| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/26/2008 03:00:46 PM · #101 |
| So, are you for or against the 700 bil bailout? |
|
|
|
09/26/2008 03:17:46 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
So, are you for or against the 700 bil bailout? |
You mean the $700,000,000,000 welfare for rich people plan?
eta 3 orders of magnitude.
Message edited by author 2008-09-26 17:38:11. |
|
|
|
09/26/2008 03:26:17 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
So, are you for or against the 700 bil bailout? |
It's not that simple. In general, a bailout is needed to avoid the domino effect in the world economy. However, a blank cheque is not the way to go.
I'm against a bailout that rewards those who caused the problem in the first place. The CEOs of the companies getting bailed out should be forced to pay back every cent with the monies they received in bonuses and golden handshakes. I doubt that will happen. So, the next best thing would be no bonuses or golden handshakes to CEOs until the entire amount of the bailout money is repaid. It's hard to retrieve money that has already been paid but you can stop it before it happens.
Why should taxpayers have to foot the bill for the greed of the few who drove their companies into the ground?
|
|
|
|
09/26/2008 03:51:41 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Why should taxpayers have to foot the bill for the greed of the few who drove their companies into the ground? |
I sure hope you're as incensed over Harper's billions of dollars in tax breaks for wealthy corporations, including $1.4B every year for oil and gas giants until 2010. |
|
|
|
09/26/2008 04:09:45 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by David Ey:
So, are you for or against the 700 bil bailout? |
You mean the $700,000,000 welfare for rich people plan? |
You're missing three orders of magnitude; it's $700,000,000,000 ... on top of
 |
|
|
|
09/26/2008 04:15:41 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Why should taxpayers have to foot the bill for the greed of the few who drove their companies into the ground? |
I sure hope you're as incensed over Harper's billions of dollars in tax breaks for wealthy corporations, including $1.4B every year for oil and gas giants until 2010. |
Why does 'corporation' always equate to big bucks? Do you realize that their are a tremendous number of small businesses that are incorporated? A lot more than the huge multi-national corporations. Small businesses employ a lot of people. Giving them tax breaks frees up money they can use to employ somebody who in turn will pay personal income tax. I'm not a tax expert but the tax cuts Harper has been talking about in the campaign is for the small business type corporations with incomes <= 500,000.
Tax planning is all about creating the economic environment so the economy can grow.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2008 05:18:46 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Why should taxpayers have to foot the bill for the greed of the few who drove their companies into the ground? |
I sure hope you're as incensed over Harper's billions of dollars in tax breaks for wealthy corporations, including $1.4B every year for oil and gas giants until 2010. |
Why does 'corporation' always equate to big bucks? Do you realize that their are a tremendous number of small businesses that are incorporated? A lot more than the huge multi-national corporations. Small businesses employ a lot of people. Giving them tax breaks frees up money they can use to employ somebody who in turn will pay personal income tax. I'm not a tax expert but the tax cuts Harper has been talking about in the campaign is for the small business type corporations with incomes <= 500,000.
Tax planning is all about creating the economic environment so the economy can grow. |
As I see it the idea is not efficient. The owner of the business, not being stupid, keeps the lion's share of the tax break as profit for himself. So only a portion of the tax break is reinvested and only a portion of the reinvestment is paid as taxes by the new employees. The idea that it can either A) increase tax revenue or B) equalize between the haves and have nots is analagous to the joke about the company that "loses a small amount on each product but makes up for it in volume". |
|
|
|
09/26/2008 05:25:00 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Why should taxpayers have to foot the bill for the greed of the few who drove their companies into the ground? |
I sure hope you're as incensed over Harper's billions of dollars in tax breaks for wealthy corporations, including $1.4B every year for oil and gas giants until 2010. |
Why does 'corporation' always equate to big bucks? Do you realize that their are a tremendous number of small businesses that are incorporated? A lot more than the huge multi-national corporations. Small businesses employ a lot of people. Giving them tax breaks frees up money they can use to employ somebody who in turn will pay personal income tax. I'm not a tax expert but the tax cuts Harper has been talking about in the campaign is for the small business type corporations with incomes <= 500,000.
