Jump to content

this

banned
  • Posts

    232
  • Joined

Everything posted by this

  1. this

    Tax reform

    It indeed is a tough nut to crack. As a society we do take care of them, we have unemployment insurance, food banks, section 8 housing, welfare etc. In America you have to try hard to go hungry. What a lot of Dem Socialists want to do is make them even more comfortable despite intentionally slacking at work, the opponents disagree. We cannot continue penalizing(even more) the ones that do work hard for the ones that don't. In the AOC thread I did point out(with sources) how the bottom 50% only accounts for 2.75% of all the income tax generated while reeking in most of the benefit. Most of the ones that don't or can't cut it fall in this bucket. And by spending even more resources we invariably penalize the ones who make the right choices, right sacrifices and make good decisions.
  2. Its the internet, why not? And teach you that its the 1% that's subsidizing your ass. Not the other way around. Next time you see a one percenter, bow your head and say thank you.
  3. LOL, yes you do. Go read up and then get back to us.
  4. What you meant is "thank you you self important piece of shit" because I subsidize your ass. You're welcome you middle class piece of shit.
  5. So you're OK with people hiding their money, us collecting less in taxes and spending more on IRS so that we can enforce those ridiculous rates? Gotcha. Your America sounds like a dream!
  6. You may want to maybe research things before taking a stand: There is a common misconception that high-income Americans are not paying much in taxes compared to what they used to. Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1] However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes. As a result, the tax burden on high-income households today is only slightly lower than what these households faced in the 1950s. The graph below shows the average tax rate that the top 1 percent of Americans have faced over the last century. The data comes from a recent paper by Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman that attempts to account for all federal, state, and local taxes paid by different groups of Americans over the last 100 years.[2] The data shows that, between 1950 and 1959, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average of 42.0 percent of their income in federal, state, and local taxes. Since then, the average effective tax rate of the top 1 percent has declined slightly overall. In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average tax rate of 36.4 percent. All things considered, this is not a very large change. To put it another way, the average effective tax rate on the 1 percent highest-income households is about 5.6 percentage points lower today than it was in the 1950s. That’s a noticeable change, but not a radical shift.[3] How could it be that the tax code of the 1950s had a top marginal tax rate of 91 percent, but resulted in an effective tax rate of only 42 percent on the wealthiest taxpayers? In fact, the situation is even stranger. The 42.0 percent tax rate on the top 1 percent takes into account all taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. When we look at income taxes specifically, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective rate of only 16.9 percent in income taxes during the 1950s.[4] There are a few reasons for the discrepancy between the 91 percent top marginal income tax rate and the 16.9 percent effective income tax rate of the 1950s. The 91 percent bracket of 1950 only applied to households with income over $200,000 (or about $2 million in today’s dollars). Only a small number of taxpayers would have had enough income to fall into the top bracket – fewer than 10,000 households, according to an article in The Wall Street Journal. Many households in the top 1 percent in the 1950s probably did not fall into the 91 percent bracket to begin with. Even among households that did fall into the 91 percent bracket, the majority of their income was not necessarily subject to that top bracket. After all, the 91 percent bracket only applied to income above $200,000, not to every single dollar earned by households. Finally, it is very likely that the existence of a 91 percent bracket led to significant tax avoidance and lower reported income. There are many studies that show that, as marginal tax rates rise, income reported by taxpayers goes down. As a result, the existence of the 91 percent bracket did not necessarily lead to significantly higher revenue collections from the top 1 percent. All in all, the idea that high-income Americans in the 1950s paid much more of their income in taxes should be abandoned. The top 1 percent of Americans today do not face an unusually low tax burden, by historical standards. Source: https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/
  7. LOL are you sure? In 1960, the top 1% of households earned 9% of all income, and paid 13% of all taxes. (In 2008, the top 1% earned 20% of all income, and paid 38% of all taxes.) Source: https://taxfoundation.org/some-historical-tax-stats/ In 2015, the top 1% of households earned 20.65% of all income, and paid 39% of all taxes. Source: https://taxfoundation.org/summary-federal-income-tax-data-2017/
  8. this

    Tax reform

    Again, not sure if this is how it works on a large scale but even if it did, what's wrong with keeping better employees offering them what they deserve and losing the ones that can't cut it?
  9. this

    Tax reform

    I'm sorry this life isn't working out for you because you can't save, sacrifice, take risks, work harder/smarter. Better luck next time.
  10. this

    Tax reform

    Or, the ones that are working get a demotion to ZERO dollars/hour and the new ones get a raise proportionately in the same amount so that these statistics can work. I mean you can make the Math work that way, but here back on Earth once the new workers show up and share how much they make compared to the existent ones(which happens all the time) the old ones are going to start looking if they're treated like that. And the business owner will struggle with hiring newer employees, at an even higher wage and then bear the cost of training new employees as well as the cost of putting out ads to find them. Not feasible.
  11. this

