More on Obama- the man no one knows

[Mel]

(tim_from_pa;60551)
A person after my own heart. I wish he was in this race yet.... I voted for him in the primary and he did rather well all considering....16% here.
I wish he was still in the race too. Sometimes I think about how certain Christian leaders are starting to age and will eventually leave a void behind them. That's how I feel about Ron Paul, from a political standpoint. I hope that doesn't come across as being morbid. I just don't know where we'd be without him.He was my first choice in the primary too, but I never got to vote for him. During that time I moved from a state that hadn't had their primary yet to a state that had already completed their primary. I did get some of my relatives to vote for him though, and had his sign in my yard.

 

[tim_from_pa]

(Follower;60554)
Ron Paul has endorsed Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party.
Yes, he sounds just as good. Here's a link for others to see on him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_BaldwinI agree with everything in this article on his positions, including the controversial 911 theories--- they should be investigated. However, I'm most against the proposed flight 93 memorial here in Pa that is shaped like a crescent and pointing towards Mecca.(Follower;60554)
That's a good way to put it.
Yes, and along that line Chuck Balwin's problem is being on a minority party ticket when everyone's still going to Burger King or McDonald's--- Many people probably aren't aware of the Constitution Party. That's why Ron Paul got more notice going on a mainline ticket. However, some think that was dishonest sorta like being an Eastern Orthodox Christian going into a Pentecostal ministry. (well, that may be a bad analogy but you get the idea

)

 

[Follower]

income[/i] taxes' date=' nor do I understand why you would assume I was. The example I gave involved a hamburger costing 35 cents to produce, instead of 45 cents.[/quote']My bad, but I think what you said was a bit vague. Corporate taxes were mentioned and lowering corporate taxes is high on the McCain agenda. Corporate taxes can affect prices, such as of a hamburger. The cost of taxes is potentially passed on to the consumer because companies need to maintain some level of after-tax profit (there's little competitive pressure to absorb the tax expense). When taxes are attached to individuals and specific products, 100% of the tax is almost always and directly passed on.

You seem to be alleging that payroll taxes are only paid by individuals, but unfortunately that is not the case.

I do allege that only individuals pay payroll taxes. How it's calculated has little to do with who is actually paying it. If you are an employer and market conditions dictate $10/hour for an employee, that $10 is going to include all the payroll taxes and come from the pocket of the employee who earned that $10/hour (but, who is nominally paid about $9.20/hour), no matter who officially pays them.

I have a family member who is an accountant who deals with corporate taxes. I called him after I first read your response, to make sure I had my facts straight.

Call that family member again. He gave you the official answer. Ask him about the answer that is correct in substance.

Since you mentioned income taxes, I'd like to discuss those as well. First, I'll address the idea that most US companies "avoid" paying federal income taxes. The study referenced by ABC is really lacking in detail. It doesn't indicate how many of those companies didn't even do business during those years. You'd be surprised how many people, like me, have officially incorporated and then never actually done business in those corporations.

The study does defines big companies, "About 25 percent of the U.S. corporations not paying corporate taxes were considered large corporations, meaning they had at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts." If we added paying little in taxes, rather than not paying taxes, that would snag most big companies. Many of these companies are hugely successful. Microsoft pays little or no taxes. Do you think Microsoft isn't doing business, or that they're losing money? The government has provided plenty of loopholes (most famously, the employee stock options, especially the Executive Stock Options, not the junk options that rank-and-file employees normally get).

That said, on to a discussion of income taxes themselves. The idea that the corporate income tax rate caps out at 35% is incredibly misleading, yet it's a number probably propagated by the presidential candidates due to it being easier to understand.

Then you do agree with me! Another thing which makes the 35% misleading, not only do companies often pay little or no taxes on their profits, but often their reported profits are grossly understated. But, that's a can of worms for another day.

