Printable View
[QUOTE=Sidney]Three Disappointed Mongers[/QUOTE]You claim three nameless mongers are displeased that Obama has extended the Cuba embargo.
Can we assume the mystery mongers are Jackson, Alamo and you.
Does that trouble you because now it almost looks like Obama isn't the brain dead socialist, commie-luvin' scumbag pal of Fidel and Cesar you told us he is?
Just seeking clarification!
[QUOTE=Ricardo]Don't you realize several of our pals who post see nothing to joke about when its comes to taxes!
To me its only money where I pay and get fucked - same as any monger!
I get mixed up about our Presidents too, but remembered Taft was so fat a would be assassin would have been worried if he tried anything up-close-and -personal, the chief exec's body might fall and crush him![/QUOTE]Gentlemen, do you think you are getting fucked? Let me tell you, you have not seen anything. As a mexican litigator I have seen several cases and tax laws that border in insanity. Example: 2 years ago we got our "flat tax" (mexican style at 17.5%) but we also have a regular income tax (called ISR in Mx at a rate of 28%) Well, any decent Government would choose one or the other to tax people, but not ours, If you pay ISR then you probably won't pay flat tax.
However if you pay flat tax, you still will pay ISR. Complex? Yes of course but it doesn't end there. Deductions are very limited so you will pay more than you should. Actually due to special tax regulations, some businesses must keep 3 or 4 accounting books, one for internal accounting, one for ISR, one for added value tax and another for flat tax, since regulations are different.
In other ocassion we can talk about inconstitutional taxes, tax over tax, etc.
So, Ricardo, as you can see in my country it is not about whether or not you will get screwed, it is about if you will be by one or two schlongs. I hope you understand my "funny" humor when it comes to taxes.
BTW, about Taft it is true, the guy was so huge he could have been a sumotori, and any hitman would have been history! LOL
It probably won't come as a surprise but, I like the idea of a flat tax (not the Mexican two-tax flat tax) in theory.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely that it will ever happen. Further, discussions of 'replacing' the income tax with a consumption tax is folly, too. In fact, if the USA were to adopt a VAT tax, knowing how things work in Washington, it would be in addition to income tax not instead of income taxes.
George Harrison had it down:
"Here's one for you, nineteen for me.
Cause I'm the taxman!"
No one likes taxes. No one!
But I realize civilization has a price tag!
As to a flat tax. What happens after the implants?
Good find on the Ecomist Intel report. There are a bunch of other good pieces in the Vale publications as well as on EIU's website. Although, it is free on the Vale website and US$95 on EIU's.
Funny the resources one can find on university websites, it is just a question of knowing where to look for them.
[QUOTE=Ricardo]As to a flat tax. What happens after the implants?[/QUOTE]No, no, no. The flat tax means that flat women who don't get implants, get taxed. They can opt out of the tax system by participating in beautifying the country.
[QUOTE=Ricardo]But I realize civilization has a price tag![/QUOTE]Which everyone should have to pay, including the 40% of American Citizens who at this time are exempt from Federal income taxes.
Of course, given that this 40% has no income tax liability, it's not surprising that they don't care what the other 60% is forced to pay.
It's also not surprising that they want free health care regardless of it's impact on the federal deficit, because they don't expect to have to pay that either.
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]No, no, no. The flat tax means that flat women who don't get implants, get taxed. They can opt out of the tax system by participating in beautifying the country.[/QUOTE]Ah, yes. Social engineering via the tax code, brought to you by the newly-emerging Stiff Dick Party.
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Jackson] Everyone should have to pay, including the 40% of American Citizens who at this time are exempt from Federal income taxes.
Jackson[/QUOTE]I used to work for the billionaire be*tch, Leona Helmsley, who famously told her housekeeper: "We don't pay taxes. Only little people pay taxes."
Maybe Jackson thinks thats OK. As an equal opportunity kinda guy, his position is clear, so what if someone can't put food on the family table. Cough some pesos over to Uncle Sam, you slackers!
Now, if you happen to be shrewd with good accountants like Madame Helmsley, you can be among the lucky fucks who pay little or no taxes.
In 2002, before the Bush tax cuts for the rich made things even better for them, 5,650 individuals and couples with annual incomes over $200k paid no federal income tax. Among that high-income group, almost 83,000, or one in 33, paid less than a dime in taxes for every dollar of income. An additional 79,000 paid less than 15 cents.
Warren Buffet points out that that he was taxed at 17.7% on the $46 million he made in 2006, while his secretary, who made $60,000, was taxed at 30%. Buffet is not unique. In 2005, according to Daily Finance, the top 400 US taxpayers earned $250 million on average in 2005. They paid 17.2% in income taxes or roughly half the 37% paid by a family making $75k. Since 2005, that imbalance has only gotten worse. Buffet doesn't think that's fair. (Neither do I!
