Obama could win my vote...

[Cancel 2016.2]

SF's error is to buy into the left's 1/99% argument. I admit, it is easy to do, in the name of trying to remain moderately above the fray, but the entire narrative is rooted in Marxist Socialism. This is exactly how we ended up with the Pill Bill, and some might argue to an extent, what ushered in Obamacare. It starts out with the most harmless platitude, which appeals to emotion... Poor old people can't afford their medicine... repeated a million times with a million unrealistic scenarios, all tugging at our heartstrings until we just can't take it anymore, and we go along with the premise.... once that happens, the floodgates of liberal socialist government opens wide, to "fix" the problem by raising taxes, expanding government's intrusion in our lives, and running up debt. All they have to do is convince the SF's of the world, and they know this. They also know how easy it is to do. All they had to do here was continue repeating the OWS mantra, it took less than 6 months for SF to 'come around' and now he's ready to go along with this seemingly harmless idea of eliminating our tax deductions.

So to the ditzies of the world... LOWERING the top marginal rate = RAISING taxes.

Now, if you had a crazy uncle who thumped you in the head every time he saw you, you'd think over time, you'd learn to expect it... SF is oblivious. He is simply too shallow and self-absorbed to listen to me, or anyone else, for that matter. In his head, he is being objective and sophisticated, and people like me are just moronic idiots who don't know what they are talking about, and incapable of comprehending his superior level of intellect on the subject. Whenever you hear liberal talking heads speaking of eliminating "deductions and loopholes" it means they want to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction and the tax protections for your 401k assets. This might effect the Trump's and Gates' of the world, but it will also effect most middle-class American families who own homes and have 401ks.

Seriously, you are a fucking idiot. The loopholes/deductions that would be eliminated in the OP are CORPORATE loopholes and deductions. It is the details that you always miss in your ramblings. THAT is why I think you are a 'just a moronic idiot who doesn't know what he is talking about'.

Moron.

Liberals have been eyeballing our 401k assets since we created 401ks. There are billions in taxes which could be collected on our 401k accounts, they just need to convince enough SF's of the world to accept the argument and go along with "eliminating deductions and loopholes."

So you think they want to be that shortsighted that they would tax the 401k assets now and take away that future revenue stream? That would truly be moronic on their part. Do link us to where that is currently being proposed or discussed or wherever you are getting this idea from.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I would personally actually make the rate lower. The corporate tax rate is the most internationally competitive tax, unfortunately. Corporate assets are highly liquid, and they just move them wherever possible in order to avoid paying taxes. Of course, lowering the American tax too far could just prompt a tax war that will ultimately leave corporations pretty much everywhere not paying taxes while individuals pick up the tab.

1) Corporate tax rates should be eliminated completely. They are highly regressive.

2) Tell us, who do YOU think pays the corporate tax? There are four potential parties that could

a) Board of directors/executives from their salaries/benefits
b) Stockholders: reductions to profits/cap gains
c) Average employee: from salaries/benefits
d) Consumer: in higher costs of product/service

Which of the above do you think that corporate tax gets taken from?

 

[cawacko]

Obviously the devil is in the details but Reagan's tax reform act of 1986 included lowering the top individual marginal rate and eliminating many loopholes/deductions. For me it is a matter of thinking about the amount of productivity time that is lost when companies (or individuals) try to comply with the 70,000 page tax code we have. Anything to make it easier to navigate and more efficient is a good thing. That is what we need to strive for. Not additional tax breaks for this group here and that group there that just add more complexity.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Obviously the devil is in the details but Reagan's tax reform act of 1986 included lowering the top individual marginal rate and eliminating many loopholes/deductions. For me it is a matter of thinking about the amount of productivity time that is lost when companies (or individuals) try to comply with the 70,000 page tax code we have. Anything to make it easier to navigate and more efficient is a good thing. That is what we need to strive for. Not additional tax breaks for this group here and that group there that just add more complexity.

Especially given HOW corps are taxed. Right now a corp hits 35% at roughly 100k in taxable income.

Lowering the top marginal rate from 35% to 25% would greatly benefit small and mid size firms. Those are the ones that typically lead job creation AND they are the ones that typically can't either hire the lobbyists to get special deductions or dedicate accountants to tear through 70k pages of tax code to see which apply to them.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

ROFLMAO... you are proud of the fact that the '1/3' thread has 'most posts'??? Well congrats! your thread has the most posts of people jumping on to mock your stupidity.

There is no stupidity, except on the part of those who fail to acknowledge when you divide one by three, there is a remainder. Yes, I am proud that I constructed such an argument over something so relatively simple, and it has continued to legendary status, and continues to illustrate who is truly a pinhead here. It's surely my greatest hit!

