House GOP proposes $2.5 Trillion in cuts.

[bpwallace49]

Apples and oranges, I would have thought you would have been smart enough to recognize the difference. I guess I've been giving you too much credit.

 

Easy there killer . . . take a couple Midol and realize it for the joke it was.

[Perchoutofwater]

compared with other countries, we have higher corporate rates, but more write-offs and loopholes. ryan's plan involves lower rates and fewer write-offs and loopholes -- with personal income taxes and corporate taxes alike. again, this is also a feature of the bowles-simpson fiscal commission tax reform plan.

 

But it looks like the evil rich who already pay the lion's share of taxes are going to pay less, because the masses or either too stupid or too politically motivated to realize, or acknowledge the extremely wealthy they are so jealous of, have teams of lawyers and accounts using, finding, and lobbying for new loopholes every day.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Perchoutofwater

[Ursa Majoris]

compared with other countries, we have higher corporate rates, but more write-offs and loopholes. ryan's plan involves lower rates and fewer write-offs and loopholes -- with personal income taxes and corporate taxes alike. again, this is also a feature of the bowles-simpson fiscal commission tax reform plan.

Yes, and that's good, but the fact is that the rate has declined in real terms over the years yet the cacophony has not.

[bpwallace49]

compared with other countries, we have higher corporate rates, but more write-offs and loopholes. ryan's plan involves lower rates and fewer write-offs and loopholes -- with personal income taxes and corporate taxes alike. again, this is also a feature of the bowles-simpson fiscal commission tax reform plan.

 

Which is the key to this whole plan. If those loopholes ARENT closed, then we give breaks that result in more corporate welfare. The GOP aint exactly known for being tough on business interests in the past, so I would love to see how this will effect multinational orgs and tax loopholes for corporations across the board.

 

Personal incomes are pennies compared to the massive corporate wealth that isnt being collected at the established levels.

[tazinib1]

Personal incomes are pennies

 

 

I resent that

[i_am_the_swammi]

Uh, this country was started due to taxation with out representation.

 

 

Who brought them up again?

 

Uh, you did...bout' two hours ago

[bpwallace49]

I resemble that

fixed.

 

 

[tazinib1]

fixed.

 

 

 

 

 

Not for long!!

[Perchoutofwater]

Uh, you did...bout' two hours ago

 

You need to improve your reading comprehension or take yukon off ignore as what you quoted was a direct reply to him bringing up The Constitution.

[Azazello1313]

welp, perch has succeeded in perching his own thread.

[bushwacked]

welp, perch has succeeded in perching his own thread.

 

The thread went downhill fast.

[Deathpig]

Frankly corporate taxes are sorta stupid anyway because guess who pays that? Corporations, right? But where do corporations get their money? Consumers! Corporations don't just eat the tax burden, it's passed down to the consumer in the form of higher prices.

 

It's pretty ridiculous to think about how many times you are taxed, directly or indirectly, on every single transaction you make. THIS is the reason there will never be any sort of consumption tax, because if people actually saw the total percentage of tax on every little transaction, they'd flip out. Well, that and politicians love to use the IRS as a weapon and they sure as hell won't voluntarily give that up.

 

Sales tax, corporate/property taxes (for the supplier, the seller, the transporter, the storage), many products have use taxes associated with them (tobacco, gas, alcohol, etc.), excises/duties/fees (again, depending on the goods), all tacked on to you having less money available due to state and federal income tax. I'm sure I'm missing a whole litany of other tax charges in here as well. The only thing people are cognizant of at time of purchase is the sales tax, if you even pay attention to that anymore.

[Azazello1313]

While the financial crisis led G.E. to post a loss in the United States in 2009, regulatory filings show that in the last five years, G.E. has accumulated $26 billion in American profits, and received a net tax benefit from the I.R.S. of $4.1 billion.

 

well by gosh, that CEO deserves a promotion

[Perchoutofwater]

Frankly corporate taxes are sorta stupid anyway because guess who pays that? Corporations, right? But where do corporations get their money? Consumers! Corporations don't just eat the tax burden, it's passed down to the consumer in the form of higher prices.

 

It's pretty ridiculous to think about how many times you are taxed, directly or indirectly, on every single transaction you make. THIS is the reason there will never be any sort of consumption tax, because if people actually saw the total percentage of tax on every little transaction, they'd flip out. Well, that and politicians love to use the IRS as a weapon and they sure as hell won't voluntarily give that up.

 

Sales tax, corporate/property taxes (for the supplier, the seller, the transporter, the storage), many products have use taxes associated with them (tobacco, gas, alcohol, etc.), excises/duties/fees (again, depending on the goods), all tacked on to you having less money available due to state and federal income tax. I'm sure I'm missing a whole litany of other tax charges in here as well. The only thing people are cognizant of at time of purchase is the sales tax, if you even pay attention to that anymore.

 

Which is exactly the reason I'm such a strong advocate for a consumption tax or flat tax without loopholes. If people knew how much they were giving to the government, or how much of what they are being charged at the cash register went to the government, the size and scope of government would be drastically reduced back into something akin to what it was originally intended to be.