We keep hearing the US corporate tax rates are among the highest. Really? Well like individuals, if you are a corporation with good accountants who know how to play the hide the profits overseas, you can pay no corporate income taxes.
A study released last year, showed between 1998 and 2005 while US corporate sales totaled $2.5 trillion, 57% of US firms paid no federal corporate income taxes for at least one year and 42% paid none for two or more years during those years.
Many years, some of the most profitable US companies such as Microsoft, Cisco and oil giants pay no taxes - kinda like the 40% average stiffs who have Jackson so jacked off!
If wealthy individuals, families and corporations paid the same tax rates they did under Reagan, we would have enough to make the deficit almost disappear, as well as pay for universal health insurance. Now weren't the Reagan years the "Golden Age"?
(Footnote One: Madame Helmsley eventually went to jail for cheating on her taxes. Rudy Guiliani put her in the slammer, because she was stupid enough to keep cheating while the IRS was auditing her!
(Footnote Two: In an earlier post I did point out that most attempts at figuring out who pays their fair share in taxes is pretty meaningless given the make up of the tax system with deductions, exemptions and complex rate structures for income, payroll, capital gains, estate taxes, etc. But above is my story and I'm stickin'to it!
I am just guessing here, but I will bet you only do your own taxes or maybe even have them done by someone else. Since I have been in practice (30 + years) I have watched the tax laws change and always expand in scope regardless of which party was in power at the time.
While you love to quote these "facts" ie percentages of the evil rich who do not pay enough in your opinion, permit me to point out approximately the top 10% of earners pay the vast majority of the taxes while the bottom 20% pay nothing. While according to your percentabes Warren Buffett's secretary paid a higher marginal tax rate on her $60K ($18,000 in FIT) than Buffet paid on his $46 Million ($8.9 MILLION in FIT) Once you start working out how much is paid in by each does this change the "fairness" of the situation. In your view how much is enough? I think the secretary needs to stop doing her own taxes or fire her CPA. May I be permitted to point out Warren Buffett creates and employs a lot more folks than the secretary. But since he is the evil rich I assume from your point of view this does not count.
This may come as a shock to you but different types of income are treated differently under our tax laws (enacted by both Democrats and Republicans) In fact you are provided very generous tax credits (direct deductions to your taxes owed – thereby reducing your tax rate) for certain income producing activities the government in its infinite wisdom has chosen to encourage.
Another little inconvenient truth you failed to mention, each time taxes are lowered the economy grows and people as a whole become more prosperous. I am not saying our tax system is perfect, but I consider any tax system unfair as the government is always the worst caretaker of my money.
In closing, the folks who take the risks are the ones who create the companies that produce jobs and products for consumption. Being a small business owner myself I know a little about this, so does Jackson as he also ran his own business. The first year and half I was in business if you computed the hours I put in with the income I earned I should have reported myself to the state for paying myself less than the minimum wage!
So if you are going to complain, start your own firm with the unending hours, 24/7 commitment, forgo vacations and simple pursuits to earn your own profits then talk to me about "unfair" taxation. While you sup at the table prepared for you by someone else's labor don't complain about that which you do not know.
Here ends the lesson for the day.
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]It probably won't come as a surprise but, I like the idea of a flat tax (not the Mexican two-tax flat tax) in theory.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely that it will ever happen. Further, discussions of 'replacing' the income tax with a consumption tax is folly, too. In fact, if the USA were to adopt a VAT tax, knowing how things work in Washington, it would be in addition to income tax not instead of income taxes.[/QUOTE]The flat tax, in its original form is actually a decent idea, Eastern Europe has benefited of such tax, unfortunately in my country the stupid jackasses we have in the Congress can't think straight and destroyed the original concept and instead of increasing they actually reduced the amount of taxes collected by the SAT (Mexican IRS) I recommend you to speak with your congressmen and avoid at all costs having such a stupid double tax in the US.
For next year Pres. Calderon is trying to pass a new 2% tax against poverty, it is delusional and stupid, since most people don't pay taxes and those who do can't pay more. I won't be surprised if you guys value monger in Mx in a couple years, things look awful!
I will express my opinion about Mexican taxes in Churchill's words: "We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." This is also my opinion about over taxing the citizens in the US.
Sorry Exxon, but I'll borrow your favorite phrase: "The cocksuckers!"
I promess to pay you royalties, do you take Tanqueray or Beefeathers instead of USD? Cheers!
