tax cuts for rich vs. middle class

[ih8music]

That's not exactly what I said. My point was that tax increases are inevitable if we maintain/increase the current level of spending. My solution, of course, would be to cut spending. At the very least, we need to raise the Social Security retirement age.

or we could have the SS tax applied to all income earned, not just the first $106,800.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Why not let all the Bush-era tax cuts expire?

 

After all, they were just tax cuts for the wealthy anyway, right?

[Guest Speed Racer]

what are the numbers on what the tax rates are right now, per income bracket, and what they will go to if nothing is passed? I know it's a silly question, but none of the political articles seems to mention it.

 

Here are the current tax brackets. I don't know what the proposed brackets are, but based on the GOPs tone, probably 99% for anyone making more than $10,000.

[Guest Jules]

Whatever, GON, you know what I meant.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Whatever, GON, you know what I meant.

 

Still apt of him to point out that it was you who posted that, no?

[Guest Jules]

Still apt of him to point out that it was you who posted that, no?

No, not really.

[ikol]

or we could have the SS tax applied to all income earned, not just the first $106,800.

 

But then you'd have to increase the benefits to those that would end up paying more. Or you could not, and just label them as "rich" which goes back to my original point.

[Atticus]

I don't know what the proposed brackets are

 

isn't this relevant though? I'm kinda confused at so many people being so vehemently opposed to tax changes when they don't know what the tax changes would be. and thanks for the link, I'll read up.

[Guest Jules]

isn't this relevant though? I'm kinda confused at so many people being so vehemently opposed to tax changes when they don't know what the tax changes would be. and thanks for the link, I'll read up.

Doesn't matter, Poon. The "rich" pay the vast majority of the tax revenue, and now they will pay even more.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Doesn't matter, Poon. The "rich" pay the vast majority of the tax revenue, and now they will pay even more.

 

The "rich" and the "singles." If $200,000 is "not that much" for a family of four with married parents (28% bracket), the unmarried partners at $200,000 paying 33% are positively poverty-stricken.

[Guest Jules]

Speaking of taxes, do you all realize most private businesses have to pay their corporate taxes BEFORE they've even collected the money/revenue from their customers? Chew on that logic for a while.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Speaking of taxes, do you all realize most private businesses have to pay their corporate taxes BEFORE they've even collected the money/revenue from their customers? Chew on that logic for a while.

 

I do, in fact, realize that. We've had to deal with that a lot lately at work when we need tax documents from clients. For clarification, though: are they paying taxes on services rendered, for which they have not yet received payment? That makes sense to me.

[Guest Jules]

If that makes sense to you then all hope is lost for us. This is why many businesses have to borrow money. Not to invest in their business, but to pay their fucking taxes.

[Atticus]

I thought it was "income" tax, not "hope to have income" tax.

[ikol]

Speaking of taxes, do you all realize most private businesses have to pay their corporate taxes BEFORE they've even collected the money/revenue from their customers? Chew on that logic for a while.

 

Of course they do. They're rich.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Hey, you said it wasn't logical. I never said it was the best idea in the world, but I see how it's logical. The idea being, of course, that if businesses only sold to customers that could pay, they wouldn't need to borrow money in the first place. I'm NOT AT ALL saying that the world works that way, but the system seems to be in place to discourage private companies from going into debt. Doesn't work, but it's logical to me.

[Guest Jules]

I don't like giving the government a percentage of something I don't even have yet, while trying to fund ongoing operations at the same time.

 

Even if you collect 100%, this can still put a heavy strain on companies.

[Guest Speed Racer]

I don't like giving the government a percentage of something I don't even have yet

 

And the government doesn't like when businesses give away things in exchange for promises instead of money or services. So it goes.

[Guest Jules]

What?

[Guest Speed Racer]

Well, if you provide a good or service to a customer and they don't pay that very moment, that means you gave something away from the promise that they would pay, no? That's what billing is; providing a service in exchange for the promise of payment. It's standard business practice - lord knows we don't ask for cash upfront 80% of the time - but that's what it is.

[Guest Jules]

Well, if you provide a good or service to a customer and they don't pay that very moment, that means you gave something away from the promise that they would pay, no? That's what billing is; providing a service in exchange for the promise of payment. It's standard business practice - lord knows we don't ask for cash upfront 80% of the time - but that's what it is.

Maybe standard practice in retail or walk-up services, but not in manufacturing. Most OEM's now push for Net 60 day terms (some even ask for 90). Ford pays in 30 days, but they're the exception.

[bjorn_skurj]

I think we should send some dudes to Germany - maybe that Austan Googleberry cat - to see how they are doing it, and do what they are doing. Somehow, they have socialized medicine, instituted by Otto von Fucking Bismarck of all people, took a tremendous hit when they had to re-integrate East Germany into their economic system and are apparently the only un-broke economy in the EU. (And this from the country that bred Karl Marx AND Friedrich Engels!) They gotta be doing something right.

[Guest Jules]

I think we should send some dudes to Germany - maybe that Austan Googleberry cat - to see how they are doing it, and do what they are doing. Somehow, they have socialized medicine, instituted by Otto von Fucking Bismarck of all people, took a tremendous hit when they had to re-integrate East Germany into their economic system and are apparently the only un-broke economy in the EU. (And this from the country that bred Karl Marx AND Friederich Engels!) They gotta be doing something right.

For one, they MANUFACTURE great (& expensive) cars that people want to buy around the world. This helps.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Maybe standard practice in retail or walk-up services, but not in manufacturing. Most OEM's now push for Net 60 day terms (some even ask for 90). Ford pays in 30 days, but they're the exception.

 

But you're still billing them, right? And you wouldn't bill them/provide the service if you didn't think they could pay? Forgive me for my ignorance (not trying to be snarky - I know nothing about corporate taxation), but don't businesses file calendar year taxes (for Jan XX to December XX)? And Dec XX + 90 days = March 1, no? So you're still being taxed for items that should have been paid for by the tax deadline, no? I understand that the whole issue here is that money is NOT being received by tax deadline, but if the timeline I envision is accurate, then that's a pretty logical taxation system.

[bjorn_skurj]

For one, they MANUFACTURE great (& expensive) cars that people want to buy around the world. This helps.

Yup. There's no substitute for quality, and on the other end of the scale, the Beetle was an extremely successful product.