Refute what points ditzie? You proclaimed you 'knew' what Obama 'meant'. You made no point.

While this may be the case for some deductions and loopholes, it is not valid for the majority. The majority of the loopholes and deductions were written as favors to those who bribed/lobbied their politicians. Others may have made sense at one time, but are ridiculous today as they are outdated. 70k pages of tax code ditzie. 70,000.

Obama doesn't "mean" anything, he is merely delivering the rhetoric in eloquent fashion from the bully pulpit. Liberals, when talking about the "need to eliminate all the deductions and loopholes" are talking about your mortgage interest deduction, and protection from taxation on 401k contributions, rendering them taxable income and assets. They can package this will all kinds of lies about how it targets corporations, or greedy mean capitalists who are exploiting the system by using special tax breaks only they can get because they bought off the right politician... they play on your idiotic paranoia that all big capitalism and politicians are corrupt and in bed together. All they need from you, is acceptance of the premise we need to eliminate "deductions and loopholes" ...then we'll have Nancy telling us we have to pass it so we can read exactly what it means.

Again dearest little ditzie... this isn't about 'punishing' anyone. READ what was written. They will DROP the top marginal rate and eliminate some of the corporate loopholes/deductions. They are doing EXACTLY what a conservative should want. Lowering the top marginal rate can help ALL businesses. While eliminating loopholes and deductions that are no longer necessary only effects those companies who no longer need them.

Like I said, if we want to appoint a bipartisan committee to look at the various tax deductions on an individual basis, and have reasoned debate over whether they are needed or necessary, with the objective and goal of trimming waste and redundancy, or streamlining the code, or getting rid of some provision that unfairly tilts the tables... I can go along with that. And I am always for reducing corporate tax rates... hell, I think we should eliminate them entirely! But reducing the rate slightly, while eliminating all the deductions, incentives, and credits, is not going to play in the favor of most corporations or small businesses. Furthermore, you have sacrificed the point of the argument to the left, and the next phase will be to eliminate your mortgage interest deduction and steal your 401k. That's coming, because that is the purpose of the rhetorical line about "deductions and loopholes" ...it's what they mean.

We saw the same exact thing unfold with the Pill Bill. Bush and moderates went along with the notion that health care costs and conditions were so horrible in America, especially on the elderly..... so they accept the premise of failed health care and grant the Pill Bill... next thing you know, we have the massive takeover of healthcare in Obamacare... they surrendered their position in the argument with the Pill Bill. By accepting their premise behind the rhetoric, you open the door to the underlying agenda and objective. For whatever reason, you are too stupid to realize this.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

1) There is nothing to 'buy' until an actual proposal showing what deductions and loopholes will be eliminated.

2) The CONCEPT however, is something every conservative should support. Yes, it should raise revenues. You see, we actually have to PAY for what we use... unless you are the sort that thinks we should just pass the bill on to future generations???

3) ALL income SHOULD be taxed at the same rate. Period.

so basically, you've said Obama's proposal would make you vote for him and you haven't even looked at it all yet?.......is that a Pelosi "vote for it before you get to look at it" proposal?.......


I agree we need to pay for what we use.....however, I think the first step is cutting "what we use" to the bare bones necessities first.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

So to the ditzies of the world... LOWERING the top marginal rate = RAISING taxes.

if that's the case, what is "tripling the tax on dividends"?........

 

[PostmodernProphet]

1) Corporate tax rates should be eliminated completely.

now THAT would be a wise move......if a presidential candidate proposed that I would be inclined to vote for him.....

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Obama doesn't "mean" anything, he is merely delivering the rhetoric in eloquent fashion from the bully pulpit. Liberals, when talking about the "need to eliminate all the deductions and loopholes" are talking about your mortgage interest deduction, and protection from taxation on 401k contributions, rendering them taxable income and assets.

You moron... they are talking about eliminating CORPORATE loopholes and deductions. NOT PERSONAL. You fucking retard.

They can package this will all kinds of lies about how it targets corporations, or greedy mean capitalists who are exploiting the system by using special tax breaks only they can get because they bought off the right politician... they play on your idiotic paranoia that all big capitalism and politicians are corrupt and in bed together.

What the fuck are you rambling about ditzie? You are simply spouting off nonsense in the hopes that it will distract attention from the FACT that you have NO idea what you are talking about. Instead, it simply highlights the fact that you are an idiot.

All they need from you, is acceptance of the premise we need to eliminate "deductions and loopholes" ...then we'll have Nancy telling us we have to pass it so we can read exactly what it means.

all you are doing is spouting off fear mongering talking points. It is the idiocy of people like you that gets in the way of getting things done. You are exactly the type of brainwashed partisan parrot that the two parties love. They don't care whose parrot you are, they just care that you are a parrot who doesn't think for himself.

