Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Let's see if conservatives endorse this plan

ConservativeLibertarian
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 8:35:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
So, in light of the fact that corporations are getting giant breaks -- surprise, surprise (http://www.ctj.org...) -- I think it is time that we revamp the tax code. I've seen my right-wing friends call for lower loopholes and lower marginal rates. Let's see if you can endorse this:

1. Tax capital gains and dividends as ordinary earned income.
2. Eliminate subsidies for Big Oil and agribusiness.
3. Force companies that have been paying negative tax rates not only to pay a significantly higher rate -- by way of closing loopholes, which I'll get to -- but require them to reimburse the US taxpayer to the tune of 10% of their income per annum + the absolute value of their (negative) tax rate. Obviously they've been doing this for decades, so I'd even be so generous as to allow them to reimburse the taxpayers over the course of a single decade -- that is, for the income they earned over the past 10 years, using historical values. Am I not merciful? There wouldn't even be any further penalties.
4. I'd so the same thing with Mitt Romney and his buddies who hide their money overseas. Though I'd love to make him pay back taxes by virtue of the fact that he's been utilizing the lower capital gains rate and carried interest loophole -- and it's quite possible he has even paid 0% at times -- I won't. The same drill: we'll take the ordinary income tax rate in the year in which he earned his income (that he hid) and deduct and apply it to the income he earned, yet hide, plus a 5% surcharge off the top. If he refuses to comply, we raise the raise to 50%. Then to 60%. You get the point. He has an "incentive" to comply.
5. Purge the tax code of the stupid loopholes -- carried interest, mortgage interest for your second home, investment losses, CEO salaries, charitable deductions over a certain point, 501(c)(3) -- including churches -- over a certain income level, etc.
6. You won't catch me "lowering the rate" -- sorry, conservatives -- but I'll cut you a deal. We'll have the same corporate income tax we had under Jack Kennedy's tax plan: 48%. Without all those silly loopholes, they'll pay pretty close to, say, 35% effective. How does that sound?
tylergraham95
Posts: 1,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 9:28:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 8:35:04 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
So, in light of the fact that corporations are getting giant breaks -- surprise, surprise (http://www.ctj.org...) -- I think it is time that we revamp the tax code. I've seen my right-wing friends call for lower loopholes and lower marginal rates. Let's see if you can endorse this:


1. Tax capital gains and dividends as ordinary earned income.

But it isn't earned.

2. Eliminate subsidies for Big Oil and agribusiness.

Aye. But you do realize the consequences, right?

3. Force companies that have been paying negative tax rates not only to pay a significantly higher rate -- by way of closing loopholes, which I'll get to -- but require them to reimburse the US taxpayer to the tune of 10% of their income per annum + the absolute value of their (negative) tax rate. Obviously they've been doing this for decades, so I'd even be so generous as to allow them to reimburse the taxpayers over the course of a single decade -- that is, for the income they earned over the past 10 years, using historical values. Am I not merciful? There wouldn't even be any further penalties.

Hmmm... interesting, but perhaps instead of direct reimbursement, investment in infrastructure and service? I just think that would be a wiser investment.

4. I'd so the same thing with Mitt Romney and his buddies who hide their money overseas. Though I'd love to make him pay back taxes by virtue of the fact that he's been utilizing the lower capital gains rate and carried interest loophole -- and it's quite possible he has even paid 0% at times -- I won't. The same drill: we'll take the ordinary income tax rate in the year in which he earned his income (that he hid) and deduct and apply it to the income he earned, yet hide, plus a 5% surcharge off the top. If he refuses to comply, we raise the raise to 50%. Then to 60%. You get the point. He has an "incentive" to comply.

See the above point.

5. Purge the tax code of the stupid loopholes -- carried interest, mortgage interest for your second home, investment losses, CEO salaries, charitable deductions over a certain point, 501(c)(3) -- including churches -- over a certain income level, etc.

<Sarcasm>
But then how will I dodge taxes while simultaneously calling for lower tax rates? Yer gun' ruin de economy boi.
</sarcasm>

6. You won't catch me "lowering the rate" -- sorry, conservatives -- but I'll cut you a deal. We'll have the same corporate income tax we had under Jack Kennedy's tax plan: 48%. Without all those silly loopholes, they'll pay pretty close to, say, 35% effective. How does that sound?

