|
Post by trappnman on Mar 11, 2016 7:28:29 GMT -6
I can debate you case by case to why socialism is bad.
lets start with a classic example- coyote control in SD. You could not get a more classic example, of them any taking care of the few.
so I accept your challenge- please respond as to why coyote control is bad
so rather than name your candidate, you start another (or try to) about Canada- and I understand why- if you truly looked at OUR country, you cannot help but come to the conclusion socialism is not only present, but you could not live your daily live today without it
think about that as you drive to work.......or not.
still waiting for you to man up and name a name.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 11, 2016 19:20:14 GMT -6
What about coyote control in SD.
taxes are used no doubt, but where true socialism kicks in is where a central govt provides all the basic needs of the people, the dems want to get closer to that. The Indians reservations are as socialist as it gets, healthcare covered, vehicle registrations covered, food covered, housing covered. Hard to have a work ethic in a situation like that. Has never worked and will not work.
Not as pronounced in other areas of the US but when we start to loan out money to those that are high risk, when we start to have more and more people on govt Assitance, when we start talking about all of these so called free things we edge closer and closer each time this comes up, Nothing in life should be free, you work for what you have or not have because of the lack of such working. Many people choose to do one or the other. The fact that some think they are entitled to such,is what is really scary, feeling the govt should provided such.
I want more state control and far less federal intervention. Taxation by itself isn't bad, it is what is done with the money and how much where things turn, I voted for a tax increase here last year for a fire protection district I live in the country and the money would be used for rural fire protection, better and more qualified EMT's and more training for those employees, I voted yes on it because I saw the need for all of us rural folk and only voted yes as it was written the money could be sued for nothing else. Without that wording I would have never voted for such. It passed by a wide margin. It was a tax clearly defined with a specific purpose. It also lowered mine and others homeowner insurance, that was a smart tax put to the voters.
We rarely see such at the national level. Cut the pork from these bills only a vote on the bill it self no riders or extra junk. Balanced budget only. The left is not talking about these issues, they talk about more free and more taxation and more and more.
If we keep,going like some running would like to run our country our taxes would be very close to that of Canada, that is where Canada comes into play and yes they are ranked in the top 10 of socialist countries in the world. We will not tax our way to prosperity ever.
I have never thought I am entitled to anything except for what I work for.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Mar 11, 2016 20:50:32 GMT -6
So the argument you made about Canada is pointless, so why raise the question in the first place? If your only thought is to bait people then I guess that works but many of us are learning more about your ineptness as much as you are learning about our political stances that you find unfavorable. Things like "a shock" that our tax structure is progressive. My God it has been since 1912 since it was implemented. Maybe a shock to you but for some of us who remember Civics classes not so new. Also those quotes about .1 percent paying say 30% plus or minus, why would that not be if there is 20 trillion in an economy each year and 80% of that runs mostly through the hands of less than 5% of the people. If we had a flat tax to raise the same amount of tax dollars the figures would be very similar to what they are now as taxation does not change income status or amount. If we need say 1 trillion in federal income tax with our current income distribution the flat rate would need to be higher than many would like it to be as the low income persons don't earn enough to pay much taxes regardless of the rates. Actually I am in favor of lowering the upper levels of taxes and removing many of the loopholes than only can exist for wealthier payers or are designed just for them. That way we could get rid of the look at you bums that don't pay attitude and we would not have all the behind the back subsidies that actually take the money away from those who could use it to improve their lives and our nation.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 12, 2016 7:19:47 GMT -6
No Bryce Canada is important as some want to see us go further in that way. Sorry again just facts.
The other FACT is the left continuing on hammering the so called rich, they do not pay their share well the IRS breakdown shows all of us who pays what of the income tax in this country.
I have listened to all candidates and some just want to keep taxing and spending and less want to find ways to solve the debt issue and work on a balanced budget.
The next president who ever it may be will have a tough challenge, work on the debt we have to, work on taxes that will revive this economy, work on getting jobs back in the US, because frankly we have more people, than jobs as of now, that is taxing on our system, I guess some do not see it that way. Finally have a decision on illegals entering our country. thess issues have been going on for years.
When one has the mind set to tax more, create more expense to business and people how does that help us prosper in any way as a nation?
The tax code as you stated is progressive, yet many feel not progressive enough on those making over 250,000 a year, when the IRS shows the tax break down. Again all for getting rid of waste across the board. The issue becomes at the federal level who decides what is waste and what is a real need? Your working with 50 states and people from those states. No 2 are the same, again another reason for less federal govt not more.
