Democrats propose Robin Hood proposal - Republicans don't agree for some reason.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/12/dems-pitch-controversial-plan-to-tax-wall-street-to-pay-for-new-middle-class/

Quote :

Influential Democrats are pushing a new plan to give middle-class Americans a big tax break, but only by imposing a new tax on Wall Street traders and other top earners -- drawing a rebuke from majority Republicans who say the proposal would hurt the economy.

"Our economy is still struggling to create jobs -- and the last thing we need is a new trillion-dollar tax hike added to the current broken tax code," said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., unveiled the tax plan on Monday at the Center for American Progress.

His plan would give a tax credit of roughly $2,000 per year to middle-class families, reportedly defined as couples making under $200,000. According to The Washington Post, the windfall would add up to roughly $1.2 trillion over the next decade...

...The Washington Post first reported that the plan would give a credit of $1,000 to individuals and $2,000 to couples making under the wage cap. It would also increase the tax credit for child care and make a few other changes.

Democrats reportedly would fund this with a .1 percent fee on stock trades; limits on tax breaks for the top 1 percent; and new rules for deductions for high-value executive performance bonuses.

Might be a first move toward a complete income tax overhaul, that's what's really needed. Kill all those corporate loopholes but we know that'll never happen.......

nochain wrote:

Might be a first move toward a complete income tax overhaul, that's what's really needed. Kill all those corporate loopholes but we know that'll never happen.......

Didn't that strategy backfire against the Dems?.....They ran on helping the middle class and attacking the 1%ers....well under the cowh the 1%ers have done quite well....the minimum wage was raised....and they gave the middle class workers cowh [name] healthcare....

You are correct but if there is going to be a serious income tax overhaul wouldn't expect it to come from the Dem side of the aisle...with gas prices drop/dropping the first utterance from the Dem side is to raise a fuel tax now while prices are low...remember the same proposal when prices were much higher....another break from working class stiffs?

Flat tax or Sales Tax but when you mention closing corporate loopholes....listen for the silence from the politicians....

We are basically seeing the end of an era of bad calls from Washington DC looking back to the "New Deal" from FDR.

The Unites States of America has never and will never have a product or service that it sells. The USA does not make money nor a profit. It's money that it spends so freely is from the production of businesses who sell and provide services.

We are at the point and have been past the point where there is not fund in DC that is in the black. All red and has been red for years. Yet they continue the ideas of the "New Deal" which has caught up with us and then some. Those programs are overextended and dead.

The younger people growing up will have to do what should have been done all along. Work for your wage, budget your money, live within your means, be healthy by all means in your power, and share from your abundance with widows and orphans.

The "free" programs are not and never were free. We are so far beyond their life expectancy. Talk about poor program management and planning.

No amount of taxation will ever bring about solvency.

All good points.  But, is my view of taxes naive or is there something wrong here with America's tax laws?

Explain why a business/company/corporation has to foot the bill for the USA? A company is set up to bear a profit to shareholders. Money is reinvested in more jobs, development of new products and research. Also, as a side line, look into each companies charitable giving and philanthropies. Why are we a society that believes one person's gain has to be shared? A company's profit is wrong?

Explain how we can fund government without money?

And why do some businesses pay no taxes when others are required to do so. Answer: Lobbyists

We can't. And the government continues to grow and request more. Didn't the forefathers leave that mentality in England?

Too much government with no oversight.

What business lasts with books that look like the governments?

Why do people down business when they are having no problems keeping their companies afloat and prospering?

More tax is not the solution.

Fair and equal taxation IS fair.

I don't agree that major corporations should be paying multimillion dollar salaries to CEOs and half their execs while not paying any taxes, while small corporations that cannot hire lobbyists are stuck footing the bill.

That's a LOT of loopholes... paid for by companies using lobbyists.

Fair tax is what I think is fair.  Across the board.  All citizens all business.