These services are health, law, engineering, architecture, accounting, actuarial science, performing arts, and consulting. So really it doesn't matter unless your corporation has a bunch of nurses, doctors, accountants, engineers, lawyers, actors, architects, scientists, etc. Sure sounds like a number of non-manufacturing and non-retail companies might fall under this flat tax.

Those professionals who are not employees are paying personal income taxes on their profits, not any corporate taxes. That additional 15% you speak of are the Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. I say all regular employees pay that tax (plus other payroll taxes which they're not aware of). When there's not another party (the employer), there's no place to hide payroll taxes.

The tax law is incredibly long, as you know.

It must be how the people want it, because they keep voting for the politicians who pile up the tax code.

If your statement is true about individuals' employment taxes being twice what corporations pay in income tax, then individuals are actually paying the government more than what they're being paid!

The IRS collects about twice as much money in payroll taxes than in corporate income taxes.

Wow, I've only addressed the first third of your first paragraph so far. I guess I just felt the need to be thorough since you felt the need to use the word "lie" (or its derivatives) eight times in your post. I know you weren't accusing me of lying, but you were saying that my beliefs are a lie. I will gladly provide even more detail than I already have on these topics, if you are interested.

I appreciate your effort to provide details, but it's not really necessary. You provide the claims, and if I don't know the details, I can look them up.

You mentioned federal excise taxes by name. Individuals aren't the only ones who pay federal excise taxes.

The same as with the payroll taxes that individuals don't supposedly pay, these costs are fully passed on to the individual because they are attached to individuals and individual products. That's why when a judge ordered an end to one of a long-distance excise taxes, the judge ordered that the tax be refunded to the consumer (via the IRS) in direct amount as the consumer paid it (or a safe-harbor amount), not to the phone companies. Few excise taxes are not directly passed on, like those on a radio station. And, it's even rarer than a company is forced to absorb the cost of an excise tax.

I'm not sure what you mean by "international disadvantage." Are you referring to a trade deficit? Are you referring to certain types of business (like call centers) relocating outside the United States?

Consider, American companies have to provide medical insurance but Canadian companies don't have to. Consider that Mexico taxes all American imports with a VAT tax but America doesn't tax Mexican imports. Both these things make it American products less competitive.

 

[blessed1195]

Christina, do you believe McCain doesn't have a chance? He most certainly does.In the elections since 1976, the polls always show the Democrats ahead by a large margin. In 2004, Zogby was the only poll that was correct on election day.Now remember that the mainstream media are in the bag for OBAMA. Most of these polls are run by them and they are used to manipulate the vote. If they show you polls that make the Dem candidate look so far ahead, as they did for Al Gore and John Cary, they are hoping you will stay home and not vote for a Republican, or in this case, against OBAMA, the socialist. Obama's campaign also gave $800Million to Acorn, why do you think that was? Thank GOD, good folks are trying to make are elections righteous.Please don't fall for the left's manipulation and for The Obama campaign lies. In most of their commercials, they leave out inportant features of McCain's ideas that would make Obama look bad.Also, Obama keeps saying he'll lower taxes for 95% of the people. He does not tell you the impact of eliminating the Bush Tax cuts either. Last month he said $1000 per family, even if you don't pay taxes. Elimination of Bush tax cuts will raise taxes on a family of $30k an additional $3500. Less Obamas's $1000 cut and your taxes are still increased by $2500.Also, Dems are responsible for our bad economy: for their major part in blocking reforms against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and pushing Banks to lend to uncredit worthy folks. These bad loans are at the heart of our poor economy and they were packaged and sold throughout the world. Dems are lying once again and trying to blame President Bush. He is at fault for not bringing it to the American people's attention years ago, when Dems fought reform.Finally, remember this "Evil thrives when good men/women do nothing". I truly believe that the Democrat party has been hijacked by the far-left and they are evil. On Rush Limbaugh's show today, he had an audo of Louis Farakan, American Muslim leader who lives 1/2 block from Barack, telling his flock that Obama was the Messiah and that Obama had spoken." That's scary!We are in the generation of the fig tree, but Barack Obama is just a type of an anti-christ, not the anti-christ.(See Mark 13, Matt 24, Luke 21). Let's try to preserve American freedoms that GOD has blessed us with. I hope this has helped to motivate you to vote !!!!!