A flat tax coupled with a balanced budget is an excellent idea and I am all for it. But it has to have the balanced budget cause in it or a waste of time. We can get rid of much of the IRS which I am all for. We can also get rid of the dept of education at the federal level as states are workout their own standards anyhow. The federal dept of education is not needed, again 50 states with entirely different make ups even inside of those states, no matter how large or small.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 12, 2016 9:38:38 GMT -6
that fact that you don't see, even though you KNOW, that coyote control is a pure example of socialism- boggles my mind.
and you want "serious" debates.....
"Serious" debate mean recognizing and accepting facts, not opinions.
instead throwing in another red herring calling reservations socialist- and that is so far from the truth its scary you think it
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Mar 12, 2016 17:42:13 GMT -6
Other than corporate taxes we have some of the lowest tax rates in the developed world. The portion of the world that garners the most taxes, so that argument does not sell well to those that know the facts about taxation. Dem's are bad because Dem's tax and spend. The GOP has a history of spend and borrow. I will take a mix of each but as one can see there is very little being done about spending from either party, but taxing more to pay as you go to me bodes for a better future for the USA. Sure after the climatic crash of our economy in 2007-09 debt has climbed during the Dem's in the WH. The only real alternative the GOP could come up with was to try and shut down the government. Not very good political and economic sense but that goes back to your model of doing something like trying to repeal ACA 50 plus times and not getting it done. Repetition and nothing learned nor gained. I can see why you like their methods.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 13, 2016 6:33:51 GMT -6
Other than corperate taxes? Are you serious! Corperate taxes are one of the main reasons jobs went over seas in the first place! Bryce was not talking personnel,income tax at all with my point. The US has the 3rd highest corperate income tax in the world. Then we wonder why we are not as competitive as we once where?
The corporate income tax rate is one of many aspects of what makes a country’s tax code and economy attractive for investment. However, as the rest of the world’s economies mature and their tax rates on corporate income continue to decline, the United States risks losing its competitive edge due to its exceptionally high corporate income tax rate.
That is just a part of other input cost business deals with in the US that many other countries do not have either, then we again wonder why many jobs are outsourced? What have the dems done to help this situation? What has Bernie or Hillary said they are willing to do to get jobs backs in the US?
Bryce tax more each and every year or 2 and increasing annual cost is the answer? That is what Seperates us, wages have done nothing in 8 years and the economy is still not great by any means, and the idea is to keep rising taxes on people? Again I will say, we will never tax ourselves into being prosperous country. Taxes rarely go away much at the federal level.
So people keep taking home less and less and allowing the govt more and more control of their lives for such taxation? Sorry that is not my America.
Hey I have to go work now, little rest for the wicked don't you know LOL.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 13, 2016 10:29:31 GMT -6
bullshit! again TC, you can't pull things out of your arse, and call them true. corporations went overseas to gain more profits of course- the tax is a joke- if there is any corporation in America paying the top rate, I'd be shocked- contrast with that the corporations not only paying zero taxes, but getting welfare as well
and the reason wages are down- isn't the workers fault-= its GREEDs fault!
get it through your head -TRCIKLE DOWN IS VOODOO ECONOMICS!
hey- let borrow a few more trillion, fight 2 wars- and then, hey- lets blame it on a black president!
I find it amazing, that someone like TC, will argue against history concerning tax rates and prosperity.
its not something to argue - LOOK IT FREAKING UP!
and again, tuff talk, but too ashamed to state who he supports- can't even name who mirrors their convictions, instead preferring to cut everyone else down-
way to go TC- you are indeed a political genius!
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 13, 2016 19:32:15 GMT -6
Tman you are mis guided my friend. 1. Exxon paid 31 billion in taxes 2. Chevron paid 20 billion 3 Apple paid 14 billion 4. Wells Fargo paid 9.1 billion 5. Wal mart 7.98 billion 6. ConocoPhillips 7.94 billion 7. jo Morgan 7.63 billion 8. Berkshire Hathaway 7.94 billion 9. IBM 5.3 billion 10. Microsoft 4.57 Billion Yep big business pays zero in taxes LOL. These are just the top 10 and if you look at revenue versus earnings and the taxes it seems pretty steep to me. These are just federal taxes in 2012 The tax foundation has said that lowering corperate taxes would have a positve effect on job growth here in the US and they are not alone, but yes we know others have more facts than they do. Ok....... The tax foundation is a non partisan group you need to read this about Bernies tax plans. Not good for the US Tman and this isn't coming from the republican in Missouri but people with real backgrounds in numbers and knowing tax inside and out. taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-bernie-sanders-s-tax-plan
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 13, 2016 19:36:50 GMT -6
I can argue higher taxes versus porpsperity all day long, again please take the time to read the above mentioned it has been very well thought out and all datat provided not just words. your going to use the Clinton era one that the country see once in a blue moon at best as your bassi good luck. The Internet boom saved his butt on raising taxes period. That is fact.
