If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNBC)   Today's tax code may be the most progressive since the heady days of the Jimmy Carter economy   (cnbc.com) divider line 63
    More: Obvious, capital gains taxes, income taxes  
•       •       •

1647 clicks; posted to Business » on 07 Jan 2013 at 1:29 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



63 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-07 10:02:25 AM  
Does this mean I can talk on the CB radio in my El Camino to girls in hot pants again?  I got an extra ticket to see Foghat, baby.
 
2013-01-07 10:06:18 AM  
It wasn't Carter's taxes that caused the poor economy it was Volcker's interest rates.

blogs.reuters.com
 
2013-01-07 10:07:23 AM  
Did I say Volker? No, it was Hayes who created that monstrosity.
 
2013-01-07 10:14:44 AM  
Frankly, if wages had simply kept pace with inflation/COL, we probably could have avoided at least 50% of the fiscal issues we're now experiencing.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-07 10:51:30 AM  
FTFA:
But it arguably did not become much more progressive for the rich compared with the middle class, or the very rich compared with the rich, in part because of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts on investment income.
 
2013-01-07 11:05:37 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Frankly, if wages had simply kept pace with inflation/COL, we probably could have avoided at least 50% of the fiscal issues we're now experiencing.


It honestly is pretty amazing the staggering level of greed present in company executive leadership.  It was basically an across the board wage freeze for decades with only a few exceptions, leading to this enormous financial pinch.  And then they fleece the treasury when the SHTF, and fleece the consumer with higher prices, and have the gall to act outraged when their taxes are nominally raised.

I'd love to put a couple of these guys against the wall and see how much the rest of them squirm.
 
2013-01-07 11:16:42 AM  

Elandriel: It honestly is pretty amazing the staggering level of greed present in company executive leadership.


Not if you've ever read a history book. Even the paltry dime and a half America considers to be "history" is rife with examples of this very same problem again and again.

Capitalism has no safeguards against greed and left unchecked aristocracy blooms like maggots on an uncooked steak.
 
2013-01-07 11:47:14 AM  

doglover: Elandriel: It honestly is pretty amazing the staggering level of greed present in company executive leadership.

Not if you've ever read a history book. Even the paltry dime and a half America considers to be "history" is rife with examples of this very same problem again and again.

Capitalism has no safeguards against greed and left unchecked aristocracy blooms like maggots on an uncooked steak.


Well, at least our brand of "Unfettered Western Capitalism" has no safeguards.  Until recently, most of Europe was doing nominally better than us on the wage/COL front, thanks mainly to their pro-labor policies and fiscal safeguards.
 
2013-01-07 11:54:53 AM  

Rapmaster2000: Does this mean I can talk on the CB radio in my El Camino to girls in hot pants again?  I got an extra ticket to see Foghat, baby.


I was either not alive or too young to dig on Foghat, but if you don't take me with you I'll punch you in the dick.

I also like El Caminos, for some reason. And I'm not even a redneck.
 
2013-01-07 11:54:55 AM  
static.seekingalpha.com
 
2013-01-07 12:36:58 PM  
So are they now paying their fair share?
 
2013-01-07 12:46:56 PM  
Yes because we've basically had Reaganomics since then.
 
2013-01-07 01:47:01 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: So are they now paying their fair share?


Does tax revenue cover the deficit? No? Then they are not paying their fair share, nobody is.
 
2013-01-07 01:55:26 PM  
Progressive? Oh you mean punishing success. Gotcha.

Lets see, nice economy you have there. Tell me, how bad was it in the mid 2000's? Oh yeah, big booming times. How about now? Oh yeah, it stinks.
 
2013-01-07 01:58:06 PM  
MOAR CHARTS AND GRAFS!!!1!
 
2013-01-07 02:00:52 PM  
Is it fair for one man to pay more in taxes in one year, than most of us will make in our lifetimes? The Defecrats think so.
 