Tax planning is all about creating the economic environment so the economy can grow. |
As I see it the idea is not efficient. The owner of the business, not being stupid, keeps the lion's share of the tax break as profit for himself. So only a portion of the tax break is reinvested and only a portion of the reinvestment is paid as taxes by the new employees. The idea that it can either A) increase tax revenue or B) equalize between the haves and have nots is analagous to the joke about the company that "loses a small amount on each product but makes up for it in volume". |
My business is encorperated.. and you bet I'd likely keep the lions share of tax cut for my self... which I will then spend at another small corperation call The Camera Store... as I understand it, people (like me) spending is a good thing for the economy, and anything that alows me to spend a little bit more, without gaining more debt is a good thing... I'm happy my Corperation may not be taxed as much |
|
|
|
09/26/2008 05:27:51 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Why should taxpayers have to foot the bill for the greed of the few who drove their companies into the ground? |
I sure hope you're as incensed over Harper's billions of dollars in tax breaks for wealthy corporations, including $1.4B every year for oil and gas giants until 2010. |
Why does 'corporation' always equate to big bucks? Do you realize that their are a tremendous number of small businesses that are incorporated? A lot more than the huge multi-national corporations. Small businesses employ a lot of people. Giving them tax breaks frees up money they can use to employ somebody who in turn will pay personal income tax. I'm not a tax expert but the tax cuts Harper has been talking about in the campaign is for the small business type corporations with incomes <= 500,000.
Tax planning is all about creating the economic environment so the economy can grow. |
As I see it the idea is not efficient. The owner of the business, not being stupid, keeps the lion's share of the tax break as profit for himself. So only a portion of the tax break is reinvested and only a portion of the reinvestment is paid as taxes by the new employees. The idea that it can either A) increase tax revenue or B) equalize between the haves and have nots is analagous to the joke about the company that "loses a small amount on each product but makes up for it in volume". |
Unless of course the business owner actually wants to grow their business which I think is probably the case with a number of small corporations.
I didn't say anything about equalization. That happens from the tax dollars collected as taxes from the have provinces are transferred to the have not provinces.
There is a point where the level of taxation is such that it creates just enough stimulous to the economy so it's not too cold and not too hot. Where that point is, who knows.
The point is that taxation cannot be so high as to restrict a business from doing business and prevent them from being able to compete in the world market. We can not rely on protectionist measures to shield our local businesses from foreign competition.
Tax them to a point where the amount collected is enough for the necessary programs but not so much as to stifle their growth.
Taxing too little has the potential of creating an overheated economy but the reverse (taxing too much) has the potential of killing the economy.
Message edited by author 2008-09-26 17:29:18.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2008 05:29:55 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by Eyesup:
My business is encorperated.. and you bet I'd likely keep the lions share of tax cut for my self... which I will then spend at another small corperation call The Camera Store... as I understand it, people (like me) spending is a good thing for the economy, and anything that alows me to spend a little bit more, without gaining more debt is a good thing... I'm happy my Corperation may not be taxed as much |
But then the question begs, why do I have to give it to you? Studies prove that if you give it to people with low incomes they will spend it faster and save less of it. In other words, what is the difference between a capital gains tax cut and a check written to people making less than $20,000 a year? Conservatives would seem very "for" one of those and very "against" the other when they are tax revenue neutral compared to each other. |
|
|
|
09/26/2008 05:33:59 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Tax them to a point where the amount collected is enough for the necessary programs but not so much as to stifle their growth.
Taxing too little has the potential of creating an overheated economy but the reverse (taxing too much) has the potential of killing the economy. |
China has a more progressive tax rate than the US. If it were so simplistic we should expect China's economy to be running slower than ours... |
|
|
|
09/26/2008 05:52:45 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Why does 'corporation' always equate to big bucks? Do you realize that their are a tremendous number of small businesses that are incorporated? |
Sure I do. I've owned one of 'em for twelve years. I know all about it. I understand the high taxation rate of Canadian corporations, and I'm intimately familiar with how taxed businesses are in Canada. And yet, I'm mysteriously against giving tax breaks to corporations.
Corporations don't need it.
And if you listened carefully, you will have discovered that the $50B+ in tax breaks that Harper has laid aside are for large mega-corporations already in bed with the big C! The tax breaks in question have nothing to do with small business.
edit: fix quotes
Message edited by author 2008-09-26 17:55:09. |
|
|
|
09/26/2008 05:56:10 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Tax them to a point where the amount collected is enough for the necessary programs but not so much as to stifle their growth.
Taxing too little has the potential of creating an overheated economy but the reverse (taxing too much) has the potential of killing the economy. |
China has a more progressive tax rate than the US. If it were so simplistic we should expect China's economy to be running slower than ours... |
I guess if you think China's economic environment is exactly the same as the US but since it is not it is only reasonable to think that there are different factors working on the Chinese economy to prevent it from slowing like the US economy.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2008 06:00:22 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Tax them to a point where the amount collected is enough for the necessary programs but not so much as to stifle their growth.
