit, raise your hands. C'mon, higher, I can't see all of you.

My point, Mono, is that the citizenry of the nation have become habituated to asking to have their tax bill reduced, but not to asking that the spending be reduced. We seem to think that government is somehow free, without realizing that if we simply insisted that our government do less in some key areas, we would have to pay less.

And no, I'm not asking that the military be eliminated, just that the department of defense focus on just that, defense. I think we could do that in this day and age for $200 billion a year. And let's keep the discussion about whether Iraq is defensive or not in the other thread.

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by speyfly:
When a city of gives a tax-exempt status to a business that is looking to locate or relocate here they are taking the money from your pocket and putting it in theirs. These are huge companies and yes the city and state receives more tax revenue from the employed (that is the addiction of government) but you were the one that subsidized the transaction. I saw this happen in Eugene when Hundi moved there. Eugene paid them huge amounts of money in tax exemptions and they were only their for a few years. Big business should be paying their own way and not relying on taxpayers to foot the bill.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Hyundai received a temporary reduction in taxes from the city in order to persuade them to locate here.......not sure of the details now but it apparently made sense at the time. Huge installation was built, hundreds of good-paying jobs created......worked fine until the world-wide chip market became glutted. And, the continual efforts by the extreme left in Eugene didn't help things.....a local coalition of interests formed to stop Hyundai at every step......continual lawsuits.....obstructionist tactics in the city council......finally Hyundai said enough and reorganized/sold out to a new company called Hynix......and I think they are still running the facility Hyundai built and there are still good tax-generating jobs there......maybe not as many.....but still too many for the "stop growth at all costs" crowd from Eugene and the UofO (the leaders are UofO professors, I believe).

[Thumper]

Originally posted by crabbait:

On another note, people who make more money per year than the average American makes in a lifetime and then whine about how much they have to pay in taxes make me want to puke. Greed knows no bounds.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Crabbait --- I must have missed that post. Who here is whining about having to pay too much in taxes?

But some do seem to whine about having to pay anything at all, even payments to provide some of their own social security and Medicare benefits.

Speyfly, please tell us what you specifically recommend for tax rates by taxable income group. I invite you to fill in the blanks. It would help me to better understand your thinking.

Over $1,000,000 annually?________%
$250,000 - $1,000,000 annually?________%
$100,000 - $250,000?________%
$50,000 - $100,000?________%
$25,000 - $50,000?________%
Under $25,000?________%

Thanks.

[Kruechief]

Over $1,000,000 annually?_hang them and redistribiute their worldly holdings to the bottom three _%
$250,000 - $1,000,000 annually?_Nope_______%
$100,000 - $250,000?__Nope______%
$50,000 - $100,000?__yep______%
$25,000 - $50,000?___yep_____%
Under $25,000?__yep______%

I am kidding here!

krue

[speyfly]

CT, at this late stage in my life I don’t think that I can run in 2004 for the Presidency and win. I could do nothing to make the kind of changes that are necessary from the local level. This kind of leadership needs to come from the President of this great nation. I am sad that I do not see this kind of leadership in any of the political parties. I am an advocate for some kind of reform party that will cut the ties with big business and bring this nation back to the moral high ground!

Thumper, I am not an economist so I can’t answer you question.

[monoman]

Spey
In my sons company (usmc), his friends include the son of ambassador, and the son of a man who plays golf weekly with a US Representative. These kids and many others could have picked which school to go to. I would have sent mine to any college he wanted, tried to force it! Not all these kids are there for your reasons.

Buying made in the USA products.
I try to buy USA products as often as possible, but that is not my standard. If a product is made in Spain, with original ideas and it fits what I want I will buy it. If a product is made somwhere that is just a copy and made there just to save money and allow Wal-Mart to sell it, I pass as often as I can.

[ 02-20-2003, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: monoman ]

[Silver Hilton]

Spey, I think you're focusing on the wrong thing when you worry about disparity in wealth. As I noted above, in a functioning economy that allows private capital, wealth will diverge, as long as there is a positive return on capital. It's a mathematical necessity. I think it's a philophical error to fcous on this phenomenon as the problem. The problem, in any view of social justice, is not how much the rich have, it is whether the poor are benefiting as well.

The issue in the US today, I submit, is not that Bill Gates is making more money, it is that the number of people slipping under the poverty line is increasing, and average real income as a whole is declining.

I have always believed that it is in the interests of the rich to work against this, out of their own self interest. If the poorer segments of society do not see their lot in life improving, and do not see a brighter future for their childrewn, well, remember the french and russian revolutions? More immediately, in order for wealth to increase, someone has to buy the stuff that is made in our country. It makes no sense to turn our backs on the poor, because if we do the economy will collapse.

There's always an interesting tension in the US as to whether we should focus on the individual or society. Lowering tax rates in my view caters to that individual view. I my opinion, keeping that focus is likely to paradoxially hurt all those individuals, as our country descends into economic decline and malaise.

[ 02-20-2003, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: Silver Hilton ]

[foxer]

I still dont see how taxpayers pay when business locate. No tax breaks for high tech, fine, they will go else where and we will all work in the timber industry. Oops, the lefties got rid of those jobs...Gee, lets all go work at starbucks....Without the "big business" there would be even less state revenue for feel good things like oregon health plan, cim/cam..oh, lets not forget free health care and schooling for illegal aliens