2013-01-07 02:05:57 PM  
So long as I get free stuff I don't care
 
2013-01-07 02:09:24 PM  

Pick: Is it fair for one man to pay more in taxes in one year, than most of us will make in our lifetimes? The Defecrats think so.


Oh you want fairness, well then let us do away with private property rights and nationalize everything. Then the government can assign us jobs and just give everyone goods and services.
 
2013-01-07 02:09:32 PM  
Let's get it back to the rates of JFK. Democracy and hereditary aristocracy are incompatible.
 
2013-01-07 02:10:50 PM  
Meh.
Tell me when taxes get as progressive as they were during the Eisenhower administration.
Because THAT is the economy I want.

/False dichotomy is a double-edged sword, subs.
 
2013-01-07 02:11:13 PM  

Pick: Is it fair for one man to pay more in taxes in one year, than most of us will make in our lifetimes? The Defecrats think so.


Is it fair for one man to make more in a week than most of us will make in our lifetimes?
Is it fair that he derived nearly all of that income from investments, and had to perform little/no work to receive those funds?
Is it fair that he uses the money to buy influence, so he can write tax and financial laws for his sole benefit?
Is it fair that he then uses the rules he wrote to shield more than 3/4 of that money from any/all taxation?
Is it fair that he pays less taxes than the rest of us do on the money that he could not hide from taxation to begin with?

The Randpublicans think so.
 
2013-01-07 02:12:25 PM  
Oh look - another idiot writer who confuses marginal tax rates with effective tax rates...

(Hint: those 90% tax rates in the early 1950s? Nobody actually paid that, just like that "36%" they talk about doesn't result in 8% more taxes collected than the 28%.)
 
2013-01-07 02:14:07 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: Progressive? Oh you mean punishing success. Gotcha.

Lets see, nice economy you have there. Tell me, how bad was it in the mid 2000's? Oh yeah, big booming times. How about now? Oh yeah, it stinks.


Well, that was a bubble, which is also a name for what you seem to be living in.
4.bp.blogspot.com
I heard you like bubbles.
 
2013-01-07 02:16:02 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Meh.
Tell me when taxes get as progressive as they were during the Eisenhower administration.
Because THAT is the economy I want.

/False dichotomy is a double-edged sword, subs.


now to be fair, everyone did just happen to finish bombing the hell out of any industrial base that happened to not be in the United States. And ike was known for pesky things like massive infrastructure investment.

/cap gains needs to be taxed like income.
//and we probably could use a .25 percent federal sales tax
///and single payer
////and you know, less wars.
 
2013-01-07 02:18:17 PM  
It could be better.

Like fixing the carried interest loophole.
 
2013-01-07 02:28:27 PM  
TofuTheAlmighty : Let's get it back to the rates of JFK. Democracy and hereditary aristocracy are incompatible.

I wonder if you see the irony in longing for the halycon days of the Kennedy's and in the next breath saying that hereditary aristocracy and democracy are incompatible.
 
2013-01-07 02:29:09 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Pick: Is it fair for one man to pay more in taxes in one year, than most of us will make in our lifetimes? The Defecrats think so.

Is it fair for one man to make more in a week than most of us will make in our lifetimes?
Is it fair that he derived nearly all of that income from investments, and had to perform little/no work to receive those funds?
Is it fair that he uses the money to buy influence, so he can write tax and financial laws for his sole benefit?
Is it fair that he then uses the rules he wrote to shield more than 3/4 of that money from any/all taxation?
Is it fair that he pays less taxes than the rest of us do on the money that he could not hide from taxation to begin with?

The Randpublicans think so.


Well said.
 
2013-01-07 02:32:26 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: Pick: Is it fair for one man to pay more in taxes in one year, than most of us will make in our lifetimes? The Defecrats think so.

Oh you want fairness, well then let us do away with private property rights and nationalize everything. Then the government can assign us jobs and just give everyone goods and services.


One other thing If you want fair taxes then lets remove all deductions from the entire tax code, both personal and corporate, remove the category for capital gains, just count it as income, tax inheritance as income and talk about what rates we need to set to generate the amount of revenue the government needs.