    Tax reform

    lulz its obvious that you've never ran a business. I currently own restaurants and can tell you that people at the bottom like the ones making $25K are the most fluid and prone to leaving if offered a fifty cent/hour increase elsewhere. With unemployment hovering at around 3.9% it becomes imperative to keep them around in exchange for higher wages or match the wages of competing business if that's the reason they're leaving. Your theories work well on a message board, they're utterly impractical in the real world. lulz.
  12. this

    Tax reform

    How about this one: US. workers saw their annual wages and benefits rise in the second quarter at the fastest pace in nearly a decade, a sign that the low unemployment rate is forcing employers to raise pay to attract and keep workers. Pay and benefits for all U.S. workers increased 2.8 percent in the April-June quarter from a year earlier, the most since the third quarter of 2008. Total compensation for private industry workers — which excludes state and local employees — rose 2.9 percent, the best since the second quarter of 2008. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-wage-growth-20180731-story.html
  13. You're the one with the coolstorybro, I was responding to another poster's claim that Apple doesn't pay any taxes. Even with 50% of "Ireland ownership" the company bought out will pay US taxes on US profits. No way to dodge them. You have no understanding of our tax structure you 9 to 5er, and you're mad that your wage is stagnated. You learn nothing new, you get paid for nothing new. Just so that you dumbasses are clear, in 2015(the latest tax foundation data that I can find) Apple paid nearly HALF as much in income taxes as the bottom 50% of this country. So the bottom half needs to STFU about fair share or pony up cash.
  14. LOL, nice duck. Go fuck yourself with your commie brethren and its the other way around you plebian, you eat the corn out of my shit.
  15. Jesus Christ, this thread is a light for all the commie-wing moths. How many times does it have to be pointed out to you all that we don't want the Nordic and German model? Point me in the direction that wealth disparity is the source of many of the problems we face? Other than your envy I mean.
  16. This is what the article says: Apple set up some Irish subsidiaries a mere four years after it was founded. Foreign sales, which account for 60% of Apple’s profits, are routed through these Irish subsidiaries and taxed nowhere. How is this possible, when the intellectual property that supports the value of Apple’s products is in the United States? Like I indicated earlier, they only refrain from paying income taxes on income/EBITDA generated in foreign countries and that too when kept in foreign countries.
  17. That's factually incorrect. I did post their 10-Ks, they paid plenty in taxes. Please quote the entire article with source link so I could talk about it intelligently.
  18. Think we are on the same page on individual taxes, I didn't word it correctly, my apologies. Apple was using a tax shelter to avoid paying taxes in Europe. Not in the US. Its just an inaccurate argument that Apple(and other corporations) do not pay any or fair share of their taxes.
  19. Because your source is wikipedia or vox.com or some such. Here's what IRS says: If you are a U.S. citizen or a resident alien of the United States and you live abroad, you are taxed on your worldwide income. However, you may qualify to exclude from income up to an amount of your foreign earnings that is adjusted annually for inflation ($92,900 for 2011, $95,100 for 2012, $97,600 for 2013, $99,200 for 2014 and $100,800 for 2015). In addition, you can exclude or deduct certain foreign housing amounts. You may also be entitled to exclude from income the value of meals and lodging provided to you by your employer. Refer to Exclusion of Meals and Lodging in Publication 54, Tax Guide for U.S. Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad, and Publication 15-B, Employer's Tax Guide to Fringe Benefits for more information. Source: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/foreign-earned-income-exclusion More importantly, you take your ridiculous uninformed statement on Apple back?
  20. Oh boy, you are now just regurgitating what you heard at Bernie rallies. Apple paid nearly $15.6 billion in 2017, $15.9 billion in 2016 and $19 billion in 2015 in the form of corporate income tax with effective tax rates of 24.6%, 25.6% and 26.4%. Source: http://investor.apple.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=320193-17-70&CIK=320193#A10-K20179302017_HTM_S63EA20E94A5151458E162BF17BAE3A6F What they didn't pay is the income tax on income they earned OUTSIDE the US. They don't have to unless they choose to bring their money to the US. You can keep your earned income outside the US overseas and you can also avoid paying income taxes on them. Heck, you can even bring the first hundred thousand back and take a deduction for the amount of taxes you paid overseas. After paying that corporate income tax, Apple then distributes it amongst the shareholders who pay taxes on those dividends AGAIN. Apple and their shareholders are more than paying their fair share, the bottom 50% of this country however isn't. Not saying, we should tax the bottom 50% but they should STFU because they pay next to nothing and are subsidized by the ones who do.
  21. And that surplus value goes to the risk takers, the owners, the investors. Not the 9 to 5 clock punchers who want to run home to their bud light as soon as it hits 5.
  22. You disproved nothing, you barely have a point to make. What you tried to do is, hey look over there, there are a few CEOs who got compensated despite creating little to no value so that means the entire point where one gets compensated based on value is invalid. Nuh uh, because hey look over there, there are millions of small business owners, founders of companies who prove exactly the opposite.
×
×
  • Create New...