Like I said, if we want to appoint a bipartisan committee to look at the various tax deductions on an individual basis, and have reasoned debate over whether they are needed or necessary, with the objective and goal of trimming waste and redundancy, or streamlining the code, or getting rid of some provision that unfairly tilts the tables... I can go along with that. And I am always for reducing corporate tax rates... hell, I think we should eliminate them entirely! But reducing the rate slightly, while eliminating all the deductions, incentives, and credits, is not going to play in the favor of most corporations or small businesses. Furthermore, you have sacrificed the point of the argument to the left, and the next phase will be to eliminate your mortgage interest deduction and steal your 401k. That's coming, because that is the purpose of the rhetorical line about "deductions and loopholes" ...it's what they mean.

Reducing the rate 'slightly'??? Taking it from 35% to 25% would be huge for most businesses ditzie.

"Sacrificed the point of the argument to the left"... and there is the crux of it. AS I STATED earlier... you are just PISSED that it was Obama that put this out there.

We saw the same exact thing unfold with the Pill Bill. Bush and moderates went along with the notion that health care costs and conditions were so horrible in America, especially on the elderly..... so they accept the premise of failed health care and grant the Pill Bill... next thing you know, we have the massive takeover of healthcare in Obamacare... they surrendered their position in the argument with the Pill Bill. By accepting their premise behind the rhetoric, you open the door to the underlying agenda and objective. For whatever reason, you are too stupid to realize this.

The two are in no way the same ditzie. One accomplishes a CONSERVATIVE goal... simplification of the tax code, lower corporate taxes. The other accomplishes a LIBERAL goal... more federal dependency programs.

 

[Bonestorm]

1) Corporate tax rates should be eliminated completely. They are highly regressive.

2) Tell us, who do YOU think pays the corporate tax? There are four potential parties that could

a) Board of directors/executives from their salaries/benefits
b) Stockholders: reductions to profits/cap gains
c) Average employee: from salaries/benefits
d) Consumer: in higher costs of product/service

Which of the above do you think that corporate tax gets taken from?

The incidence of the corporate income tax is hotly debated. The correct answer is hardly clear notwithstanding numerous attempts to pin it down, but the general view is that capital bears the burden of corporate taxation.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The incidence of the corporate income tax is hotly debated. The correct answer is hardly clear notwithstanding numerous attempts to pin it down, but the general view is that capital bears the burden of corporate taxation.

yes, it is heavily debated among economists. But think about it intuitively. Where are they going to push as much of the liability to as they can?

I find it incredibly naive that all these people that proclaim corporations are 'greedy/in it for themselves/corrupt/etc..' suddenly feel that the corps are going to stick their shareholders with the tax burden if other avenues are available.

 

[Bonestorm]

yes, it is heavily debated among economists. But think about it intuitively. Where are they going to push as much of the liability to as they can?

I find it incredibly naive that all these people that proclaim corporations are 'greedy/in it for themselves/corrupt/etc..' suddenly feel that the corps are going to stick their shareholders with the tax burden if other avenues are available.

Thinking about it intuitively doesn't do any good. If it were simply a matter of intuition, it wouldn't be the subject of intense debate.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Thinking about it intuitively doesn't do any good. If it were simply a matter of intuition, it wouldn't be the subject of intense debate.

good lord... it isn't that hard dung. Again, I think you pick fights just for the sake of picking them. If you are a business exec... what order would you rank those four groups into where you would push the cost of taxation?

 

[Bonestorm]

good lord... it isn't that hard dung. Again, I think you pick fights just for the sake of picking them. If you are a business exec... what order would you rank those four groups into where you would push the cost of taxation?

If I could, I would push it to capital as it is most able to absorb it.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You moron... they are talking about eliminating CORPORATE loopholes and deductions. NOT PERSONAL. You fucking retard.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.... and they were only talking about helping out the elderly with the cost of prescription meds! NOT a complete and total government takeover of health care! This is dejavu all over again, fucking retard! It's not about whether this is corporate or personal! It is about the premise of the argument. A corporation is PEOPLE! INDIVIDUALS! IF they are successful at implementing such policies for corporations, they are one legislative step from implementing the same on everyone, the case has been made and the premise of the argument conceded, which is all the Liberals are after. Tell me SF, do you like to turn around and wink at them while they're fucking you in the ass?

What the fuck are you rambling about ditzie? You are simply spouting off nonsense in the hopes that it will distract attention from the FACT that you have NO idea what you are talking about. Instead, it simply highlights the fact that you are an idiot.