If we are going to set a "fair" tax then all wealth you receive from any source needs to be counted as income with no deductions, exceptions, or rebates. Corporations need to be taxed as individuals and not at a special rate. That is "fair".
 
2013-01-07 02:38:01 PM  
Well, we need to be progressive. Our population continues to grow. This means more and more people using the land, the roads, the air, the water, eating food, shiatting, having babies. On and on. And if you want the military to have a reason to defend our nation, you need to have a tax base that is healthy enough to provide an adequate baseline so the least of us have a shot at becoming the best of us.
 
2013-01-07 02:39:56 PM  
When was the last time you needed the US Navy to help you make money?

The Walton kids need it every day.

Of course they shouldn't pay for it, they are job creators after all. Maybe in China. pfft.
 
2013-01-07 02:40:44 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: One other thing If you want fair taxes then lets remove all deductions from the entire tax code, both personal and corporate, remove the category for capital gains, just count it as income, tax inheritance as income and talk about what rates we need to set to generate the amount of revenue the government needs.


Fine, then let's also have a discussion about how much revenue the government "needs." Because even if the Democrats were to push through every single one of their taxes and fees, the difference between government receipts and government expenditures would still be overwhelming.

The government has shown it can do nothing except waste billions of dollars per year, or in the case of the Obama administration, trillions. Why in the H-E- double hockey sticks should we be forced to give them even more money to waste?
 
2013-01-07 02:45:03 PM  

Why Would I Read the Article: Slaves2Darkness: One other thing If you want fair taxes then lets remove all deductions from the entire tax code, both personal and corporate, remove the category for capital gains, just count it as income, tax inheritance as income and talk about what rates we need to set to generate the amount of revenue the government needs.

Fine, then let's also have a discussion about how much revenue the government "needs." Because even if the Democrats were to push through every single one of their taxes and fees, the difference between government receipts and government expenditures would still be overwhelming.

The government has shown it can do nothing except waste billions of dollars per year, or in the case of the Obama administration, trillions. Why in the H-E- double hockey sticks should we be forced to give them even more money to waste?



All that Govt can do is waste billions in a year? Really? I think the USA has done just fine over the past century, thanks to Govt. If Govt wastes money anywhere, it is in corporate welfare, buying airports for corps that could afford their own.

/you sound old
 
2013-01-07 02:48:11 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: If Govt wastes money anywhere, it is in corporate welfare, buying airports for corps that could afford their own.

/you sound old


Wow, you're an idiot.
 
2013-01-07 02:49:05 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: All that Govt can do is waste billions in a year? Really? I think the USA has done just fine over the past century, thanks to Govt. If Govt wastes money anywhere, it is in corporate welfare, buying airports sports stadiums for corps or owners that could afford their own.


This really is true, here.
 
2013-01-07 02:52:08 PM  

SuperT: /cap gains needs to be taxed like income.
//and we probably could use a .25 percent federal sales tax
///and single payer
////and you know, less wars.


One of these thing is not like the others.
One of these things just doesn't belong.
One of these thing is regressive as all fark.

Can you guess which one is wrong?
 
2013-01-07 02:57:20 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: SuperT: /cap gains needs to be taxed like income.
//and we probably could use a .25 percent federal sales tax
///and single payer
////and you know, less wars.

One of these thing is not like the others.
One of these things just doesn't belong.
One of these thing is regressive as all fark.

Can you guess which one is wrong?


I know it's regressive. I just don't see how we can raise enough revenue otherwise. I know the DoD will never be cut down the way it would need to be. I make just under 30k a year at the moment, I'm willing to pay to live in a civilized nation.

I guess that makes me a fool or something.
 
2013-01-07 02:58:05 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: SuperT: /cap gains needs to be taxed like income.
//and we probably could use a .25 percent federal sales tax
///and single payer
////and you know, less wars.

One of these thing is not like the others.
One of these things just doesn't belong.
One of these thing is regressive as all fark.

