qorkfiend: skullkrusher: qorkfiend: skullkrusher: skullkrusher: qorkfiend: jigger: HeartBurnKid: Taxes aren't punishment

Aren't they a penalty for not buying health insurance?

Also a penalty for not having a mortgage or kids.

one of these things are is not like the other.

/duh

Eh? Maybe they're implemented differently in law, but the end result is the same. No health insurance, more taxes. No mortgage, more taxes. No kids, more taxes.

sure. The net end result is the same. The end result of a fine of $500 for speeding and a tax credit of $500 for not speeding is the same. However, one is a penalty and the other is not. It's even called a penalty in the bill.

Well, ok. Where can I apply for my not-speeding credit?

you can't because we enforce speeding laws via penalty, not a credit.

qorkfiend: skullkrusher: qorkfiend: skullkrusher: qorkfiend: skullkrusher: skullkrusher: qorkfiend: jigger: HeartBurnKid: Taxes aren't punishment

Aren't they a penalty for not buying health insurance?

Also a penalty for not having a mortgage or kids.

one of these things are is not like the other.

/duh

Eh? Maybe they're implemented differently in law, but the end result is the same. No health insurance, more taxes. No mortgage, more taxes. No kids, more taxes.

sure. The net end result is the same. The end result of a fine of $500 for speeding and a tax credit of $500 for not speeding is the same. However, one is a penalty and the other is not. It's even called a penalty in the bill.

Well, ok. Where can I apply for my not-speeding credit?

you can't because we enforce speeding laws via penalty, not a credit.

I know that! It was a joke, seriously, who doesn't speed?

I can't drive 55. Too scary

/some antics

skullkrusher: extortion? Someone better give these murderous poor people a lesson on the social contract!

It pretty much is extortion. But we're mostly willing to pay the necessary fee to not have an enormous number of very, very hungry people. I mean, we could probably manage if we stopped all the poor-people aid, but we'd end up funneling most of those funds back into police forces and things would generally not be so pleasant and we wouldn't have saved all that much money.

Debeo Summa Credo: Income earned through ownership of a corporation is taxed at the corporate level, then taxed again when distributed to the owner.

Um, no it is not.

Nevertheless, in a small corporation, the owners can avoid paying dividends and instead can withdraw cash from the business in deductible ways, as salary, lease and loan payments, etc. Very large salaries for small business owners have been upheld as deductible expenses. Most small corporations, in fact, do not pay any dividends, and yet distribute all of the disposable income to the owners in this tax-deductible way. (new window)

jigger: qorkfiend: jigger: The_Six_Fingered_Man: jigger: I might be wrong about this, but if you win $10,000 from the lottery, and then give your friend $5000, you get taxed on $10,000 and your friend gets taxed on $5000.

You are wrong. You gifted the friend $5000. So you pay tax on the $10,000 winnings (offset by any gambling losses). Receivers of gifts don't pay taxes on them.

So if I blow $100 on lottery tickets, I can write that off on my taxes?

Only if you made $100 or more on lottery tickets as well, I think, though the lottery could be handled differently.

What?

Ok, so if I lose $1000 at the blackjack table, I can write that off, but only if I win some back too?

why is this so difficult? You pay taxes only on your net gambling winnings. If your net winnings are 0 or negative, you do not pay taxes. If they are more than 0, you do.

CPennypacker: Anyone who thinks the poor benefit more from tax money needs to have their head examined.

It's a little bit more complicated than that I think. We're not broken down into the filthy rich and the downtrodden poor. There are wide ranges of incomes which derive virtually identical benefit from tax $

CPennypacker: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: Anyone who thinks the poor benefit more from tax money needs to have their head examined.

It's a little bit more complicated than that I think. We're not broken down into the filthy rich and the downtrodden poor. There are wide ranges of incomes which derive virtually identical benefit from tax $

Tru dat, but nobody cares about us.

I say we let the rich and the poor kill each other and those of us with disposable incomes but not awash in cash get a summer house together or something

CPennypacker: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: Anyone who thinks the poor benefit more from tax money needs to have their head examined.

It's a little bit more complicated than that I think. We're not broken down into the filthy rich and the downtrodden poor. There are wide ranges of incomes which derive virtually identical benefit from tax $

Tru dat, but nobody cares about us.

I say we let the rich and the poor kill each other and those of us with disposable incomes but not awash in cash get a summer house together or something

Only if I can drive. I heard you have a Chevy.

hehe not anymore. Now I am happily car-free.

