It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can anyone debunk this Liberal claim thank you ?

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by neo96
 


Yeah and the Bush tax cuts totally got the economy booming....I mean there were so many jobs created by those job creators that it made my head spin.
edit on 23-9-2011 by TupacShakur because: TO edit my post


The GOP loves to ignore this fact entirely. Jobs have steadily declined right along with the tax cuts. There is no class warfare at work. It's about every American paying the same rate. The current system is nothing more than an exploit. It only creates jobs abroad. We all know that though.




posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
I don't think it is just the GOP, it's both sides. Yes, repubs do favor tax cuts, but it seems they all serve the same master.over the last 6 years we went from a republican controlled house and senate, to a democrat held house and senate to a divided house and senate, as well as switching from a republican president to a democrat. The only thing that seems to have changed is we went from bad to worse. And soon to worser.
I know, not a real word.
As far as keynsian vs classic, I'm going to look that up. I just went back to school after working for the last 16 years. Found myself unemployed and unable to draw unemployment benefits. So back to school I go for a degree. Since I am taking accounting classes, it would probably benefit me to know the two.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Higher taxes doesn't do crap, all it does is pass the cost on to us. The Big Corporations just avoid taxes through our loop-hole system we have now. Fix that first and start getting them to actually pay their taxes then we'll talk about rising them or lowering them.
edit on 9/23/2011 by Mcupobob because: OMFreakingG, I added them



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by mikejohnson2006
 


Thom Hartman is a progressive moron, although to say progressive moron is redundant because progressive is synonymous with moron, but I digress.

Reagan proved beyond any doubt that he is wrong. Our economy as it currently is and the current unemployment rate is proof that he is wrong. Do you actually think that pressing businesses for even more money will create jobs? If so then then why don't we all pay 100% tax? Look at history. look at what Calvin Coolidge did to that brought America out of what was arguably an even worse depression than the "Great" depression and into the Roaring 20's. I know that was a long time ago, but the laws of economics don't care what year it is, they always work the same way.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
There is a HUGE contradiction in this liberal thinking. Do you want businesses to pay more taxes or not? Based on this article businesses don't pay more taxes, on the contrary they hide their wealth in the business, and actually keep more money. So they aren't really paying their fair share now are they? Techniqually, it's like saying we need to increase taxes on businesses so they will pay less taxes.......What? So technically you agree with a conservitive mindset that states:" when you allow people to keep more of their money they tend to grow." we just disagree on how about making people keep more of their money. Conservitives believe people keep more money when taxes are low, you believe people keep more money when taxes are high. OK. At least we can all agree that we should keep more money, and the government should have less.
edit on 23-9-2011 by Snorkelbacon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snorkelbacon
There is a HUGE contradiction in this liberal thinking. Do you want businesses to pay more taxes or not? Based on this article businesses don't pay more taxes, on the contrary they hide their wealth in the business, and actually keep more money. So they aren't really paying their fair share now are they? Techniqually, it's like saying we need to increase taxes on businesses so they will pay less taxes.......What? So technically you agree with a conservitive mindset that states:" when you allow people to keep more of their money they tend to grow." we just disagree on how about making people keep more of their money. Conservitives believe people keep more money when taxes are low, you believe people keep more money when taxes are high. OK. At least we can all agree that we should keep more money, and the government should have less.
edit on 23-9-2011 by Snorkelbacon because: (no reason given)


All of you in your conservative way of thinking are missing an even more basic point.
Taxation rate and tax liability are not the same things... People form corporations, in part
to gain access to the applicable tax code. A business owner will be more apt to reinvest money
back into the business, as opposed to "paying himself" and get taxed at a higher rate, getting
nothing in return, but tax receipt.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta

Higher taxes do create jobs if the owner decides to reinvested profits back into the business as opposed to paying themselves into a higher tax bracket.


Reinvest how? Why would you grow a business if there is no additional market for its goods or services? You are assuming there is. Businesses grow out of demand. No demand, no growth, no matter how much you 'reinvest' in it.



You have such simplified concept that it does not even begin to examine all the possibility found in the Tax Code. Why would I pay myself a million dollars and get taxed on that money, when that same million can be used to increase my output and the networth of my business several fold?


That's just ridiculous. That money is just going to sit there looking pretty? The only tax savings would be 7.6% (employment tax) if you take it out through distributions rather than through payroll. Uncle sam gets his pound of flesh either way.


I know one thing

There aren't any millionaires on this thread


I bet you'd be surprised.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snorkelbacon
There is a HUGE contradiction in this liberal thinking.


"Liberal thinking" - isn't that an oxymoron?



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Howakan
 


That gets into a Keynesian philosophy of perpetual growth. The West has seen, in it's own way, perpetual growth since the 1940's .. eventual the mechanics of the system will get so large, so spread over such a vast array of areas, that the system implodes. Which it has. Banking fell first because they used their excess cash to buy everything under the sun, and other corporations expanded on a mass sum of credit ... better to spend and expand than to sit idle and be taxed.

"To big to fail" comes to mind. It's like a law of nature, economics.. you can manipulate corporations to expand but eventually you will violate a principle rule and the system will crash.


Perpetual growth is fueled by the constant creation of debt (or as some like to call it, "wealth") through fractional reserve banking. All this money is created out of thin air, backed by debt, not by tangible assets that have intrinsic value - like gold. It is a ponzi scheme in the purest definition of the term, except it is being perpetrated by those in charge, which makes it "legal" because they say so.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Reinvest how? Why would you grow a business if there is no additional market for its goods or services? You are assuming there is. Businesses grow out of demand. No demand, no growth, no matter how much you 'reinvest' in it.