 

[blessed1195]

My first choice was Newt Gingrich!

 

[Mel]

(Follower;60565)
The Fair Tax must be wicked if it needs to be referred to with an euphemism.
In other words, you believe that the content of a book is proven by glancing at its cover? I'm not even sure what to say, if that is the type "proof" you have to offer.I guess I'll just agree to disagree with you. I still think the Fair Tax is the most expedient option available for ending all federal income taxes, even if you disagree.(Follower;60565)
My bad, but I think what you said was a bit vague. Corporate taxes were mentioned and lowering corporate taxes is high on the McCain agenda. Corporate taxes can affect prices, such as of a hamburger. The cost of taxes is potentially passed on to the consumer because companies need to maintain some level of after-tax profit (there's little competitive pressure to absorb the tax expense). When taxes are attached to individuals and specific products, 100% of the tax is almost always and directly passed on.
I put it in italics last time, but I think there's still some confusion here. I promise my capitals don't mean I'm yelling.

I was talking about Corporate PAYROLL Taxes, whereas you seemed to think I was talking about Corporate INCOME Taxes. So yes, I was talking about one type of Corporate Tax. The difference is whether it was payroll or income taxes.(Follower;60565)
I do allege that only individuals pay payroll taxes. How it's calculated has little to do with who is actually paying it. If you are an employer and market conditions dictate $10/hour for an employee, that $10 is going to include all the payroll taxes and come from the pocket of the employee who earned that $10/hour (but, who is nominally paid about $9.20/hour), no matter who officially pays them. Call that family member again. He gave you the official answer. Ask him about the answer that is correct in substance.
You're only taking personal payroll taxes into account there, not the separate corporate ones. You're rounding (which is fine). An employee pays 77 cents of payroll taxes for each hour they work at $10/hr. This is the PERSONAL social security tax and PERSONAL medicare tax. There is also a completely separate CORPORATE social security tax and CORPORATE medicare tax on those same wages. They are the same rate as those two personal taxes, but they are a completely separate tax. The federal government collects 76.5 cents from the employer, then collects 76.5 cents from the employee. The government is collecting $1.53 in social security and medicare taxes on that one hour of work. You say that the corporate tax accountant I called is wrong, and that the payroll taxes are 100% paid by individuals. You also said that you don't mind just looking up the details on these things yourself, instead of me providing you with them. I'm curious though, where did you look up the information you're stating? I know that a lot of people use Wikipedia as a source, but even Wikipedia talks about corporations paying payroll taxes. Wikipedia: "The employer is also liable for separate 6.2% and 1.45% Social Security and Medicare taxes, respectively, making the total Social Security tax 12.4% and the total Medicare tax 2.9% of wages."Corporations also pay a federal unemployment tax on their employee's wages. Employees pay no portion of that tax. When considering federal payroll taxes alone (not including state payroll taxes, income taxes, or other similar costs) an employer pays about $11/hr in pay for an employee making $10/hr who only takes home about $9.20/hr.I think I'm about done with this particular topic, since we're not really getting anywhere. Unfortunately I'm not sure what type of source you'd like to see, in order to believe what I'm saying. We'll just have to agree to disagree.(Follower;60565)
The study does defines big companies, "About 25 percent of the U.S. corporations not paying corporate taxes were considered large corporations, meaning they had at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts." If we added paying little in taxes, rather than not paying taxes, that would snag most big companies. Many of these companies are hugely successful.
The example I gave you of General Motors falls under that definition of "big companies." They had $181 billion in receipts, which is far greater than the "$50 million in receipts" necessary to count as a big company. They still lost money, so they did not pay income taxes. They still had to pay all their other taxes though, such as payroll taxes.I was able to find the full report by GAO, so that we could look at the data more directly. It's interesting to see how much ABC skewed the findings so that they fit what they wanted to say in their article. ABC said "Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress." The exact percentage is 57%, but apparently ABC felt that 57% rounds to about 67%, since that's what two-thirds means. They also imply that the statistic represents something more than what it truly represents. The statistic is really the percent of U.S. corporations that didn't pay federal income taxes for at least one year out of those seven years. It is not referring to corporations that didn't pay federal income taxes for seven years straight, despite what ABC says.The report solely deals with federal corporate income taxes, and does not discuss corporate