Why was it that back in the 1950's and 1960's, when the top income tax rates went as high as 91%, that our country was prosperous and we still had plenty of wealthy people. . .

. . .but now that taxes on the rich are significantly less than half of what they were back in the "good old days" we get people (Grover Norquist) saying that if they are raised at all, even one bit, it is economic doom and will lead to the economy collapsing, jobs disappearing, dogs & cats living together. . .

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Silverstaff: Why was it that back in the 1950's and 1960's, when the top income tax rates went as high as 91%, that our country was prosperous and we still had plenty of wealthy people. . .

. . .but now that taxes on the rich are significantly less than half of what they were back in the "good old days" we get people (Grover Norquist) saying that if they are raised at all, even one bit, it is economic doom and will lead to the economy collapsing, jobs disappearing, dogs & cats living together. . .

*sigh* if you think that tax rates are why this country was prosperous during those times, then I have some waterfront property in Mesa, AZ to sell you.

What about a bridge? I'm more in the bridge market, preferably a high traffic area

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Silverstaff: Why was it that back in the 1950's and 1960's, when the top income tax rates went as high as 91%, that our country was prosperous and we still had plenty of wealthy people. . .

. . .but now that taxes on the rich are significantly less than half of what they were back in the "good old days" we get people (Grover Norquist) saying that if they are raised at all, even one bit, it is economic doom and will lead to the economy collapsing, jobs disappearing, dogs & cats living together. . .

*sigh* if you think that tax rates are why this country was prosperous during those times, then I have some waterfront property in Mesa, AZ to sell you.

I don't think that.

However, high taxes on the wealthy certainly weren't keeping the country from being prosperous.

The Republican narrative is that if we raise taxes on the wealthy at all, then the Job Creators^TM won't have enough money to make even more jobs.

Never mind that they don't exactly make jobs with the big piles of income they make now. When CEO's receive bonuses that could pay the annual salaries of many, many workers, you know it's not about not having enough money to make jobs, they

In 2010, William R. Johnson the Chairman & President of, Heinz received a bonus of $8.5 million. That could have paid a very healthy $50k/year middle-class wage to 170 workers.

Job creation isn't about having enough money to hire people, that's a red herring, they can afford to pay more in taxes. Companies don't hire people just because they can afford to, that would be the socially responsible thing to do, and corporations are amoral legal persons that exist only to make a profit, without regard for the communities they live in (as I've been preached to by Conservatives here on Fark).

When you make $20,000/year, paying $3000 in taxes (15% income tax rate for a single person at that income level) is inconvenient, because the difference in living between $20,000 a year and $17,000 a year is significant. I've lived on $20k/year, $3000 is a LOT of money when that's all you've got.

However, when you make $1,000,000/year, paying $350,000 doesn't really change things. Even if you're "only" making $650,000/yr after taxes, you're not going to go hungry, or be out in the cold, or lack for good medical care or have problems getting your car worked on because you only made $650k/year. They could afford to pay more and they would still be making plenty of money.

So, with the Republican main excuse for not raising taxes debunked, why shouldn't the wealthy be paying more, since they can afford more?

Yes, the problem isn't with how things are, only what we call them.

jigger: It just sounds like you're saying, "Hey, why do you have that extra money? Don't you realize it could be used to blow shiat up?"

No. Here is what I'm saying:

We need to fix the Federal Budget. We are running high deficits for two main reasons. First, the massive tax cuts started in the Bush administration greatly lowered Federal revenues. Second, massive expenditures such as a two-front foreign war have cost a lot of money.

We need to both cut expenses, and raise taxes to balance the budget. In looking to raise taxes, eyes go first to the rich because they can afford to pay more, especially since their tax rates are so low overall, especially compared to historic tax rates in the US.

The Republican position has been that any raising of taxes is completely unacceptable, thanks to unelected demagogue Grover Norquist dictating to Congressmen how they shall vote on issues. The Republican Talking Points have been propaganda about how raising taxes on the Rich, or raising taxes at all (except maybe on the poor) is bad because it will mean that the Job Creators^TM won't have enough money to hire more people and fix the economy. Never mind that they haven't been hiring a lot with the hand-over-fist profiteering they've been engaging in these last few years.

These people clamoring for ever lower taxes (and no tax increases ever, even in wartime) are like petulant children refusing to eat their broccoli or go to bed on time. They are unwilling to act like mature adults and do things they might not like to do, even though it's the right thing in the long term.

So, we need to cut expenses while raising taxes. It's not exactly a crowd pleaser since nobody likes to be told taxes are going to go up, but it is the logical, rational sensible thing to do.