Can you guess which one is wrong?


oh, and just so there is no confusion, that is 1/4 of 1%. as in .0025
 
2013-01-07 02:58:43 PM  

Why Would I Read the Article: Slaves2Darkness: One other thing If you want fair taxes then lets remove all deductions from the entire tax code, both personal and corporate, remove the category for capital gains, just count it as income, tax inheritance as income and talk about what rates we need to set to generate the amount of revenue the government needs.

Fine, then let's also have a discussion about how much revenue the government "needs." Because even if the Democrats were to push through every single one of their taxes and fees, the difference between government receipts and government expenditures would still be overwhelming.

The government has shown it can do nothing except waste billions of dollars per year, or in the case of the Obama administration, trillions. Why in the H-E- double hockey sticks should we be forced to give them even more money to waste?


Bwhahahahahahahahaha!

Do you realize how retarded you sound?

Or maybe you don't understand that you live in a Republic.

You are not forced to give the US government anything, but by being and staying a citizen of the United States you consent to the laws of the United States of America, including tax laws. You can leave the US territories and give up your citizenship then you will no longer be allowed to participate, nor forced to fund the US government.

We are the government, me and you and every citizen in the United States of America. We created the deficit, the debt, and the governments need for revenue. You did that, I did that, everyone did that. The question is not why the hell do we want to give them even more money to waste, but why the hell we have never directly tied tax rates to government spending.

The fiscal reality is that the American people will not cut spending, not enough spending. They will not allow their parents and grand-parents to die from lack of medication, to starve from lack of food, to be thrown out into the streets. Our biggest fiscal problem is the retirement of the Baby Boomers and the massive increases in Social Security and Medicare that event will cause. They will not allow the US military presence and prestige to diminish world wide. The will is not there.

Yes, you are right even if the Democrats push through all there tax increases it is not enough. Let me repeat that all proposed tax increases are not enough to fund the government, we need more. Why should we allow that? Well because I like having Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SSI disability, and other welfare programs that the US government provides. I like having the strongest military in the world so that no shiat hole of a country like China can push the US out of the South China sea or the Sea of Japan for that matter. I like having roads, bridges, food inspectors, FBI, CIA, department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, etc... all services the government provides.

Why should we increase taxes to cover the deficit? Because the government is not some foreign entity, it is we the people, and it provides more for us then we can do for ourselves. To let that fail through lack of funding even though we are one of the richest nations on earth and our people hold vast amounts of wealth is shameful.
 
2013-01-07 02:59:42 PM  

Why Would I Read the Article: Insatiable Jesus: If Govt wastes money anywhere, it is in corporate welfare, buying airports for corps that could afford their own.

/you sound old

Wow, you're an idiot.



All of the business Gods you fellate so heartily depend on the US Govt for their businesses to exist, to have ever existed. The day the Walton punks want to start their own navy to protect the poison they ship to America, from their Communist Chinese partners, is the day I will listen.

My goodness, the hedge fund ratfarkers sure have done well at creating a retarded army to go fight for them. LOL.

You farking Cons wouldn't know America if it bit you in the ass. You rail about Socialisms and yet you can't stay out of Wal-Mart, you can't help but continue to fork over your paycheck to the Communist Chinese. Yeah, the pro-gun-control, forced abortion giving Chinese.

It's obvious all Cons care about is money. Fair enough. So ask yourself why they keep giving it to the most evil empire on earth.
 
2013-01-07 03:00:51 PM  

Pick: Is it fair for one man to pay more in taxes in one year, than most of us will make in our lifetimes? The Defecrats think so.


God, you're a shiatty troll. And worse, I can't put you on ignore because your name will flag lots of other unrelated posts.
 
2013-01-07 03:10:29 PM  

dickfreckle: Rapmaster2000: Does this mean I can talk on the CB radio in my El Camino to girls in hot pants again?  I got an extra ticket to see Foghat, baby.

I was either not alive or too young to dig on Foghat, but if you don't take me with you I'll punch you in the dick.

