Obama’s tax plan and the redistribution of wealth

[Larry]

Corporations don't pay much taxes. two thirds of them don't pay any taxes at all. US corporate tax codes are so freaking soft even most of the foreign companies doing business here don't pay any corporate taxes.

I seem to remember reading that Microsoft has paid zero corporate income taxes for the last 10 years.

[helptheSKINS]

If you want to shelter the ficticious mom and pop from paying their share of taxes because their business might fold if they do then yeah you're wanting to give tax breaks to unsuccessful businesses.

Yeah, because calling for a fair tax on corporations sounds a lot like "tax the hell out of them." :doh:

Only if the "old fat white guy" chooses to continue to pass his tax burden onto someone else by means of charging more in order to maintain his profits; i.e. what I said about those actions being evil.

That last paragraph is scary. So what you are saying is a business owner should sacrifice his profits because you and Obama want to give more of his hard earned money to people that aren't even paying taxes. Wow, he's evil for working his tail off and wanting to profit from it. You sir are sounding VERY socialist. Based on your own words, you can't argue you're not.

[HOF44]

So what you are saying is a business owner should sacrifice his profits because you and Obama want to give more of his hard earned money to people that aren't even paying taxes. Wow, he's evil for working his tail off and wanting to profit from it. You sir are sounding VERY socialist.

Whats your take on the mortgage bailout? Socialist?

[helptheSKINS]

Whats your take on the mortgage bailout? Socialist?

It is leaning a lot more towards socialism then it is capitalism. One of the key reasons why the bailout was needed is the govt stuck it's nose where it didn't belong. It pushed for sub-prime mortgages so the more low income workers could buy a house. Why didn't they have to wait like I did until they could afford prime rates? Bush is as bad as Obama in my opinion. I'm a conservative, Bush is a liberal republican. I voted for him twice because I disliked him less then the other guys. McCain is starting to lean closer and closer to so he can try to win votes. His "$300 million" plan at the last debate was horrible. He's trying to buy votes just as Obama is now, though Obama is still worse.

Anyone on here saying higher corporate taxes will not effect jobs is lying to themselves. Anyone saying Obama's tax credit AKA free money to people not paying taxes is income redistribution/socialist. His economic plan is horrible and especially horrible for this economic time in the US. McCain deserves to lose because he hasn't challenged Obama in 6 months as much as that plumber did in 15 seconds.

I'm voting for McCain but I'm not real happy with either of them.

[HOF44]

It is leaning a lot more towards socialism then it is capitalism.

It is every bit as much socialism as a welfare check going to Watts.

[Midnight Judges]

It is leaning a lot more towards socialism then it is capitalism. One of the key reasons why the bailout was needed is the govt stuck it's nose where it didn't belong. It pushed for sub-prime mortgages so the more low income workers could buy a house. Why didn't they have to wait like I did until they could afford prime rates? Bush is as bad as Obama in my opinion. I'm a conservative, Bush is a liberal republican. I voted for him twice because I disliked him less then the other guys. McCain is starting to lean closer and closer to so he can try to win votes. His "$300 million" plan at the last debate was horrible. He's trying to buy votes just as Obama is now, though Obama is still worse.

Anyone on here saying higher corporate taxes will not effect jobs is lying to themselves. Anyone saying Obama's tax credit AKA free money to people not paying taxes is income redistribution/socialist. His economic plan is horrible and especially horrible for this economic time in the US. McCain deserves to lose because he hasn't challenged Obama in 6 months as much as that plumber did in 15 seconds.

I'm voting for McCain but I'm not real happy with either of them.

Bush is a true conservative and conservatism failed. You can pretend Bush is a liberal but he's not. Conservatives voted for Bush, conservatives funded Bush, conservatives made Bush. You have argued for every Bush policy to come down the pipe here on ES. He's your boy, you would vote for him again given the chance. McCain's economic policy is no different than Bush's and you're voting for it.