DC needs an overhaul on how they spend.

None of this is happening so here we are and it all is not the corporations fault.

15% national sales tax on everything is the answer.. Everybody that buys something will be paying a tax..

Eric, would you allow a child of your's to ridicule for your success, say you do not share, as they ask for more money to support their lifestyle that produces nothing?

Who is in the wrong? A prosperous working father or the child?

I've seen but sides with wealthy parents who worked hard for years while the children either got the parents drive to work OR the others that lived off of the parents money and spent it like crazy without earning a single penny, then ending up on welfare when the parent's money ran out either because they died or shut the kids off..

Our government spending needs some tough love.

The politicians are NOT doing the jobs they were elected to do.. They are doing wherever puts money in their own pockets, no matter how many millions they already have.... It's 100% pure greed!!!!!

SheWrites wrote:

Eric,  would you allow a child of your's to ridicule for your success, say you do not share, as they ask for more money to support their lifestyle that produces nothing?  

Who is in the wrong?  A prosperous working father or the child?

I cannot fathom the intent of your question as it pertains to this topic, SheWrites. Perhaps if you frame it in terms of government and taxes, I might get what you are driving at.

---

---

Taxes aside, I will attempt to answer your question which seems to be of a personal nature, but I don't know what "ridicule for my success" means. If you meant "ridicule my success", I wouldn't take it kindly to be bad-mouthed by a child of mine. That stands to reason. I don't think anybody would like that.

I share my wealth with my sons. One is self sufficient and attained that status fairly early, while another went through lengthy schooling and is still subsidized, but being weaned. Neither is ungrateful for being treated as they are and have been treated. They know that I do what I can to help them... as a parent should... with the knowledge that Christine and I aren't going to be around forever.

They know that we are not going to open our pockets to them if they aren't trying to help themselves.

---

I read where corporate tax rates in the US are the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world, at 35%. I am not saying that rate is fair, but if more corporations paid their fair share of taxes, perhaps that rate can be lowered. I also agree that there is way too much waste in government... like the Geico commercial "Everybody knows that".

Not all tax deductions are bad. The lion's share go for mortgage interest, employer-paid health insurance, retirement plans, and Medicare benefits... all things that go for the benefit of the masses.

Here is an example of what lobbyists can get for you. According to the Village Voice,

Quote :

In the late 1980s, Apple decided that Ireland's 12.5 percent corporate tax rate was a much more comely figure than America's 35. But Steve Jobs didn't want to move to Dublin. Fortunately, Congress allowed him to fake it.

Apple created an Irish subsidiary. Then, with a flourish of paperwork, it transferred its most valuable assets—its patents—to Ireland, comically forcing its U.S. headquarters to pay leasing fees for its own inventions.

Nothing had actually changed in the way the company operated. Apple simply had new paperwork saying it was partial to warm beer and fiddles, allowing it to dodge a substantial part of its U.S. tax bill.

But that wasn't the end of the scam. The Irish subsidiary is partially owned by another company, Baldwin Holdings, which doesn't even publicly list an office address or a phone number. But it does have paperwork saying it's headquartered in the Virgin Islands, where it can stockpile its income tax-free, outside the reach of the IRS.

Another example of unfair taxes... again from the Village Voice.

Quote :

It pays to have low friends in high places. Six years ago, legislators from Tennessee, Kentucky, and Texas wanted to reward those who provide the star power to their fundraisers: country musicians. So they passed a law allowing songwriters to avoid income taxes and sell their publishing catalogs at capital gains rates.

Suddenly, Nashville's elite could not only avoid the taxes everyone else must pay, but they could also skirt their Social Security and Medicare bills.

Three years later, Sheryl Crow sold her publishing rights to one of Australia's largest banks for nearly $10 million. Her estimated savings courtesy of this congressional giveaway: $2 million.