[QUOTE=Doppelganger] I consider any tax system unfair as the government is always the worst caretaker of my money.
While you sup at the table prepared for you by someone else's labor don't complain about that which you do not know. [/QUOTE]You say I "sup at the table prepared. By someone else's labor." How the f*ck do you know who set the table I sup at? Your comment is pretty presumptuous I'd say.
Having always made my living the old-fashioned way – I worked. Over recent years, like every computer literate salaried or self-employed stiff in the US, I used on-line software to prepare tax returns. Love that audit red alert feature! Free is the right price too.
Now this our first exchange, so I think I should let you know that I don't mind being criticized for what I say. But I do get a bit testy when I get criticized for what I didn't say. Where do I call the Sage of Omaha – Mr. Buffet - evil? I don't.
To me Buffet is a model corporate citizen and one of the most honorable men out there. His stance on tax fairness is only one reason. His record as a philanthropist is another. The third is his working with President Obama on trying to rescue the economy from the disaster that Bush left behind.
Mr. Buffet knows a thing or two about business, making money and paying taxes. He made his own points on his tax burden versus his secretary, which you are free to refute.
Now Leona Helmsley – who you may not be familiar with – qualified as the "evil rich" in spades. She was a nasty piece of work. She used to like to walk through her husband's buildings firing people at random. As she aged she went a bit whacko and when she died she left $12 million to her dog. Now would you go along with a 90% marginal income tax on a dog with income over $10k per annum? I would.
If you are a tax accountant I presume you are pretty good at math. Let's use Madame Helmsley to analyze your point that "the top 10% of earners pay the vast majority of the taxes."
Her weekly income from various sources at one time was $2 million. Let's assume for this example that she paid taxes at the 18% rate (like Mr. Buffet did) She would send Uncle Sam $360,000 a week. It would take a total of 1040 secretaries making $1,150 a week and paying $346 in taxes each week to equal the Queen of Mean's contribution.
With 1 the equal of 1040, of course, the top earners put the most into the tax kitty. The relevance of that math to the fairness question escapes me.
I should mention Mrs. Helmsley earned her money the other old-fashioned way – she fucked an old billionaire silly, who before he met her thought a blow-job was when someone left a window open.
As for the bottom 20% or earners who pay nothing, that is fine with me. Fortunately, after high school I was permanently out of that bracket. Having been taught the virtues of charity and compassion by my mother, I had (and still have) no problem paying more in taxes, so that someone struggling to put food on his or her family table might have a little bit easier time.
I would agree that "fairness" in regard to the distribution of tax burdens is in the eye of the beholder. I happen to favor a progressive system.
You state that it "may come as a shock" to me that "different types of income are treated differently under our tax laws." I guess you didn't read my post very carefully. My last paragraph said exactly that – to wit: "most attempts at figuring out who pays their fair share in taxes is pretty meaningless given the make up of the tax system with deductions, exemptions and complex rate structures for income, payroll, capital gains, estate taxes, etc."
You mention the "a rising tide lifts all boats" thesis as an "inconvenient truth" that I fail to mention. The "inconvenient truth" about that thesis is that although it's a great sound bite, unfortunately it does not hold true in the real world economy.
Numerous academic studies of changes in US tax policy over the past 60 years, suggest there is no evidence of their impact on job creation or destruction.
Since 1950, significant tax increases and decreases have both been followed by job losses and job gains.
In 2003, Bush promised his tax cuts would create 5+ more million jobs by the end of 2004. Only 2.6 million jobs were created, which was actually less than what had been projected without the cuts.
Tax reduction does, however, lead to economic disparity between the rich and poor. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy have increased the gap between the rich and poor beyond what it was in the 1920s. Also after the cuts, Americans living in poverty rose from 11.3% of the population in 2000 to 12.7% in 2004. The poor people's boats kept leaking I guess!
Of course, the number of billionaires rose to 374.
You have lots of company in the anti-government segment of the population. Now my guess is you also would find the idea of anarchy unattractive. So we are stuck with government aren't we?
I am not defender of where the US is today and I fear where it is headed. As dedicated and talented as he is, I doubt Obama will be able to get the US back to its position as the unchallenged global leader.
I have worked with a number of entrepreneurs on start up ventures – a few failed and some succeeded – one in particular went supersonic. I have worked long into the night along side them.
I applaud and respect "folks who take the risks" and I applaud and respect the people, who do the grind work and who put in the long hours that help make the risk takers successful.
The engines of commerce require capital and labor. I see little reason to put one element on a higher moral plane.
There are many things "about that which YOU - Senor Doppelganger - do not know." For example, my career, professional achievements, financial circumstances, work ethic, work history, etc.