You are conflating the question at hand, either you keep the money in your entities
or take it out as additional personal income and get taxed accordingly. It would be a great time to start a C
corp and service your other business's, you would get massive tax advantage, you could write of many
of your personal expenses and you can bill your original entity at a premium. Then you can turn around and
write off your bills from your C corp.





That's just ridiculous. That money is just going to sit there looking pretty? The only tax savings would be 7.6% (employment tax) if you take it out through distributions rather than through payroll. Uncle sam gets his pound of flesh either way.


Uncle Sam gets a pound of your flesh because you are stubborn and you appear to believe in crap.
The tax code is 60,000 pages, if you think there is only 1 deduction to be had, you might as well
cut your flesh out and hand it over yourself.



I bet you'd be surprised.


I would have a heart attack and die, thinking like a peon only gets you wet



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM


Liberals would like to see millionaires left with about $15,000 of income a year, after taxes - like all the poor, poor souls who have crappy jobs because they preferred to blaze a bowl with their loser buddies behind the gym rather than attend class.


Do you really think this? Do you have any idea how the tax system worked before Reagan began the end of the middle class?

This nation has way too many idiots.

God help us all.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeleneLux

Originally posted by AwakeinNM


Liberals would like to see millionaires left with about $15,000 of income a year, after taxes - like all the poor, poor souls who have crappy jobs because they preferred to blaze a bowl with their loser buddies behind the gym rather than attend class.


Do you really think this? Do you have any idea how the tax system worked before Reagan began the end of the middle class?

This nation has way too many idiots.

God help us all.


Another idiot blaming a Republican for the world's problems. Bravo. Good contribution.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by Howakan
I own a subchapter s corporation and incorporated only to shield myself from liability. There is zero tax benefit for me because I incorporated. But there would be major risk to me, my home, my savings if I didnt.

My tax rate is "exactly" the same, whether incorporated or not. It is exactly the same whether I keep the money or leave it in the company. Doesnt matter. And C corps are taxed at an even higher rate.



You need a better accountant than...


Yes..... a S-Corp offers some pretty good tax savings over a Schedule C business. You would realize some tax savings. I think you are realizing those tax savings now, maybe you just don't see it. You pay yourself a reasonable salary and the rest of your profit you don't pay FICA and Social Security taxes on, that's where the tax savings are realized. You didn't have to become a S-Corp for the Liability, a LLC would have worked much the same for you, though with a trucking biz the more protection you have the better.
edit on 23-9-2011 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikejohnson2006
Can anyone debunk this Liberal claim thank you the Person is saying higher Income Tax creates a Incentive to create Jobs ?

Thom Hartmann: But it seemed, just common sense. I remember back in the ‘80s, I owned a business, International Wholesale Travel in Atlanta, Georgia. That business has, since we sold it done over 200 billion dollars in business.


200 Billion seems MIGHTY steep. He would have been a fool to sell such a biz. He must have meant Million.

Not that wiki is a great source, but there seems be a big discrepancy here:

Hartmann founded International Wholesale Travel and its retail subsidiary Sprayberry Travel in Atlanta in 1983, a business which in the intervening years[clarification needed] has generated over a quarter of a billion dollars in revenue



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Howakan

One of my bibles has been the E Myth, which basically splits owners into 3 groups.....managers, technicians and entrepreneurs. It encourages you to "realize" what you are and hire what you arent. I got myself as an Entrepreneur/technician, so I have work hard on the administrative aspect. Dont misunderstand, Ive always done very well for myself and family, but hey, if I can keep more in my pocket, then thats what I wanna do.


Very good book.... I recommend it to all my associates that go into business for themselves. Of course, only about 2% of them every read it........ Then they wonder why they struggle so much.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


On the contrary, Perpetual Growth is not created by any thing, because it's impossible.

Thus the flaws of Keynesian Economics.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


Way to lump them in one category. And its great your calling everyone else a drug user too. So I guess everyone who doesn't subscribe to your way of life is some junkie creep? I guess if you don't have any money then you aren't smart enough huh? Thats bull. You can lean to the left or the right if you want, thats your deal. Go kick around in your little politics games like it has some kind of real meaning, lol. All this crap is doing is separating people who think they play for a team. Money and greed ruined this country, and this class warfare stuff is garbage.
edit on 24-9-2011 by JustinSee because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-9-2011 by JustinSee because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   
It has been shown time and time again, especially in large corporations, that increased cash surpluses equal bigger bonuses and higher salaries. Of course we need to tax the rich as well, whether they are business owners or not.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by narwahl

Originally posted by macman
As an increase in taxes, step to an increase in price of goods and services, thus stepping to an increase in price overall.


Not true for income taxes, and if the business is in the situation that it will sell less stuff if the stuff costs more. (And even monopolies are in that position).
Mr X sells 1 product a year, for 1000$. He gets taxed 20%. So he makes 800$
Taxes increase to 25%. He still wants to make 800$
So he increases the price to 1066$
But, now ask yourself, If you would buy the product at 1066 just as readily as at 1000... Why isn't Mr X demanding 1066$ to start with?
If I could sell it for 1066 just as easily as for 1000... I would, wouldn't you?


Pretty soon there will be nobody left to buy their garbage.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Wtf happened to ats? I leave for a bit and now it's heavily populated by pro billionaire, regressive tea partiers. Plants? Bots? People brain washed to the point of mental retardation? What gives? Seriously.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join