The Rich Get Richer

A much simpler solution would be to eliminate the income tax with all its fraud and loopholes, and adopt the FairTax. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

VAT but never going to happen

A much simpler solution would be to eliminate the income tax with all its fraud and loopholes, and adopt the FairTax. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

In an ideal world, something like that is what we'd have.

But in order for the FairTax to pay the bills, we'd also have to go back to pre-Great Society days, and we'd probably have to cut defense spending to its post-WWII low as a percentage of GDP.

In other words, we would have to cut federal spending by something like 40-50%.

Not a snowball's chance in hell that's going to happen.

Not a VAT - That would be a disaster. Abolish the IRS and the income tax and establish the FairTax. Of course it won't happen, it limits the power of Congress. Congress gets votes and power from class warfare.

And you are such an idiot. I pressed you for a percentage precisely because there isn't one. The problem is not with under-taxation, but with over spending. That's the point I tried, and failed, to get across to you. Even if you taxed everyone in Mitt Romney's range and above at 100%, the deficit would still be out of control, so your whining about his paying only 13% ignores the real problem. You want him to pay more to make it "fair". You want the appearance of doing something constructive, even though it would make no difference whatsoever. It will look good to bring those "rich bastards" down, even if it has no effect on the economy.

Typical liberal bullshit. You don't want fairness, you want revenge against those who have done better than you. That was my point. You made it for me.

In an ideal world, something like that is what we'd have.

But in order for the FairTax to pay the bills, we'd also have to go back to pre-Great Society days, and we'd probably have to cut defense spending to its post-WWII low as a percentage of GDP.

In other words, we would have to cut federal spending by something like 40-50%.

Not a snowball's chance in hell that's going to happen. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Overspending will always be a problem. But the economy would boom under the FairTax. I'm not sure if it would boom enough to cover current levels of spending, but those are too high under tax formula. The right tax formula doesn't make unconstitutional expenditures constitutional.

And it it were truly necessary, Congress could raise the 23% internal tax to 24%, with a supermajority vote, and we'd still be better off than we are now.

The biggest obstacle to the FairTax is that it limits the ability of congress to dole out favors to donors and cronies. That's why it will never pass.

Ha-ha-ha!

Jean-Baptiste was a man after my own heart.

. . . Long live the goose!

Here's a famous quote attributed to Jean-Baptiste Colbert, who served as French Finance Minister at about the same time that the aforementioned French mathematician Michel Rolle did his work:

"The art of taxation involves so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest quantity of feathers with the least possible amount of squawking." Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

The biggest obstacle to the FairTax is that it limits the ability of congress to dole out favors to donors and cronies. That's why it will never pass. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yup.

True that!

And you are such an idiot. I pressed you for a percentage precisely because there isn't one. .
. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I only had to explain it to you a hundred times. But hey at least you finally got it!

The problem is not with under-taxation, but with over spending. That's the point I tried, and failed, to get across to you. Even if you taxed everyone in Mitt Romney's range and above at 100%, the deficit would still be out of control, .
. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I said exactly that. Boy COF, you are going senile.

, so your whining about his paying only 13% ignores the real problem. You want him to pay more to make it "fair". You want the appearance of doing something constructive, even though it would make no difference whatsoever. It will look good to bring those "rich bastards" down, even if it has no effect on the economy.
. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

No I am pretty much for the S/B commission. Readers Digest version. Slowly raise taxes on everyone and slowly lower Federal spending so as not to jolt the economy. Raise the SS retirement age and means test the benefits. Reagan did something similar. This time , my hope would be that we do not then cout the over payment to SS and Medicare and spend it on Defense.

. It will look good to bring those "rich bastards" down, even if it has no effect on the economy.
. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I said that you have to raise taxes on the rich if you want to change the poor's retirement benifits. You can not do as Paul Ryan proposes and lower the tax rate on the very wealthy and basically give retired middle class workers a voucher that will not cover the common cold.

Yes, we know, WDF. Choice - BAD. Government control - GOOD.

Yup. Government knows best. We got that, now. WDF. Silly me, thinking that people ought to be able to decide things for themselves. That would never work, that's why we have government, to make our decisions for us.

Thanks for the shining the light of truth, WDF. Government is great, isn't it?

What you do not get is that to much of any one thing is bad.

So yes, I like free market but not just free market.

I like government controls but not 100% government government controls.

It just isn't black and white for me COG, I wish it was, I wish I could just stay on one side and not see the others side's POV but I can't. I see good and bad in both sides POV's.

Sue me.

The problem is, you don't see anything. You always take the side of more government and less freedom. Don't give me this bullshit about seeing both sides, you don't. You have consistently been in favor of more government, and higher taxes, even though you've proven yourself that higher taxes are meaningless, except as a matter of revenge.