I also like El Caminos, for some reason. And I'm not even a redneck.


Hell yeah. I put a mattress in the back for the chicks I pick up at the Dairy Queen.  A couple of quaaludes and a sixer of Billy Beer and she's all mine.

Slow ride.  Take it easy.
 
2013-01-07 03:12:57 PM  

SuperT: demaL-demaL-yeH: SuperT: /cap gains needs to be taxed like income.
//and we probably could use a .25 percent federal sales tax
///and single payer
////and you know, less wars.

One of these thing is not like the others.
One of these things just doesn't belong.
One of these thing is regressive as all fark.

Can you guess which one is wrong?

oh, and just so there is no confusion, that is 1/4 of 1%. as in .0025


It would certainly raise revenue and yes, it is regressive. However the reporting burden would be pretty tremendous. Small business owners already have both state and federal payroll tax forms. Sales tax forms to the state and possibly a locality as well - usually monthly. Excise tax forms if they sell certain products such as gasoline or tobacco. Estimated tax payments to the IRS, state and local tax agencies. This on top of their annual income tax filings for state and federal.

I'm a CPA so this kind of regulation would actually benefit my practice, but yet I still wouldn't want it. It's already a pain in the ass to run the administrative side a small business. I'm not in favor of making it more of a burden on anyone, particularly a small business.
 
2013-01-07 03:15:37 PM  

Atomic Spunk: SuperT: demaL-demaL-yeH: SuperT: /cap gains needs to be taxed like income.
//and we probably could use a .25 percent federal sales tax
///and single payer
////and you know, less wars.

One of these thing is not like the others.
One of these things just doesn't belong.
One of these thing is regressive as all fark.

Can you guess which one is wrong?

oh, and just so there is no confusion, that is 1/4 of 1%. as in .0025

It would certainly raise revenue and yes, it is regressive. However the reporting burden would be pretty tremendous. Small business owners already have both state and federal payroll tax forms. Sales tax forms to the state and possibly a locality as well - usually monthly. Excise tax forms if they sell certain products such as gasoline or tobacco. Estimated tax payments to the IRS, state and local tax agencies. This on top of their annual income tax filings for state and federal.

I'm a CPA so this kind of regulation would actually benefit my practice, but yet I still wouldn't want it. It's already a pain in the ass to run the administrative side a small business. I'm not in favor of making it more of a burden on anyone, particularly a small business.


I think I'd also be in favor of getting anything more granular than state level sales tax. I don't think every zip code needs their own rate.
 
2013-01-07 03:49:59 PM  
Now add in the stealth taxes the 99% pay.
 
2013-01-07 03:53:16 PM  
Funny, I was reminded of the heady days of Sputnik and Yuri Gagarin when the world trembled at the sound of our rockets.
 
2013-01-07 05:27:45 PM  

Pick: Is it fair for one man to pay more in taxes in one year, than most of us will make in our lifetimes? The Defecrats think so.


Deep Thoughts by Jack Handy
 
2013-01-07 05:30:58 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: It wasn't Carter's taxes that caused the poor economy it was Volcker's interest rates.

[blogs.reuters.com image 450x370]


Did those interest rates slow down the ridiculous rate of inflation? They did? Well, I guess they were necessary then.
 
2013-01-07 05:34:26 PM  

Pincy: Pick: Is it fair for one man to pay more in taxes in one year, than most of us will make in our lifetimes? The Defecrats think so.

Deerp "Thoughts" by "Jack" Handnity


/FTFY
 
2013-01-07 05:52:34 PM  

Jackson Herring: static.seekingalpha.com>

I have no problem with lower current tax rates on unearned income, as I see no reason to 'punish' those who save and invest. I just don't support them getting a better rate than that which they pay on earned income just because it's unearned. Set the rates on unearned income the same as earned, and make it ALL subject to social security withholding.

 
2013-01-07 05:58:39 PM  
It is the most progressive because Obama cut the taxes for 90% while leaving the top rates.... We are doing it wrong.
 
Displayed 50 of 63 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report