Taxing too little has the potential of creating an overheated economy but the reverse (taxing too much) has the potential of killing the economy. |
China has a more progressive tax rate than the US. If it were so simplistic we should expect China's economy to be running slower than ours... |
I guess if you think China's economic environment is exactly the same as the US but since it is not it is only reasonable to think that there are different factors working on the Chinese economy to prevent it from slowing like the US economy. |
Like a lack of trillions in war debt... for instance... |
|
|
|
09/26/2008 06:03:57 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Why does 'corporation' always equate to big bucks? Do you realize that their are a tremendous number of small businesses that are incorporated? |
Sure I do. I've owned one of 'em for twelve years. I know all about it. I understand the high taxation rate of Canadian corporations, and I'm intimately familiar with how taxed businesses are in Canada. And yet, I'm mysteriously against giving tax breaks to corporations.
Corporations don't need it.
And if you listened carefully, you will have discovered that the $50B+ in tax breaks that Harper has laid aside are for large mega-corporations already in bed with the big C! The tax breaks in question have nothing to do with small business.
edit: fix quotes |
What about keeping them competitive so they actually stay in the country and not relocate to a country with more favourable tax laws? That is another balancing act. I will put it simply again, you tax too much they move and unemployment goes up. You tax just enough to keep them in the country and keep the jobs local. Are we at that point? Is the tax break required to keep companies here? How do we figure it out? Raise taxes to the point where we start seeing them leave then cut it back?
Sure they'll keep some of the profit for themselves but to not become stagnant they will reinvest the money in growing the corporation. Or is growth in this sense a bad thing?
|
|
|
|
09/26/2008 06:11:25 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Why does 'corporation' always equate to big bucks? Do you realize that their are a tremendous number of small businesses that are incorporated? A lot more than the huge multi-national corporations. Small businesses employ a lot of people. Giving them tax breaks frees up money they can use to employ somebody who in turn will pay personal income tax. I'm not a tax expert but the tax cuts Harper has been talking about in the campaign is for the small business type corporations with incomes <= 500,000.
Tax planning is all about creating the economic environment so the economy can grow. |
This is an assumption, not a truth. Profit does not equate more jobs, it equates to the possibility of more jobs. It also equates to money in the owners' pockets. They only hire more if they believe it will raise profits more.
Lowering taxes on corporations so that they might hire more workers who might pay enough in taxes to equal the money lost from corporate taxes seems to me to be a losing proposition based on unfounded assumptions.
whoops! Achoo already said that.
Message edited by author 2008-09-26 18:15:09. |
|
|
|
09/26/2008 06:40:07 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
What about keeping them competitive so they actually stay in the country and not relocate to a country with more favourable tax laws? |
Corporate taxes are probably a drop in the bucket to bottom line compared to worker wages. Moving to another country likely has little to do with the former and much to do with the latter. |
|
|
|
09/26/2008 07:06:09 PM · #118 |
In January 1987 capital gains taxes were raised to 28%. The unemployment rate that month was 6.6%. It did not go higher than this until March of 1991. Would you say this supports or refutes the hypothesis that increasing the capital gains tax increases unemployment?
Message edited by author 2008-09-26 19:06:43. |
|
|
|
09/26/2008 09:10:42 PM · #119 |
Decided to watch the debate tonight, and it's only about 10 minutes in, and I just have one thing to say:
The U.S. is in trouble no matter who you elect. Ai yi yi. ;) |
|
|
|
09/26/2008 09:12:12 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Why does 'corporation' always equate to big bucks? Do you realize that their are a tremendous number of small businesses that are incorporated? A lot more than the huge multi-national corporations. Small businesses employ a lot of people. Giving them tax breaks frees up money they can use to employ somebody who in turn will pay personal income tax. I'm not a tax expert but the tax cuts Harper has been talking about in the campaign is for the small business type corporations with incomes <= 500,000.
Tax planning is all about creating the economic environment so the economy can grow. |
This is an assumption, not a truth. Profit does not equate more jobs, it equates to the possibility of more jobs. It also equates to money in the owners' pockets. They only hire more if they believe it will raise profits more.
Lowering taxes on corporations so that they might hire more workers who might pay enough in taxes to equal the money lost from corporate taxes seems to me to be a losing proposition based on unfounded assumptions.
whoops! Achoo already said that. |
Just because a corporation or an individual for that matter wants to keep more of their money in their own pocket and not in the hands of the government is not a bad thing. And just because some think the corporation doesn't need the money doesn't mean that the government should just take it.
It's not how much you make but how much you keep.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2008 09:20:36 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In January 1987 capital gains taxes were raised to 28%. The unemployment rate that month was 6.6%. It did not go higher than this until March of 1991. Would you say this supports or refutes the hypothesis that increasing the capital gains tax increases unemployment? |
I'm sure the capital gains tax rate wasn't increased in a vacuum so you can't relate this tax hike to the increase or decrease in the unemployment rate.
Capital gains tax is a tax on investment. Investments use after (income) tax dollars. If all other things were equal then increasing capital gains tax would have absolutely no relation to the unemployment rate.