payroll taxes, state income taxes, excise taxes, or anything else. It's good to remember that the report was commissioned by two democratic congressmen whose intent was to prove that corporations don't pay enough taxes.One thing the report calculates is "effective tax rates," which is what you seem to be interested in. The effective tax rate of any company with a loss that year is zero, since they don't pay income tax unless they have income. On page 12 you'll see that 33% of large US companies paid 10% or less in income taxes, but they don't specify how many of those had a net loss or didn't do business that year. That same page also says that 26% of large US corporations paid an effective income tax rate of over 50%. On page 16, they discuss that the addition or subtraction of tax credits only affects the overall average effective tax rate by 1.7%, which is not substantial.The report isn't granular enough for its statistics to be as meaningful as they could be. It doesn't provide near enough information on how they came up with some of the numbers.(Follower;60565)
Microsoft pays little or no taxes. Do you think Microsoft isn't doing business, or that they're losing money? The government has provided plenty of loopholes (most famously, the employee stock options, especially the Executive Stock Options, not the junk options that rank-and-file employees normally get).
Microsoft has been repeatedly fined and/or charged with tax evasion in other countries including in India, South Korea, and Ecuador. I wouldn't be surprised if they were doing something in the US that's actually illegal, and just haven't been caught yet. A simplified tax code (or the end of income taxes) would make it easier to see who's cheating. With 16,845 pages of tax law, it's no wonder they have trouble auditing Microsoft.Just because one company may be involved in tax evasion, doesn't mean that all the other companies out there should suffer higher rates as a result. Likewise, just because my neighbor Bob doesn't pay his personal taxes, doesn't mean I should have to pay higher taxes as a result. Then again, that's why we're both concerned about illegal immigration. The Fair Tax would effectively eliminate these problems, though anyone who is living here illegally should still be deported of course.(Follower;60565)
Those professionals who are not employees are paying personal income taxes on their profits, not any corporate taxes.
I was referring to companies that employ professionals, not self-employed professionals. A law firm, for instance. If 95% of the company's employees' time is spent in those specific categories of service (one of which is "law"), then the company has to pay a 35% flat federal corporate income tax instead of having the usual corporate income tax brackets apply. This is a big detriment if their profit is low.(Follower;60565)
That additional 15% you speak of are the Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. I say all regular employees pay that tax (plus other payroll taxes which they're not aware of). When there's not another party (the employer), there's no place to hide payroll taxes.
The additional 15% I spoke of are types of INCOME tax, not PAYROLL tax. I even included the names of the taxes in my original post. The Accumulated Earnings Tax of 15% and Personal Holding Company Tax of 15% are not euphemisms for the separate social security payroll tax and medicare payroll tax. They are their own unique taxes that are levied on the income of a corporation, that effectively raise the corporate income tax cap from 39% to 54%.(Follower;60565)
The IRS collects about twice as much money in payroll taxes than in corporate income taxes.
I'd never heard that, but wouldn't be surprised if that's the case. Payroll taxes are paid by both the employee and the employer, whereas corporate income taxes are only paid by the employer. Payroll taxes are paid even if a company loses money, whereas corporate income taxes are only paid if a company makes money.(Follower;60565)
The same as with the payroll taxes that individuals don't supposedly pay, these costs are fully passed on to the individual because they are attached to individuals and individual products. That's why when a judge ordered an end to one of a long-distance excise taxes, the judge ordered that the tax be refunded to the consumer (via the IRS) in direct amount as the consumer paid it (or a safe-harbor amount), not to the phone companies.
The "consumer" isn't just individuals though. The "consumer" is also all the companies that buy the exact same product or use the same service. The "consumer" in the example you're referring to included Ford Motor Company and Amtrak, amongst other large corporations.STATE excise taxes on personal products and services are quite common, but FEDERAL excise taxes seem to be mainly levied against goods and services used heavily by businesses (though those goods may also be used by some individuals, such as if an individual purchased an 18-wheeler). There are only two exceptions I can think of to this general rule about federal excise taxes.(Follower;60565)
Consider, American companies have to provide medical insurance but Canadian companies don't have to.
Can you provide a source for this please? I wasn't aware of there being a federal law requiring this, though I realize some states have such laws.