[bpwallace49]

well by gosh, that CEO deserves a promotion

 

Not surprising, and kinda sad really . . . the guy in charge of jobs appointed by Obama has slashed jobs domestically while increasing hiring abroad and paid zero net taxes last year despite a 14 billion + PROFIT. Wow.

 

Good article on Paul Ryan below . .

 

Paul Ryan and the Politics of Debt

 

By MICHAEL CROWLEY Michael Crowley – 2 hrs 3 mins ago

For months, Washington has talked with growing alarm about the storm clouds of debt gathering over America's fiscal horizon. Last fall, a bipartisan commission offered its plan for solving the debt crisis. But its recommendations went nowhere, and the talk has gone on ad nauseam. Nobody with any real authority, including President Obama, despite his own exhortations about the urgent need for action, has offered a comprehensive plan to tackle our-long term debt.

 

That changed today, with the ambitious - though some might say radical, others politically suicidal - new budget proposal from Republican Congressman Paul Ryan, Chairman of the House Budget Committee. Ryan's budget plan is the first real legislative bid in what will be an epic political battle over the country's long-term fiscal future. Ryan proposes cutting $5.8 trillion from the federal budget over the next 10 years. The plan includes major overhauls of Medicare and Medicaid, a broad reform of the tax code, and reductions in domestic spending (including a modest $78 billion trim to defense spending over 10 years). (See "40 Under 40: The Rising Stars of American Politics.")

 

At at a press conference unveiling his plan this morning, Ryan said he was on a "moral imperative" to avert a possible "economic collapse." And he presented himself as a heroic truth-teller in a city of moral cowards. "For too long, Washington has not been honest with the American people," Ryan said.

 

So who is the GOP's man of the moment? A telegenic supply-side conservative, Ryan cut his teeth as a speechwriter for Jack Kemp and Bill Bennett in the mid-1990s. Even back then, says Pete Wehner, for whom Ryan worked at Empower America, "it was clear that he was a bright star in the constellation." After serving as legislative director for Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, Ryan mounted a successful bid for Wisconsin's First Congressional District seat in 1998, at age 28. Now 41, the avid outdoorsman is ensconced in a district that shares his pro-life, pro-gun-rights views, and has ascended to become the Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee. "He's an unabashed policy wonk," says Mark Green, a fellow Wisconsin Republican and friend who was elected to the House the same year as Ryan. "This is a guy who would take policy papers back to the office with him at night and stay up late looking through them." See "Twelve for '12: A Dozen Republicans Who Could Be the Next President.")

 

But Ryan's ideas haven't always been embraced by his party. In fact, he has been sticking thorns in Congress's side since he began offering amendments to reduce lawmakers' pork projects a decade ago. In 2003 he forced Republicans to put free-market reforms in the Medicare prescription-drug program before he and other fiscal conservatives would vote for it. In 2006 he wrote legislation that would give the President line-item veto power - a move lawmakers on both sides have long resisted. In 2007 he called for earmark transparency; two years later, he was seeking a moratorium on the pet giveaways. And at the heart of Ryan's unconventional thinking was his "Roadmap for America's Future" - an ambitious 87-page, 75-year plan released last year that served in many ways as the inspiration for Tuesday's budget proposal. Ryan was crafting this plan for years, but it wasn't until fiscal politics turned and he rose to the helm of the House Budget Committee that he had enough clout to get his ideas into the mainstream.

 

Now, the question is how honest the coming debate over the debt crisis will be. Democrats are already counterattacking Ryan's plan as less an act of budgetary efficiency than a heartless assault on seniors and the poor that largely spares the well-off. Even the tax reforms in Ryan's plan are revenue neutral, they note, asking nothing more of big business or the wealthy. And though he peddles the idea of honest talk and tough medicine, Ryan sidesteps the politically-fraught topic of Social Security, even though he agrees it is a long-term driver of debt.

 

The coming debate will also be, in large measure, a re-litigation of Barack Obama's health care plan. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Obama's plan will save $130 billion over 10 years (estimates vary). If that forecast is accurate, then Obama has already taken a major step towards slashing the national debt. But Ryan simply doesn't buy that figure, and claims at a press conference unveiling his plan this morning that repealing health care will save $1.5 trillion. That's a $1.63 trillion dispute - one that won't easily be reconciled, and one not likely to give us a surplus of the honesty Ryan has called for.

 

If it goes anywhere at all, Ryan's plan will first change dramatically. Democrats want no part of it - and the same goes even for many Republicans who may sympathize with the plan's goals but worry it outpaces the public's true appetite for deficit-cutting. But Democrats can't afford to ignore Ryan's plan completely; they, too, have substantive worries about the debt. And, as President Obama's own rhetoric demonstrates, they know the public wants some action on this front. So Ryan has, in effect, fired a starting gun today for the great debt battle. Let's see whether Washington can deliver America an honest and constructive fight.