Honestly, not high enough. I believe taxes on the top quintile of earners should be approaching 50%, Via the capital gains tax (in a progressive method), Property tax (progressive as well), and Estate tax (progressive).
"we dig" - Jeanette Runquist (1943 - 2015)
ConservativeLibertarian
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 9:58:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 9:28:27 AM, tylergraham95 wrote:
At 3/17/2014 8:35:04 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
So, in light of the fact that corporations are getting giant breaks -- surprise, surprise (http://www.ctj.org...) -- I think it is time that we revamp the tax code. I've seen my right-wing friends call for lower loopholes and lower marginal rates. Let's see if you can endorse this:


1. Tax capital gains and dividends as ordinary earned income.

But it isn't earned.

What do you mean? Are you making the double-tax argument?
2. Eliminate subsidies for Big Oil and agribusiness.

Aye. But you do realize the consequences, right?

Massive lobbying? Sure. That's why this is unrealistic lol.

3. Force companies that have been paying negative tax rates not only to pay a significantly higher rate -- by way of closing loopholes, which I'll get to -- but require them to reimburse the US taxpayer to the tune of 10% of their income per annum + the absolute value of their (negative) tax rate. Obviously they've been doing this for decades, so I'd even be so generous as to allow them to reimburse the taxpayers over the course of a single decade -- that is, for the income they earned over the past 10 years, using historical values. Am I not merciful? There wouldn't even be any further penalties.

Hmmm... interesting, but perhaps instead of direct reimbursement, investment in infrastructure and service? I just think that would be a wiser investment.

How would we police it though? I'm not a big fan of just trusting corporations to invest. Christie gave breaks to companies in New Jersey to invest, blew a giant hole in its state's deficit so he had to cut pensions, and they didn't even invest (or they had to increase employment, of something). I'd much rather tax them, and have the government invest the money.
4. I'd so the same thing with Mitt Romney and his buddies who hide their money overseas. Though I'd love to make him pay back taxes by virtue of the fact that he's been utilizing the lower capital gains rate and carried interest loophole -- and it's quite possible he has even paid 0% at times -- I won't. The same drill: we'll take the ordinary income tax rate in the year in which he earned his income (that he hid) and deduct and apply it to the income he earned, yet hide, plus a 5% surcharge off the top. If he refuses to comply, we raise the raise to 50%. Then to 60%. You get the point. He has an "incentive" to comply.

See the above point.

Again, I'm not a big fan of just trusting people who have been cheating the system. The corporations have technically been doing this "legally." Mittens, I have my suspicions about.
5. Purge the tax code of the stupid loopholes -- carried interest, mortgage interest for your second home, investment losses, CEO salaries, charitable deductions over a certain point, 501(c)(3) -- including churches -- over a certain income level, etc.

<Sarcasm>
But then how will I dodge taxes while simultaneously calling for lower tax rates? Yer gun' ruin de economy boi.
</sarcasm>

Hahaha, it seems that we're on the same page!
6. You won't catch me "lowering the rate" -- sorry, conservatives -- but I'll cut you a deal. We'll have the same corporate income tax we had under Jack Kennedy's tax plan: 48%. Without all those silly loopholes, they'll pay pretty close to, say, 35% effective. How does that sound?

Honestly, not high enough. I believe taxes on the top quintile of earners should be approaching 50%, Via the capital gains tax (in a progressive method), Property tax (progressive as well), and Estate tax (progressive).

Honestly, I completely agree you with. I actually agree with Peter Diamond that the top effective rate should be about 73% -- so I'd actually go further than you. Cap gains taxes I'd equalize with ordinary income, and property and estate should be progressive as well -- estate taxes are though, right? I think estate taxes only apply to over $5 million in estate value, or something. I could be wrong.
tylergraham95
Posts: 1,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 10:08:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 9:58:24 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/17/2014 9:28:27 AM, tylergraham95 wrote:
At 3/17/2014 8:35:04 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
So, in light of the fact that corporations are getting giant breaks -- surprise, surprise (http://www.ctj.org...) -- I think it is time that we revamp the tax code. I've seen my right-wing friends call for lower loopholes and lower marginal rates. Let's see if you can endorse this:


1. Tax capital gains and dividends as ordinary earned income.

But it isn't earned.

What do you mean? Are you making the double-tax argument?

No I mean that you don't *earn* funds that capital gains and estate tax apply to. That's why I believe it should be taxed heavily.

2. Eliminate subsidies for Big Oil and agribusiness.

Aye. But you do realize the consequences, right?

Massive lobbying? Sure. That's why this is unrealistic lol.