Don't give me this "Bush is a liberal" crap. 99% of self described conservatives voted for him. 99% of self described liberals voted against him. Conservatives own the failure. Your economic policies resulted in the bail outs. Your senseless idealogy took us from a surplus and a humming economy to enormous deficits, a pointless war, and the worst economic crises in my lifetime.

[techboy]

Bush is a true conservative and conservatism failed.

You sound more and more like Rush Limbaugh every day.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Actually, since Buffett hired her... Buffett should be credited for every penny she spends that contributes to our economy.

So, the greatest economony on earth would be where Warren Buffet has all the money and no taxes?

Anyway, if I am not mistaken, the reason Buffet's tax rate was so low was because of the capital gains tax rates being so much lower than the income tax rates.

[techboy]

Anyway' date=' if I am not mistaken, the reason Buffet's tax rate was so low was because of the capital gains tax rates being so much lower than the income tax rates.[/quote']

Probably. Warren Buffet's salary is a pittance compared to his investments.

I'm afraid, though, that this really is one place where making things more "fair" would likely be a disaster. Why make it harder for our nation's companies to secure funding, especially in the middle of this mess?

[Larry]

Probably. Warren Buffet's salary is a pittance compared to his investments.

I'm afraid, though, that this really is one place where making things more "fair" would likely be a disaster. Why make it harder for our nation's companies to secure funding, especially in the middle of this mess?

Why should Capital Gains income be treated any different from any other income?

[alexey]

One of the key reasons why the bailout was needed is the govt stuck it's nose where it didn't belong. It pushed for sub-prime mortgages so the more low income workers could buy a house.

The unregulated stuff blew up. Good luck making an argument that government intervention caused this.

[techboy]

Why should Capital Gains income be treated any different from any other income?

Because Capital Gains come directly from stocks and bonds, which is how the companies of the U.S. fund their operations and raise capital. A discount encourages investment and helps the economy.

On the flip side, raising that rate would mean that investors earn less, meaning one of two (or both) things would happen:

1) Investors would turn to other safer vehicles of investment which are now more competetive by comparison, and companies would not be able to raise as much money.

2) Companies would be forced to increase their payments to compensate, meaning they have less for expansion and their projects.

Either way, I don't see this as a good thing. I prefer to encourage people to invest in our nation's companies, and therefore the economy.

I guess I can see the distaste some people have for the wealthy paying less on much of their income because it's coming from investments (though i myself do not feel such class envy), but this is yet another one of those cases where the "solution" is worse than the problem.

[alexey]

one of two (or both or neither) things may happen:

fixed it for ya.

[techboy]

fixed it for ya.

Oh, you've figured out a way to make returns less impressive without making safer investments more palatable, then? Perhaps taxing those even more?

[alexey]

It seems these scary dangers you are talking about are hypothetical, while the crapper we find ourselves in because of policies you support is quite real.

[techboy]

It seems these scary dangers you are talking about are hypothetical, while the crapper we find ourselfs in because of your policies is quite real.

My policies?

[helptheSKINS]

You have argued for every Bush policy to come down the pipe here on ES. He's your boy, you would vote for him again given the chance.

Ah yes. Typical Midnight Judges. Making stuff up to make his point. Midnight, please go back through my post history and find one post that backs this statement up. Be a man for once and back up your BS.

Truly pathetic effort. Your reputation is becoming more and more sad by the day.

Also, nice job finding a way to spin this thread without providing any useful information on the subject.:applause:

[alexey]

Oh, you've figured out a way to make returns less impressive without making safer investments more palatable, then? Perhaps taxing those even more?

No, I am just calling bull on your attempt to assert a direct cause-effect relationship here.

[helptheSKINS]

Why should Capital Gains income be treated any different from any other income?

Larry, you might want to edit this comment. The politician that made that decision would go down as the worst politician in history. Yes Larry, worse then Bush.

[DjTj]

Because Capital Gains come directly from stocks and bonds, which is how the companies of the U.S. fund their operations and raise capital. A discount encourages investment and helps the economy.

On the flip side, raising that rate would mean that investors earn less, meaning one of two (or both) things would happen:

1) Investors would turn to other safer vehicles of investment which are now more competetive by comparison, and companies would not be able to raise as much money.