Now income tax could have this effect as it digs directly at the gross income not the disposable part that was invested to earn capital gains.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2008 11:06:35 PM · #122 |
Yes, I'm not sure where I got off on capital gains taxes. Well, unfortunately the story isn't much better for corporate tax. During the 1990s, non-financial corporations as a group paid an average of 25.3 percent of their profits in federal corporate income taxes, according to new Congressional Research Service estimates. By contrast, they paid more than 49 percent in the 1950s, 38 percent in the 1960s, and 33 percent in the 1970s. This decline reflects reductions in the statutory tax rate as well as corporations̢۪ expanded use of deductions and other tax benefits. The unemployment rate, of course, does not continue to decline from the 50's to the 90s. You can see from this bar graph that it waxes and wanes in cycles which have little to do with corporate tax rates.
I know "trickle down" economics is preached by lots and lots of conservatives. I don't really see any evidence it actually works. It's more likely a smokescreen to give a more palatable taste to the main idea of "I want to pay less tax".
Message edited by author 2008-09-26 23:08:43. |
|
|
|
09/26/2008 11:22:47 PM · #123 |
I think that after Reagen started the Trickle Down economics we saw some success with the economy. Things have not been that bad the last 20 years. We have it pretty good. It will never be perfect.
My thinking is that when you take money out of the hands of the rich and give it to the government the rich have less money to spend and then people suffer. So the government takes that money and distributes it and that just doesn't seem right to me. I sort of believe that we should shrink the government into a tiny little building. Over the past few years I have worked for the government and they are horrible with money when compared to a cooperation. Horrible.
But that is my .02
Remember:
|
|
|
|
09/27/2008 12:11:23 AM · #124 |
Got this in my email today. It's one man's idea of what a REAL bail out should be and to whom it should go to. Not truly feasible, but you gotta love it
But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket.
A husband and wife team has $595,000.00.
What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?
Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved.
Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads
Put away money for college - it'll be there
Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs.
Buy a new car - create jobs
Invest in the market - capital drives growth
Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves
Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean - or else
Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks
who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is
cutting back. And, of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.
If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of
trickling out a puny $1000.00 ("vote buy") economic incentive that is
being proposed by one of our candidates for President.
If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+!
As for AIG - liquidate it.
Sell off its parts.
Let American General go back to being American General.
Sell off the real estate.
Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.
Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't.
Sure it's a crazy idea that can "never work."
But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!
How do you spell Economic Boom?
I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion
We Deserve It Dividend more than do the geniuses at A IG or inWashington DC.
And remember, The Birk plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because
$25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.
Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.
Kindest personal regards,
Birk
T. J. Birkenmeier, A Creative Guy & Citizen of the Republic
PS: Feel free to pass this along to your pals as it's either good for
a laugh or a tear or a very sobering thought on how to best use $85
Billion!! |
|
|
|
09/27/2008 12:19:30 AM · #125 |
I got the same email. This was my reply:
Nice sentiment, but the math is wrong. The orig author is off by 3 orders of magnitude.
$297,500 after tax = $425,000 pre-tax dollars
$425,000 x 200,000,000 is $85 Trillion, not $85 Billion. I'd still like a check for $425, but it's not going to pay off my mortgage and let me replace my car.
I looked at the whole $700B bailout package and used population estimates of 228,750,000 American adults (305,000,000 Americans with ~ 25% of them under 18) from the US Census Bureau and divided to get $3060 per adult.
Personally, I think this whole thing smells bad and it's really just welfare for rich people.
Cheers,
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
Got this in my email today. It's one man's idea of what a REAL bail out should be and to whom it should go to. Not truly feasible, but you gotta love it
But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket.
A husband and wife team has $595,000.00.
What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?
Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved.
Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads
Put away money for college - it'll be there
Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs.
Buy a new car - create jobs
Invest in the market - capital drives growth
Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves
Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean - or else
Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks
who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is
cutting back. And, of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.
If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of
trickling out a puny $1000.00 ("vote buy") economic incentive that is
being proposed by one of our candidates for President.
If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+!
As for AIG - liquidate it.
Sell off its parts.
Let American General go back to being American General.
Sell off the real estate.
Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.
Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't.
Sure it's a crazy idea that can "never work."
But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!
How do you spell Economic Boom?
I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion
We Deserve It Dividend more than do the geniuses at A IG or inWashington DC.
And remember, The Birk plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because
$25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.
Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.
Kindest personal regards,
Birk
T. J. Birkenmeier, A Creative Guy & Citizen of the Republic
PS: Feel free to pass this along to your pals as it's either good for
a laugh or a tear or a very sobering thought on how to best use $85
Billion!! |
|
|