 

With Alex Altman and Jay Newton-Small

 

Bolded area is most important. What will actually get passed at the end of the day . . .???

[bushwacked]

Frankly corporate taxes are sorta stupid anyway because guess who pays that? Corporations, right? But where do corporations get their money? Consumers! Corporations don't just eat the tax burden, it's passed down to the consumer in the form of higher prices.

 

Never heard this before. So it's like a trickle down theory?

 

If corporations simply passed taxes and costs associated with laws/regs down to the consumer they wouldn't spend so much time, energy, and money lobbying against them.

 

It's pretty ridiculous to think about how many times you are taxed, directly or indirectly, on every single transaction you make.

 

Why? Part of price of living in a civilized and organized society is paying taxes on transactions.

[Perchoutofwater]

Never heard this before. So it's like a trickle down theory?

 

If corporations simply passed taxes and costs associated with laws/regs down to the consumer they wouldn't spend so much time, energy, and money lobbying against them.

 

 

 

Why? Part of price of living in a civilized and organized society is paying taxes on transactions.

 

Part of it is passed down the consumer in the form of higher prices, part of it is passed down to the employees via lower wages and benefits. If it was simplified, think of how much time and money we all would save in tax preparation as well. If you think it is just cutting into the evil stock holders dividend you are very naive.

[bushwacked]

If you think it is just cutting into the evil stock holders dividend you are very naive.

 

I was responding to someone who insinuated the burden was "just" passed onto the consumers.

 

You need to improve your reading comprehension

 

 

Edited April 5, 2011 by bushwacked

[Deathpig]

I was responding to someone who insinuated the burden was passed onto the consumers.

 

It is passed down to the consumer, and corporations fight to have the taxes lowered (generally for themselves, not for their sector or industry) so as to have a competitive advantage. If they have to settle for sector or industry tax breaks, they instead use that break to bank a profit.

 

That corporations, like anyone else, lobby for tax breaks is irrelevant to the fact that they do, in fact, pass costs down to the consumer.

[bushwacked]

It is passed down to the consumer, and corporations fight to have the taxes lowered (generally for themselves, not for their sector or industry) so as to have a competitive advantage. If they have to settle for sector or industry tax breaks, they instead use that break to bank a profit.

 

That corporations, like anyone else, lobby for tax breaks is irrelevant to the fact that they do, in fact, pass costs down to the consumer.

 

Corporate taxes are passed along multiple ways, Perch above mentions employee wages. It can also be passed along as smaller dividends for stockholders. And of course there is the consumer angle. Also, there is the fact that many times other corporations become the consumer of any given good or service. To insist that corporations wholly and ultimately pass the tax increase burden onto 'Joe 6-pack the consumer' isn't an accurate claim, but it makes for a politically expedient and simple sounding talking point.

Edited April 5, 2011 by bushwacked

[Ursa Majoris]

Immelt, the chair of President Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, heads America's largest corporation. General Electric made $14.2 billion in profits last year, yet it paid $0 in taxes — as in "zero," "nothing," "not a penny."

 

With all that extra money, Immelt enjoyed a doubling of his personal compensation. Yet, he was not interested in spreading the prosperity. In fact, GE is expected to ask 15,000 of the company's unionized workers to agree to sweeping cuts in pay and benefits.

 

It won't be long now.

[Deathpig]

Corporate taxes are passed along multiple ways, Perch above mentions employee wages. It can also be passed along as smaller dividends for stockholders. And of course there is the consumer angle. Also, there is the fact that many times other corporations become the consumer of any given good or service. To insist that corporations wholly and ultimately pass the tax increase burden onto 'Joe 6-pack the consumer' isn't an accurate claim, but it makes for a politically expedient and simple sounding talking point.

 

I'll take this to mean we agree. Indulge me to expand 'Joe 6-pack the consumer' to 'John Q. Public', and we're there. Every example you list is the common man getting shafted, directly or indirectly, by increasing the corporate tax rate. I apologize if 'consumer' is a little too narrow to support my point that the costs don't get eaten by the company, they get passed down to everyone else.

[bushwacked]

It won't be long now.

 

It's all good, 100 % of those untaxed profits will be directly transferred to the consumer.

Edited April 6, 2011 by bushwacked

[Azazello1313]

it’s no longer credible to complain that the GOP has not put forward any sort of meaningful solution for the budget. At this point, they’re the only ones who have put forward a detailed outline; the Democrats still seem to be hoping that if they kind of mill around long enough, eventually an angel will float over the horizon and deposit a plan that doesn’t annoy anyone

[Duchess Jack]

Part of it is passed down the consumer in the form of higher prices, part of it is passed down to the employees via lower wages and benefits. If it was simplified, think of how much time and money we all would save in tax preparation as well. If you think it is just cutting into the evil stock holders dividend you are very naive.

six of one, half dozen of another. the government still needs what it needs to run. is it too high? sure. but even if we went to a flat or consumer tax - it would need to be high enough to fund what the government needs to run.