The law, however, curiously omitted other creative types who weren't hosting congressmen's rallies. Authors, for example, still must pay standard income taxes for selling the copyrights to their books. The same goes for painters, photographers, screenwriters, and sculptors.

Facebook: Before Facebook offered its first publicly sold stock in May, CEO Mark Zuckerberg grabbed 120 million shares for himself, then threw another 67 million shares to his employees.

It might have seemed an unusual act of generosity for a man not known for his grace. That's because it was also a multibillion dollar tax scam.

The public paid $38 a share for Facebook stock in initial trading. Yet via a sweet little loophole created by Congress, Zuckerberg claimed the shares he gave employees were worth just six cents apiece. By law, Facebook was allowed to deduct the difference—more than $7 billion—as a business expense.

In reality, the employee giveaway cost Facebook nothing. It neither expanded the company's expenses nor increased its liabilities. McIntyre compares it to an airline letting workers fly free in seats that would otherwise have been empty. The airlines don't receive a break because it doesn't cost them anything.

But thanks to some inventive paper shuffling, Facebook will receive a $500 million tax refund next year.

No, I have no love lost for businesses that spend more money on lobbyists and lawyers than they pay taxes. I am not saying we should bleed businesses dry, but I am a firm believer that, if corporate taxes are collected, corporations shouldn't be able to dodge their fair share of taxes.

The question was not personal and not worth explaining the bad analogy.

Taxes on corporations only get passed on to the consumer.

Employees of those corporations do pay taxes. CEO's are employees.

But the fact remains that corporate taxes exist. As long as they exist, taxes should be paid, not avoided through loopholes.

Government - IRS - make the loopholes. Tax lawyers jump through them.

SheWrites wrote:

We can't.  And the government continues to grow and request more.  Didn't the forefathers leave that mentality in England?  

Too much government with no oversight.

What business lasts with books that look like the governments?

Why do people down business when they are having no problems keeping their companies afloat and prospering?

More tax is not the solution.  

On the other hand... Why should the taxpayer have to flip the bill for companies like solar power, ethanol, tax abatements to large corporate retailers, bailouts for the banks, etc...?

To me it should be sink or float if you own a business and if you sink I might be willing to buy a piece of the pie for pennies on the dollar. Keep the government out of it... That's capitalism at it's finest!

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0kcet4aPpQ

Jake92 wrote:

15% national sales tax on everything is the answer..  Everybody that buys something will be paying a tax..

Much BETTER than what we've got!...Close the doors at the IRS!

Damaged Eagle wrote:

SheWrites wrote:

We can't.  And the government continues to grow and request more.  Didn't the forefathers leave that mentality in England?  

Too much government with no oversight.

What business lasts with books that look like the governments?

Why do people down business when they are having no problems keeping their companies afloat and prospering?

More tax is not the solution.  

On the other hand... Why should the taxpayer have to flip the bill for companies like solar power, ethanol, tax abatements to large corporate retailers, bailouts for the banks, etc...?

To me it should be sink or float if you own a business and if you sink I might be willing to buy a piece of the pie for pennies on the dollar. Keep the government out of it... That's capitalism at it's finest!

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0kcet4aPpQ

Good points, DE. Ford survived while the others took the money. And the other companies were no longer American owned. Ford remains stellar in my mind.

I don't think a couple making $200,000 needs any help from the government.
That ain't exactly poverty.

SheWrites wrote:

The question was not personal and not worth explaining the bad analogy.  

Taxes on corporations only get passed on to the consumer.

Employees of those corporations do pay taxes.  CEO's are employees.  

Corporations want to pretend to be people when they give millions of dollars to their favorite politicians, they can jolly well pay their taxes just like we the "real people" do. They may be passed onto the consumer, but I'll guarantee you, corporations would rather not pay them at all.
That's why they cheat. The money they pay to the politicians is how they get by with it.

When we get a Supreme Court with half a brain who will get rid of that stupid ruling, things can change in this country. It won't happen until then.