Whatever. The liberals are playing you like a Stradivarius.

all you are doing is spouting off fear mongering talking points. It is the idiocy of people like you that gets in the way of getting things done. You are exactly the type of brainwashed partisan parrot that the two parties love. They don't care whose parrot you are, they just care that you are a parrot who doesn't think for himself.

We heard the exact same thing from moderates when opposing the Pill Bill and TARP. I don't want Socialist Marxist Liberals "getting things done!" I don't know any better way to put that, and I don't understand why you can't comprehend how they are snookering you. The whole entire purpose of the rhetoric, is so they can ultimately get rid of mortgage interest deductions, and tax your 401k earnings. I don't care if you don't believe that, I don't care if you think I am being alarmist, and I don't care if you apparently have amnesia and don't realize what the left is up to with this.

Reducing the rate 'slightly'??? Taking it from 35% to 25% would be huge for most businesses ditzie.

It might be for some, but at what price? We are going to give up all corporate and personal income tax deductions... that is ultimately what is planned, no matter how much you say it ain't so, SF. Now, if we calculate what that will mean to millions of average Americans, as well as corporations and small business, it is simply not acceptable. The average amount of deductions is more than 10% in most cases.

"Sacrificed the point of the argument to the left"... and there is the crux of it. AS I STATED earlier... you are just PISSED that it was Obama that put this out there.

No, I am pissed that someone who I know is clearly not a liberal socialist, is going along with one because he believes the rhetoric. It's minds like yours which make it understandable to me how Europeans continue to find themselves in the grips of socialist tyrants. All they have to do is play on your emotions. Here, they have played on your vulnerable mistrust of the government and crony capitalists... you've swallowed a gulp of the koolaid, and now here you are, proclaiming to the rest of us conservatives, that it ain't so bad!

The two are in no way the same ditzie. One accomplishes a CONSERVATIVE goal... simplification of the tax code, lower corporate taxes. The other accomplishes a LIBERAL goal... more federal dependency programs.

No, the Pill Bill was the product of "Compassionate Conservatism" ...back when the moderate wing thought it would be a great idea to compromise just a little... show the left that we are willing to work together... go along to get along... reach across the aisle... it was a conservative response to the "health care crisis" generated by the left. Once we compromised our principles and accepted the argument that our health care system was failing, that was IT! We ended up with Obamacare! The only difference here is the size of the carrot they are dangling... you see that 25% tax rate for corporations, and that sounds real conservative... but the devil would be in the details of what you are giving up, most importantly the entire premise of the argument the left has been making. They will exploit that.

 

[cawacko]

Dixie, taking political parties out of the picture what would you like to see done to the corporate tax rate? Eliminate it is an option but for the sake of argument let's say it is not. If you couldn't eliminate it would you leave it as is or what changes would you make?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

If I could, I would push it to capital as it is most able to absorb it.

Then you would make a horrible executive.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Dixie, taking political parties out of the picture what would you like to see done to the corporate tax rate? Eliminate it is an option but for the sake of argument let's say it is not. If you couldn't eliminate it would you leave it as is or what changes would you make?

The sad part is, the retard already answered this. He said he was all for eliminating the loopholes and deductions that were no longer necessary. He already stated he would lower the corporate tax rate (elimination being his preference). But because Obama said this... he is injecting one doomsday scenario after another of what this all really 'means'. He is a partisan hack. He will ignore that this suggestion does EXACTLY what he would do, but since a Dem said it... he goes off on his insane tantrums.

 

[Bonestorm]

Then you would make a horrible executive.

Thank you.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The sad part is, the retard already answered this. He said he was all for eliminating the loopholes and deductions that were no longer necessary. He already stated he would lower the corporate tax rate (elimination being his preference). But because Obama said this... he is injecting one doomsday scenario after another of what this all really 'means'. He is a partisan hack. He will ignore that this suggestion does EXACTLY what he would do, but since a Dem said it... he goes off on his insane tantrums.

It has nothing to do with Obama, I don't generally trust anything I hear coming from a Marxist Socialist, especially when it seems to be exactly what I want to hear. You see, I am a little suspicious about it, because most of the time, Marxist Socialists will lie and mislead in order to obtain the political power to implement their policies. With this particular line of rhetoric, we've been hearing about the evil "deductions and loopholes" for the past few years, and the emotive platitudes have finally swayed you, as the liberals knew they would. They just needed to frame it around corporations, because in your tainted mind, corporations are not people at all, they are lifeless greedy emotionless entities which gobble up all our resources and wealth and leave nothing for the little guy. So you can see the Marxist Socialist argument when it comes to corporations, and you figure it's worth going along with them on this because of that. What you fail to comprehend, is the Big Picture and what Marxist Socialists are really after, which is your mortgage interest deduction and 401k.