3. Force companies that have been paying negative tax rates not only to pay a significantly higher rate -- by way of closing loopholes, which I'll get to -- but require them to reimburse the US taxpayer to the tune of 10% of their income per annum + the absolute value of their (negative) tax rate. Obviously they've been doing this for decades, so I'd even be so generous as to allow them to reimburse the taxpayers over the course of a single decade -- that is, for the income they earned over the past 10 years, using historical values. Am I not merciful? There wouldn't even be any further penalties.

Hmmm... interesting, but perhaps instead of direct reimbursement, investment in infrastructure and service? I just think that would be a wiser investment.

How would we police it though? I'm not a big fan of just trusting corporations to invest. Christie gave breaks to companies in New Jersey to invest, blew a giant hole in its state's deficit so he had to cut pensions, and they didn't even invest (or they had to increase employment, of something). I'd much rather tax them, and have the government invest the money.

No you misunderstand me. The corporations pay the money owed via tax evasion directly to the government. The government spends said money on improving roads and education and the such.

4. I'd so the same thing with Mitt Romney and his buddies who hide their money overseas. Though I'd love to make him pay back taxes by virtue of the fact that he's been utilizing the lower capital gains rate and carried interest loophole -- and it's quite possible he has even paid 0% at times -- I won't. The same drill: we'll take the ordinary income tax rate in the year in which he earned his income (that he hid) and deduct and apply it to the income he earned, yet hide, plus a 5% surcharge off the top. If he refuses to comply, we raise the raise to 50%. Then to 60%. You get the point. He has an "incentive" to comply.

See the above point.

Again, I'm not a big fan of just trusting people who have been cheating the system. The corporations have technically been doing this "legally." Mittens, I have my suspicions about.

See above.

5. Purge the tax code of the stupid loopholes -- carried interest, mortgage interest for your second home, investment losses, CEO salaries, charitable deductions over a certain point, 501(c)(3) -- including churches -- over a certain income level, etc.

<Sarcasm>
But then how will I dodge taxes while simultaneously calling for lower tax rates? Yer gun' ruin de economy boi.
</sarcasm>

Hahaha, it seems that we're on the same page!
6. You won't catch me "lowering the rate" -- sorry, conservatives -- but I'll cut you a deal. We'll have the same corporate income tax we had under Jack Kennedy's tax plan: 48%. Without all those silly loopholes, they'll pay pretty close to, say, 35% effective. How does that sound?

Honestly, not high enough. I believe taxes on the top quintile of earners should be approaching 50%, Via the capital gains tax (in a progressive method), Property tax (progressive as well), and Estate tax (progressive).

Honestly, I completely agree you with. I actually agree with Peter Diamond that the top effective rate should be about 73% -- so I'd actually go further than you. Cap gains taxes I'd equalize with ordinary income, and property and estate should be progressive as well -- estate taxes are though, right? I think estate taxes only apply to over $5 million in estate value, or something. I could be wrong.

Have you studied the kingfish?
"we dig" - Jeanette Runquist (1943 - 2015)
ConservativeLibertarian
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 10:15:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 10:08:19 AM, tylergraham95 wrote:
At 3/17/2014 9:58:24 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/17/2014 9:28:27 AM, tylergraham95 wrote:
At 3/17/2014 8:35:04 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
So, in light of the fact that corporations are getting giant breaks -- surprise, surprise (http://www.ctj.org...) -- I think it is time that we revamp the tax code. I've seen my right-wing friends call for lower loopholes and lower marginal rates. Let's see if you can endorse this:


1. Tax capital gains and dividends as ordinary earned income.

But it isn't earned.

What do you mean? Are you making the double-tax argument?

No I mean that you don't *earn* funds that capital gains and estate tax apply to. That's why I believe it should be taxed heavily.

Ohhh, I only realized that after the fact. So you'd tax them at an even higher rate?
2. Eliminate subsidies for Big Oil and agribusiness.

Aye. But you do realize the consequences, right?

Massive lobbying? Sure. That's why this is unrealistic lol.

3. Force companies that have been paying negative tax rates not only to pay a significantly higher rate -- by way of closing loopholes, which I'll get to -- but require them to reimburse the US taxpayer to the tune of 10% of their income per annum + the absolute value of their (negative) tax rate. Obviously they've been doing this for decades, so I'd even be so generous as to allow them to reimburse the taxpayers over the course of a single decade -- that is, for the income they earned over the past 10 years, using historical values. Am I not merciful? There wouldn't even be any further penalties.

Hmmm... interesting, but perhaps instead of direct reimbursement, investment in infrastructure and service? I just think that would be a wiser investment.