Your also still 8 years later blaming others for Obama's 8 years in office and adding 12 trillion in debt? Ok that would get anyone fired pronto from any job period. Well I didn't cost our business 8 trillion it was the guy before me LOL. Ok.
He had 8 years to do something besides adding 12 trillion in debt that was on his watch and his excutive actions. Love the race card as well, I could care less what color he is , Carter was a joke as well and he was a white southern man. Color means nothing to millions, but the left likes to use the race card as an excuse for limited action on his part.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Mar 13, 2016 22:49:45 GMT -6
As long as you have those stats then why not post the gross income and give us the "effective tax rate" on their gross. When doing taxes I do that with income earners and filers and what one is looking at is say you earned 85 k and you are a family of 4 and deferred 4,000K and you owed 4,000 in federal tax after deferred income, itemized deductions, credits etc. That would make one's effective tax rate 5% even when they are in the 15% bracket.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Mar 13, 2016 23:41:20 GMT -6
I see different figures, TC your figures must include Exxon taxes paid internationally as well: Exxon paid £6.8 billion in direct and indirect taxes and duties in the UK in 2014/15 U.S. federal: -$156 million U.S. state and local: $110 million International: $15.2 billion Exxon paid the most taxes last year of any U.S. company, by far -- but not a cent went to the IRS for income taxes. That's because the oil giant does business in some of the mostly highly taxed countries in the world. Want to extract petroleum in Nigeria? Be prepared to fork over up to 85% of your profit in tax payments. Exxon doled out more than $15 billion in income tax payments to foreign countries last year. U.S. tax codes allow companies to take massive deductions in light of those international charges, which knocked Exxon's federal income-tax bill down into negative territory. That said, Uncle Sam gets his money in other ways. Including sales taxes and duties, Exxon recorded $7.7 billion in U.S. tax costs last year, and paid even more overseas. Its grand total in global taxes for the year? A whopping $78.6 billion. The company's effective income tax rate was a hefty 47%, its highest in three years. Chevron Chevron: $8 billion U.S. federal: -$19 million U.S. state and local: $230 million International: $7.8 billion Some businesses save money on taxes by logging their biggest profits in low-tax countries. But like Exxon, Chevron has little choice about where it can extract oil. Thanks to the billions it sends overseas, Chevron faced an effective income tax rate of 43% last year. It's perfectly reasonable, under the tax code, for a company with multinational operations to reduce its U.S. tax bill to $0, said Eric Toder, an institute fellow at the Tax Policy Center. "In order to avoid having profits taxed in two locations, the host country gets the first bite of the profits," he said. Think U.S. companies should be paying the U.S. government first? Take it up with lawmakers, not the oil companies. "There are not as many loopholes in the corporate tax code as people think, and there are legitimate reasons for which these companies pay as much or as little as they do," said Scott Hodge, president of the Tax Foundation. "If anybody complains, they should not blame the companies, they should blame Congress -- they wrote the tax code. money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/news/1004/gallery.top_5_tax_bills/2.htmlPam
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 14, 2016 4:49:15 GMT -6
Pam those are taxes paid , the left and the montra is drying up once numbers come out. Notice the effect tax rate percentages because the so called loop holes did nothing for these companies. Taxes are taxes Pam. The money went out. As stated some of these countries have no control who gets the share first. The numbers were called federal tax dollars paid out. My source was USA today. The point being not ALL companies are getting by tax free and taxes including all others they pay mineral,right taxes to states and others as well not even in these figures. again the US is know as the highest corperate tax rates in the world.
