Spending Cuts, Not Tax Hikes, Best for Deficit: NABE

In a similiar move, the National Association of Burglars announced today that use of alarm systems is un-American.
 
We need both tax increases and budget cuts, but the cuts are the more important of the two. In the long run, we need tax reform, eliminating the loopholes and making increases where they will do the least harm, such as on high personal income levels rather than on capital gains and corporate income.
 
\(\(V\/V)/)/ said:
In a free market, don't consumers make alternate purchasing decisions when businesses charge more than the market will bear?


Many large US corporations pay little or no tax while they enjoy windfall profits and pay dividends and bonuses.


This practice is legal because they bribe... I mean...lobby Congress and sponsor Astroturfed organzations like NABE that help convince people like you that corporate tax avoidance is OK.


It's not.


If we simply closed the loopholes and cut off the corporate welfare - which a real conservative would support, IMO - this issue would be redressed.


How can you justify balancing the budget on the backs of the citizens when corporate citizens enjoy the benefits of freedom but evade paying the cost?
Click to expand...

You clearly should read my position on taxes.

1) I fully support ending all loopholes, deductions, subsidies.... though I also support eliminating the highly regressive corporate income tax

2) Corporate taxes are passed on to either the non-exec employees or to the consumer.... one of two, depending on what the market will bare. The taxes are NOT paid by the first two groups. A point so many liberals refuse to address because they have been brainwashed into the 'tax corporations more' line of thought. Think about it.... and answer it to yourself honestly (if you are open enough you can do so on the board).... which of those four groups are likely to be the ones stuck with the bill?

3) So how can YOU justify maintaining a corporate tax system that penalizes the low and middle income families?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Dude, I'm not saying wether I agree or disagree with their proposal but come one....like I said....tell me once when business economist have ever been for a tax hike? Just once!
Click to expand...

again... why WOULD they? They know that the corporate income tax is going to hit low and middle income consumers harder than the wealthy. They also know that low and middle income families SPEND a higher proportion of their incomes. So why in the hell would they support hurting those that buy their products/services the most?
 
motts completely full of shit, he can't recall anything previoulsy they've said. He's just whipping out his lefty talking points as usual.
 
Threedee said:
We need both tax increases and budget cuts, but the cuts are the more important of the two. In the long run, we need tax reform, eliminating the loopholes and making increases where they will do the least harm, such as on high personal income levels rather than on capital gains and corporate income.
Click to expand...

I disagree with a portion of the above. If you have a person who makes $500,000 in earned income and has no cap gains/divs and another who makes $15,000,000 in long term capital gains with no earned income... who should be taxed at the higher rate?
 
The Dude said:
motts completely full of shit, he can't recall anything previoulsy they've said. He's just whipping out his lefty talking points as usual.
Click to expand...

The thing of it is, he and every other liberal 'tax the corporations more' type REFUSE to answer the simple question I posed above. There are only four possible groups who will pay the corporate tax. Yet people like Mott refuse to answer who they think will get the bill because it would shatter the glass.
 
Poor SuperFreak.


Turning the USA into a tax haven is doubtless the goal of NABE and the Kochs. It ain't gonna happen. Ever. Can you name one major nation that has no corporate taxes?


Do you think your paid shill buddies at NABE will ever agree to close all loopholes, deductions, or subsidies?


You seem to have very little faith in the free market. If prices go too high due to taxation of businesses, people will stop buying. Those businesses will close, or the tax rate will be adjusted downward.
 
Superfreak said:
I disagree with a portion of the above. If you have a person who makes $500,000 in earned income and has no cap gains/divs and another who makes $15,000,000 in long term capital gains with no earned income... who should be taxed at the higher rate?
Click to expand...

While it sucks for the guy making $500k, I say that this is where you have to draw the line. For one thing, the guy is shooting himself in the foot by NOT taking advantage of the market. If he's smart enough to draw that kind of salary, he's smart enough to invest some of it. The whole concept of productive wealth is largely centered around what you derive from capital gains.

The other guy was either born rich, or retired from his career to sit on the market. Nothing we can do about either. One day, for example, our own Toppy will retire from his day job of speculation (I believe it is) and just live off of his capital gains (unless someone fucks this up for him).
 
Who gives a fuck about 3Dweebs opinion?


He's been on the federal tit his whole short life, hasn't he?
 
3dork
I'm hoping to do it just on dividends and not use any capital gains
granted it doesn't take much to keep a stoner cajun happy
 
Threedee said:
While it sucks for the guy making $500k, I say that this is where you have to draw the line. For one thing, the guy is shooting himself in the foot by NOT taking advantage of the market. If he's smart enough to draw that kind of salary, he's smart enough to invest some of it. The whole concept of productive wealth is largely centered around what you derive from capital gains.

The other guy was either born rich, or retired from his career to sit on the market. Nothing we can do about either. One day, for example, our own Toppy will retire from his day job of speculation (I believe it is) and just live off of his capital gains (unless someone fucks this up for him).
Click to expand...

bottom line is that ALL income should be taxed at the SAME rate. Unless you can explain to me why someone should get a break simply because of the TYPE of income?
 
Imagine that...Republicans want to raise taxes, and that's OK with SuperFreaky?
 
News flash: Congressional Republicans want to raise your taxes.​
Impossible, right? GOP lawmakers are so virulently anti-tax, surely they will fight to prevent a payroll tax increase on virtually every wage-earner starting Jan. 1, right?​
Apparently not.​
Many of the same Republicans who fought hammer-and-tong to keep the George W. Bush-era income tax cuts from expiring on schedule are now saying a different “temporary” tax cut should end as planned. By their own definition, that amounts to a tax increase.​
The tax break extension they oppose is sought by President Barack Obama. Unlike proposed changes in the income tax, this policy helps the 46 percent of all Americans who owe no federal income taxes but who pay a “payroll tax” on practically every dime they earn.​
There are other differences as well, and Republicans say their stand is consistent with their goal of long-term tax policies that will spur employment and lend greater certainty to the economy.​
“It’s always a net positive to let taxpayers keep more of what they earn,” says Rep. Jeb Hensarling, “but not all tax relief is created equal for the purposes of helping to get the economy moving again.”



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...yroll-tax-cut/2011/03/03/gIQApBRUWJ_blog.html
​
 
The U.S. does not have a problem financing its debt at this time. Even after the S&P downgrade, the U.S. Treasury can sell its bonds at extremely low rates of interest. U.S. Treasury bonds are still considered to be the safest investment in the world.

The U.S. might have a problem financing its debt 10 or 20 years from now if revenues as a % of GDP don’t improve and/or Congress doesn’t make some minor adjustments in taxes, discretionary spending and spending on entitlement programs.

The steps necessary to bring the deficit to a level that the country could manage indefinitely are well known, not drastic, can be phased in over a decade or more, and need not cause significant hardships for the American people.



http://www.theattackdemocrat.com/2011/08/truth-about-ten-common-republican-myths.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top