I do appreciate you taking the time to comment on my post, but I would suggest you stick to the tax issue and avoid groundless insinuations.
In my opening I stated "I am just guessing" which would infer I have made assumptions based upon your original post. I could only take from your post you had little understanding of our nation's tax structure beyond decrying Ms Helmsley's excesses and have always been an "employee" never an "employer." I also took from your original post your position the rich need to pay more, the same old diatribe of the left.
First let me say you seem to have a fixation on Helmsley. How she came into wealth is irrelevant to the discussion of her criminal violations and subsequent incarceration, which she most certainly deserved. Do you secretly envy her ability to gain wealth via her gender and libido? My dear Ricardo, is Charley Rangle any different, perhaps worse as he holds the public trust and authors the very tax laws he flaunts? Where is your righteous indignation for Mr. Rangle, Mr. Bolski, ed al?
Permit me to add I don't believe any CEO deservers the multiple millions they are paid to run their company in the ground. This wonderful notion of tying income to performance at the upper management level, which could be argued helped lead to the financial debacle we recently experienced, came directly from liberals in the late 1960's and 1970's insisting American business management was too conservative and needed to be more aggressive and would become so if there was a direct link between risk and reward for management, hang the share holders.
Now permit me to turn to your shining knight of corporate responsibility, Mr. Buffett. Please do your homework on Mr. Buffett, I believe he will not be the beacon of corporate responsibility you believe him to be. He was no different than his competitors as he amassed his fortune and moved up the financial ladder. He was neither better nor worse and most certainly was not the last word in corporate responsibility you seem to think him. He did what it took to get where he is. Now nearing the end of his life it is easy to "get religion" while standing atop a huge pile of cash. Please do not misinterpret me as I believe Mr. Buffett had every right to act as he did amassing his fortune and now has every right to "reinvent himself" as he has done numerous times over the course of his career, it is what made America great – opportunity!
Our tax system is designed to redistribute wealth from those who have it to those who don't under the grand auspicious of our all knowing federal government. I would embrace a flat tax, everyone pays the same rate, no deductions, would you? Our government has embarked on courses never intended by the founding fathers nor authorized by the constitution. Perhaps you remember Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society"? The noble goal of giving all the poor a "leg up" out of poverty and eliminating poverty in the United States within a single generation? No, it's called welfare. That one really worked out well didn't it?
Liberals never understand the value of earning what you receive, by just handing it out you make the recipients dependent upon the government and strip away any dignity or self worth the individual has. We did not learn this lesson with the Native Americans we conquered, but reapplied the same principles again to our own peoples with the same results.
If you really want change, put term limits on Congress as well as the President. Obama does not have a clue, no more so than did Jimmy Carter thirty years ago, they were and are simply out of their element and over their heads. I don't believe either is inherently evil just misguided and simplistic.
I have no illusions regarding influencing your positions on these issues, merely the exchange of ideas. You will have to develop a thicker skin if you wish to participate in the discussion on this thread. Please feel free to enlighten me regarding you credentials by PM if you wish.
Best regards
[QUOTE=Doppelganger]
"You had little understanding of our nation's tax structure. And have always been an "employee" never an "employer"
I SEE MR. PRESUMPTUOUS IS BACK ON THE SOAP BOX. SO ONLY EMPLOYERS UNDERSTAND THE TAX SYSTEM? DOES THAT MEAN WE NEED TO CLOSE DOWN THE BIG ACCOUNTING FIRMS AND REPLACE THEM WITH ONE MAN (OR WOMAN? OWNER / OPERATED SHOPS!
Your position the rich need to pay more, the same old diatribe of the left.
A CALL FOR FAIRNESS IS A DIATRIBE ONLY IN THE EYE OF THE OFFENDED RIGHT. A MORE BALANCED DESCRIPTION WOULD BE A "POINT OF VIEW."
You. Have a fixation on Helmsley.
I USED A CASE ABOUT WHICH I HAD FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE. USUALLY A SMART IDEA AS ONE KNOWS THE FACTS.
Where is your righteous indignation for Mr. Rangel, Mr. Bolski, et al?
RIGHT HERE - I AM OUTRAGED BY THE CONGRESSMAN - AMONG MANY OTHERS. BUT WHO THE HELL IS BOLSKI?
I don't believe any CEO deservers the multiple millions they are paid to run their company in the ground.
HEY, WE AGREE. TOO BAD MANY BOARDS OF DIRECTORS AT MAJOR FIRMS OFTEN HAVEN'T AGREED WITH US!