2) Companies would be forced to increase their payments to compensate, meaning they have less for expansion and their projects.

Either way, I don't see this as a good thing. I prefer to encourage people to invest in our nation's companies, and therefore the economy.

I guess I can see the distaste some people have for the wealthy paying less on much of their income because it's coming from investments (though i myself do not feel such class envy), but this is yet another one of those cases where the "solution" is worse than the problem.

Could we also argue that the lower capital gains tax has been a major contributing factor to the tech bubble and the housing bubble?

Is the government distorting our incentives by taxing capital gains at a lower rate than wages? Are we creating bubbles by tilting the equation in favor of investments?

From the standpoint of someone like Warren Buffet, the tax structure encourages him to invest in stocks (taxed lower) rather than hire more employees (taxed higher). This will tend to create higher asset values, but it will lower wages ... Given the bubbles we have seen over the past decade, is this the best policy?

[alexey]

Could we also argue that the lower capital gains tax has been a major contributing factor to the tech bubble and the housing bubble?

Is the government distorting our incentives by taxing capital gains at a lower rate than wages? Are we creating bubbles by tilting the equation in favor of investments?

From the standpoint of someone like Warren Buffet, the tax structure encourages him to invest in stocks (taxed lower) rather than hire more employees (taxed higher). This will tend to create higher asset values, but it will lower wages ... Given the bubbles we have seen over the past decade, is this the best policy?

Thank you... It seems we have been repeatedly burned by increased systemwide risk that comes from too much money wanting to get invested, but I wasn't sure how to properly make the "encouraging investment is not always a good idea" point.

[techboy]

Could we also argue that the lower capital gains tax has been a major contributing factor to the tech bubble and the housing bubble?

I don't think so. Why would a tax break disproportionately affect some stocks and not others? That bubble had more to do with "this time it's different" psychological issues than tax breaks.

I don't see it.

From the standpoint of someone like Warren Buffet, the tax structure encourages him to invest in stocks (taxed lower) rather than hire more employees (taxed higher). This will tend to create higher asset values, but it will lower wages ... Given the bubbles we have seen over the past decade, is this the best policy?

I'm apparently not familiar enough with the tax code to see where you're going with this. Why would Warren Buffett pay more taxes if he hires employees? It is they who are taxed, not he, right? In fact, wouldn't that lower his company's net income, reducing his tax bill?

[JMS]

I seem to remember reading that Microsoft has paid zero corporate income taxes for the last 10 years.

Yep...

Cisco Systems, the second-most valuable company in America, paid no federal income taxes for its latest fiscal year thanks to a little-known corporate tax break on employee stock options.

Microsoft, which ranks No. 4 in market value, did not pay any federal taxes either, it seems.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/10/09/MN3707.DTL

Most companies even fortune 500 pay zero taxes..

http://www.b12partners.net/wp/2008/08/12/most-corporations-pay-zero-tax/

McCain is correct in saying we have a very high corporate tax rate here in this country. What he failed to say is very few companies actually pay anything, because of all the loop holes... Nobody pays the actual rate McCain quoted of 35%; That's just the stick flushing the small companies into the personal tax system to avoid getting doublely taxed.

[techboy]

Thank you... It seems we have been repeatedly burned by increased systemwide risk that comes from too much money wanting to get invested, but I wasn't sure how to properly make the "encouraging investment is not always a good idea" point.

Are you seriously suggesting that the way to prevent bubbles is to discourage investment? That sure seems like another cure worse than the disease scenario to me, even granting the questionable proposition that tax breaks let to the tech bubble.

[AsburySkinsFan]

That last paragraph is scary. So what you are saying is a business owner should sacrifice his profits because you and Obama want to give more of his hard earned money to people that aren't even paying taxes. Wow, he's evil for working his tail off and wanting to profit from it. You sir are sounding VERY socialist. Based on your own words, you can't argue you're not.

You are apparently reading my post with the understanding that I am presenting something other than a socialistic economy, not entirely socialistic, but certainly moreso than we have today.