COMPANIES PAYING THE HIGHEST EFFECTIVE TAX RATES IN CALENDAR YEAR 2014
Company Symbol Effective tax rate Income tax expense $ mils. Anadarko Petroleum APC 2,994.4% $1,617 McGraw Hill Fin’l MHFI 453.7%. $245 Equinix EQIX 407.7%. $345.5 Noble NE 362% $106.7 Occidental Petroleum OXY 108.4% $1,685 eBay EBAY 98.7% $3,485 AmerisourceBergen ABC 91.7% $389.8 ConAgra Foods CAG 73.4% $289.8 Computer Sciences CSC 66.7% $80 Alcoa AA 64.4% $320 Source: S&P Capital IQ, USA TODAY
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 14, 2016 4:57:58 GMT -6
Bryce now we are going to tax off of gross and not net income? We stay at 35 percent of gross no company would be left in the US at that rate. Also if we did such on all Americans boy the federal got would take in a lot of money, the problem being people would have little to nothing left.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 14, 2016 6:06:54 GMT -6
haven't read one of your posts for days- just skimmed then to see, once again, you refuse to say who you are for-
pam, TC will never admit he is wrong, his math is wrong, or who he supports-
he will just change the subject to troll for more
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 14, 2016 17:41:22 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 15, 2016 7:22:57 GMT -6
name a name
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Mar 15, 2016 15:53:27 GMT -6
NO TC what I was stating is what most CPA's financial planners and tax preparers discuss with their clients. What is your "effective tax rate" That is what percent of your total income goes to taxes. Say you earn 100K as a family of 5 and you pay 6,000 in federal taxes on your taxable income in the 15% bracket. Your effective rate would be 6% of your income. I use that to determine how much of my deferred I may want to cash in as if I am low in the 15% bracket I can create a lot more income and still be in the lower bracket. Sure I pay more taxes but at that percent. For those that are big fans of flat taxes you would essentially have to be going from a gross basis unless we want to legislate a similar mess that we have today. Businesses would have other options for sure and most do as there is a corporate or business tax, but wage earners would most likely be taxed on a flat rate for all of their income. We have many examples of taxes that are flat rates. Gas taxes, federal and state and sales taxes are all based on a flat percent of total sales. A person that buys a 60k car where there is a 5% sales tax pays $3K. A person who buys a 6K car pays $300.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 15, 2016 17:04:58 GMT -6
I am all for a flat tax Bryce but only if it comes with a amendment to the constitution that states the federal got must pass a banal bed budget each and every year. That puts pseudo on all to go through each line item of the budget and cut waste, other wise we just keep seeing ire and more of our income going for more and more programs.
Today we like to use the term soak it to the rich, that would be gone and what would the left run on? No new programs unless one thing else is cut, no more handouts unless something else is cut, I am sure the rich would be fine with a flat tax of 8-14 percent because to be honest they pay far more than that now, even though the rhetoric states different.
If you make a billion and the flat tax for all is 10 percent then you pay 100 million, easy and would save lots of money on the IRS and also in tax prep fees and accountants. Now would some things raise in price? Sure they would but in volume it would be easier for all than the left trying to just go after more and more of what the so called rich have left after Input cost. Any business could predict far better their taxes paid with a flat tax.
Plenty have said oh the rich will never go for such, the facts are many would for sure, the facts also show the democrats would loose a lot of their base with such as again with a balanced budget amendment they have what to garner votes on? You see I lived in SD for 23 years and they have such an amendment to have and pass a balanced budget, the republicans rule that state. You can promise hand outs to more people, you can promise more socialism with a flat tax and a balanced budget amendment without cutting somewhere else, meaning they would have to cut from some of their past promises to make the new promises funded.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Mar 15, 2016 20:34:59 GMT -6
You won't have a flat tax until you die if you are going to balance a budget in the near future, unless you are in the camp of not paying off the debt and feel that 400 billion or so in interest is something we should learn to live with. We actually need a surplus budget for a long, long time and you can imagine how likely that will be. Our tax system is not a soak the rich system as you state that it is. What we do have compared to most nations are much lower taxes with many credits to lower income earners than many other nations do and that has been done politically as we are not willing to take a good look at what is the better approach we should move forward with. Actually in a wealthy country with a very lopsided income distribution and high cost of basic items such as housing, transportation, clothing and food we have decided to use taxes and programs to lift up incomes so low income earners can live. In many nations with free medical and education at all levels they have higher tax rates and they tax the lower incomes percentage wise much more than we do but those families have education and health care. Something that would not be possible here under our current income distribution and tax collection.
Bryce
|
|