How would we police it though? I'm not a big fan of just trusting corporations to invest. Christie gave breaks to companies in New Jersey to invest, blew a giant hole in its state's deficit so he had to cut pensions, and they didn't even invest (or they had to increase employment, of something). I'd much rather tax them, and have the government invest the money.

No you misunderstand me. The corporations pay the money owed via tax evasion directly to the government. The government spends said money on improving roads and education and the such.

Oh, well I'm not opposed to that at all. I mean, I'd love to tax Exxon and fund a green energy stimulus, but that would work, too.
4. I'd so the same thing with Mitt Romney and his buddies who hide their money overseas. Though I'd love to make him pay back taxes by virtue of the fact that he's been utilizing the lower capital gains rate and carried interest loophole -- and it's quite possible he has even paid 0% at times -- I won't. The same drill: we'll take the ordinary income tax rate in the year in which he earned his income (that he hid) and deduct and apply it to the income he earned, yet hide, plus a 5% surcharge off the top. If he refuses to comply, we raise the raise to 50%. Then to 60%. You get the point. He has an "incentive" to comply.

See the above point.

Again, I'm not a big fan of just trusting people who have been cheating the system. The corporations have technically been doing this "legally." Mittens, I have my suspicions about.

See above.

5. Purge the tax code of the stupid loopholes -- carried interest, mortgage interest for your second home, investment losses, CEO salaries, charitable deductions over a certain point, 501(c)(3) -- including churches -- over a certain income level, etc.

<Sarcasm>
But then how will I dodge taxes while simultaneously calling for lower tax rates? Yer gun' ruin de economy boi.
</sarcasm>

Hahaha, it seems that we're on the same page!
6. You won't catch me "lowering the rate" -- sorry, conservatives -- but I'll cut you a deal. We'll have the same corporate income tax we had under Jack Kennedy's tax plan: 48%. Without all those silly loopholes, they'll pay pretty close to, say, 35% effective. How does that sound?

Honestly, not high enough. I believe taxes on the top quintile of earners should be approaching 50%, Via the capital gains tax (in a progressive method), Property tax (progressive as well), and Estate tax (progressive).

Honestly, I completely agree you with. I actually agree with Peter Diamond that the top effective rate should be about 73% -- so I'd actually go further than you. Cap gains taxes I'd equalize with ordinary income, and property and estate should be progressive as well -- estate taxes are though, right? I think estate taxes only apply to over $5 million in estate value, or something. I could be wrong.

Have you studied the kingfish?

Kingfish? I'm not sure what that is. lol.
tylergraham95
Posts: 1,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 10:19:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 10:15:39 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/17/2014 10:08:19 AM, tylergraham95 wrote:
Have you studied the kingfish?

Kingfish? I'm not sure what that is. lol.

Google "The Kingfish." Results should be related to a man by the name of Huey.
"we dig" - Jeanette Runquist (1943 - 2015)
ConservativeLibertarian
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 10:20:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 10:19:57 AM, tylergraham95 wrote:
At 3/17/2014 10:15:39 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/17/2014 10:08:19 AM, tylergraham95 wrote:
Have you studied the kingfish?

Kingfish? I'm not sure what that is. lol.

Google "The Kingfish." Results should be related to a man by the name of Huey.

Oh ok. I'll read the wikipedia article as soon as I get out of class lol.
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 2:03:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I support #2, but none of the other ideas. I don't think may conservatives would support a bad idea like INCREASING the corporate tax rate to 48%.
ConservativeLibertarian
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 2:08:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 2:03:23 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
I support #2, but none of the other ideas. I don't think may conservatives would support a bad idea like INCREASING the corporate tax rate to 48%.

If only you were right, and if it only increasing the corporate tax rate were a bad idea. Sadly, you have no evidence whatsoever -- or, sadly for you, and for America, really, because people in power are as ignorant and as misinformed as you.

You still didn't respond to my post to you on the other thread. I asked you a few questions:

1. Which deductions would you cut?
2. What would the effective rate be?
3. Why would you support a tax hike for some corporations -- the ones paying a negative tax rate, or that have paid a negative or zero tax rate, which is many -- and a tax cut for others (the very few who have really bad accountants)? And, frankly, I'm not even sure how many would actually see lower tax receipts if your effective rate were higher than the average of 19.4%, barring a few outliers, who again should fire their accountants right now.

Glad to see you're onboard with eliminating oil subsidies. But why do you want Mittens to pay a 14% rate on millions of dollars in investment income he didn't actually earn, while someone who actually worked hard should pay an average of 19.4%? Where's the fairness?

How about the carried interest loophole? CEO deduction loophole? All the other loopholes I mentioned?