AMONG TODAY'S MANY EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PROBLEMS IS THE DISCONNECT BETWEEN ACTUAL RESULTS AND THE HUGE BONUSES GIVEN TO EXECUTIVES, EVEN WHEN THE COMPANY EARNINGS PLUMMET.
THE DIRECTORS FIRE THE SCHMUCKS AND GIVE THEM TENS OF MILLIONS AS A GOING-AWAY PRESENT!
MIND-F*CKING BOGGLING AS WE SAY IN BOSTON.
This wonderful notion of tying income to performance at the upper management level, which could be argued helped lead to the financial debacle we recently experienced, came directly from liberals in the late 1960's and 1970's insisting American business management was too conservative and needed to be more aggressive and would become so if there was a direct link between risk and reward for management, hang the share holders.
WHERE THE HELL DID YOU COME UP WITH THIS FANTASY? SEE ABOVE! WHAT PRAY TELL WOULD YOU USE AS THE GAUGE FOR SETTING APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION LEVELS?
Please do your homework on Mr. Buffett.
I DID.
Now nearing the end of his life it is easy to "get religion" while standing atop a huge pile of cash.
BETTER LATE THAN NEVER.
, remember Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society"? The noble goal of. Eliminating poverty in the United States within a single generation?
I DO REMEMBER. THE WAR IN VIETNAM REPLACED THE WAR ON POVERTY BEFORE IT WAS STARTED. LIKE BUSH LEFT AFGHANISTAN UNFINISHED FOR HIS GRAND IRAQ ADVENTURE. WE KNOW HOW THOSE HAVE WORKED OUT.
Liberals never understand the value of earning what you receive.
SAYS YOU.
We did not learn this lesson with the Native Americans we conquered.
WOW! REVEALING COMMENT! I SEE YOU ARE OK WITH A LITTLE GENOCIDE.
If you really want change, put term limits on Congress.
THE GINGRICH REPUBLICANS ELECTED IN 1994 PROMISED TO ABIDE BY TERM LIMITS AND THEN KEPT RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION. SO MUCH FOR THAT IDEA!
Obama does not have a clue, no more so than did Jimmy Carter.
SO CARTER AND OBAMA ARE KIND OF LIKE BUSH II!
BUT WAIT, REMEMBER WHAT NIXON DID WHEN HE HAD A CLUE! MAYBE EXPERIENCE IN PRESIDENTS IS OVER-RATED!
I have no illusions regarding influencing your positions.
ME NEITHER!
Best regards.
AND TO YOU![/QUOTE]I think we may inhabit different planets as much as have opposite views!
Hope the weather is as nice on yours as it is here!
Well let's see:
You took my explanation regarding my assumptions for my original post out of context but that is OK.
Yes I do believe employers, especially small business employers are more in touch with the tax situation and its impact on business and the economy than employees in most cases. Small business is the backbone of the economy. Please debate this one with someone who cares.
I don't recall anything about genocide, but regarding the Native Americans the point was to illustrate the sit down and we will hand it to you mentality of welfare. It did not work with them and it does not work today. Reservations and government housing projects have a lot in common. Not sure how you derived approving of genocide from t his.
Regarding the "War on Poverty" and the Nam, perhaps you did not notice but the Nam ended officially in January of 1973 but the raging success of Welfare is still with us over 40 years later. Perhaps you can explain this "success" to me instead of providing excuses as to why it did not work, if not in terms of human failure despite the "leg up".
Please do a little research into changing executive compensation after 1965. You will find CEO's, Presidents and their boards embraced the recommendations of tying compensation to stock or other easily manipulated performance criteria giving rise to all sorts of schemes for gain in the short term and completely disregarding the company's long term success and remaining the stewards of the company for the true owners, the share holders.
You used the term "appropriate compensation" regarding executive compensation, a very subjective term dependent upon your point of view. Perhaps we should return to the days when executive's made only a few multiples of the average wage for their company employees (read before 1960) instead of 100,000's of times this average wage today. No one is worth that much money, we left "reasonable" and "appropriate" in the dust regarding executive compensation 30 years ago my friend.
Perhaps we don't speak the same language, but I said TERM LIMITS which would indicate mandatory legislation just as with the President's TERM LIMIT. Do you mean to indicate you believe a politician (Democrat or Republican) who tells you he will not run for office again! Do you believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy as well? Such naivety is both unbecoming and disingenuous.
Now we turn to taxes, you believe redistribution of wealth is an acceptable means of social engineering. I totally disagree, due to its punishing success and encouraging sloth. Back to a case of who's ox is being gored. I like the flat tax or a national sales tax and the abolition of the IRS. What say you?
You just don't seem to be able to engage in reasonable discourse. Enjoy the day