You think you see both sides, but you have never posted to that effect. I grow weary of you.

The problem is, you don't see anything. You always take the side of more government and less freedom. Don't give me this bullshit about seeing both sides, you don't. You have consistently been in favor of more government, and higher taxes, even though you've proven yourself that higher taxes are meaningless, except as a matter of revenge.

You think you see both sides, but you have never posted to that effect. I grow weary of you. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Simpson Boweles in a somewhat middle ground that I have supported, though I do not even think it goes far enough.

But I could say the exact same thing about you, all you do is scream for more free market, when do you ever think that there needs to be some form of government control? Never it seems.So there it is, we cancel each other out. If you took a poll, I'm sure that might be a good thing!

That's just more shit you make up about me. I'm used to it now, but it used to piss me off. I'm not for a totally free market. When we get close to one like that, I'll let you know. Right now we are so far away from a free market, you can't even see one in a distance. But I'll let you know when we get close. We're not there yet.

I'm also not an anarchist. That's more shit you make up. I don't know why you do that, but that's what you do. You think it makes you look better to distort what others say, and then put it down. Go ahead. If people can't see that, they are as stupid as you. If they can see that, they don't need me to point it out.

Have a nice day.

willard didnt deduct 77k for the horse ?

guess willard lied on his tax return ... the one he made public

oooooh the deceit ........ Originally Posted by CJ7

he didnt deduct 77 thousand, he spent over 77 thousand...spreading the wealth around , thought that was a good thing, the people he paid the money to i'm sure think so.

but as far as deducting anything he deducted $50, which only was deducted because he reported somewhere else on his return $50 in income from that activity. so it was a complete wash and had no affect on his tax return.

the horse cost something like $500,000 and the entity that owns the horse is an LLC, which has a default tax position to be reported as a partnership. a partnership must file a return unless it is for the joint ownership of property like an interest in an oil and gas well, then it can file one return and elect in that return not to file others, but most are required to file a return each year reporting all transactions. then each individual partner reports on thier individual return their share of the partnership from a form provided the partner by the partnership.

each partner determines their relative direct participation in the partnership and either deducts or doesn't deduct any loss reported to them by the partnership. All net income is taxed, the losses may or may not be currently deductible. Romney choose the postion that they, he and his wife, were not active participants in the LLC. therefore, none of the expenses even though paid and incurred were not currently deductible. if the horse is sold and the partnership ended, and because there is fairly rapid depreciation on a horse, there most likely would be a taxable gain on its sale, any gain would be compared to losses and expenses never deducted and then the net income/loss is reported at the end of the business. or if the business is ongoing and has a net income, say from the sale of offspring, or any other reason, that net income is offset by previously undeducted losses from that entity.

so to claim he deducted 77 thousand , well it aint so

Amid all this discussion of tax rates on the wealthy, I think it might be worth asking the following question:

Do Obama and the Democrats actually want to raise tax rates on high incomes and capital gains?

The reflexive and apparently obvious answer to that is, "Of course they do!"

But do they really?

They probably could have gotten that done in 2009, but didn't seem to want to expend that much political capital on it. In late 2010, Democrats made a deal with Senate Republicans that entailed giving up on taxing high incomes (at least for a while) in return for cooperation on a supposedly "temporary" two percentage point cut in the payroll tax. (But watch what happens if anyone, from either party, starts talking about ending that "temporary" break.)

Nowadays, Obama can hardly speak for more than a few minutes without complaining that "millionaires and billionaires" are not paying their fair share because intransigent Republicans are standing in the way of "social justice."

Although raising taxes on the affluent obviously wouldn't make much of a dent in the deficit, it would be quite a base-pleasing act for the Democratic Party. But if it were accomplished, wouldn't that remove a major talking point for a campaign primarily interested in demagoguery, and which fervently wishes to deflect attention from its economic record?

I realize this is a very contrarian point of view, but it makes sense to me. A few others in the investment world have been asking essentially the same question.

Thoughts, anyone?

. But if it were accomplished, wouldn't that remove a major talking point for a campaign primarily interested in demagoguery, and which fervently wishes to deflect attention from its economic record?
Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I think both parties are primarily interested in demagoguery. Did you watch the GOP primary? Brutal.

Nothing new in demagoguery. Obama over promised, no doubt about it. My contention is that no matter who had been in office, the housing bubble was not going to call for a norvmal recovery. Have said that from the get go. To much debt build up. There is no stock or housing bubble to chase out into the desert, Thank God. Nothing wrong with a slow recovery. Well except if you want to get re elected!