 

[SiameseAddictedto]

This list of Obama's record just makes me like him more...The only thing that sounds kind of odd is this:Ok to expose 6-year-olds to gay couples; they know already. (Sep 2007) Since when did six-year-olds already know about gay couples? I had no idea what "gay" meant when I was six...ps--please don't yell at me for posting this.

 

[Follower]

(Mel;60599)
In other words, you believe that the content of a book is proven by glancing at its cover? I'm not even sure what to say, if that is the type "proof" you have to offer.
I don't approve of book covers that are manipulative and non-descriptive. The Fair Tax should be called The National Sales Tax. Sales taxes tend to be unfair because they are regressive.
This is the PERSONAL social security tax and PERSONAL medicare tax. There is also a completely separate CORPORATE social security tax and CORPORATE medicare tax on those same wages.
I've not been unclear, what you call the corporate social security tax and medicare tax comes out of the pocket of the employee, even if it is not calculated in that fashion.
You say that the corporate tax accountant I called is wrong, and that the payroll taxes are 100% paid by individuals.
I say you've not distinguished style from substance. Payrolls are dictated by market pressure and that any payroll taxes, whomever is claimed to pay them, comes out of the pocket of the employee. An employee nominally paid $10/hour is costing the employer about $10.77. As far as the employee is concern, he's paying the employee $10.77/hour. When he decides if he needs to outsource or replace an employee with a machine, he makes that decision on the $10.77/hour. He would pay that $10.77 to the employee, if he didn't have to pay any payroll taxes, before taking decisive action to control his labor costs. When an union, or an individual, is negotiating a pay rate, they're pushing for the most the employer is willing or able to pay. The "most" the employer is willing to pay is $10.77/hour. If he has to pay corporate payroll taxes, that's coming out of the $10.77 hour.
I was able to find the full report by GAO,
Your link shows that international corporations paid an effective rate of 4% on foreign income and 25% on domestic income. But, those numbers are meaningless because they're based on reported prophets, not real prophets. Congress has provided plenty of loopholes to dramatically reduce taxable income for companies. Microsoft's preference is to offset profits with stock options priced far below market value. So, Microsoft might have an effective rate of 25% but still pay practically nothing in taxes on tremendous profits.
Then again, that's why we're both concerned about illegal immigration. The Fair Tax would effectively eliminate these problems, though anyone who is living here illegally should still be deported of course.
The Fair Tax does have some benefits (and disadvantages) relative to the income tax, but I'd prefer to end federal personal and corporate income tax without replacing it with a Fair Tax. The Constitution provides for tariffs and excise taxes for federal revenue.
A law firm, for instance. If 95% of the company's employees' time is spent in those specific categories of service (one of which is "law"), then the company has to pay a 35% flat federal corporate income tax instead of having the usual corporate income tax brackets apply.
Employee-owner c-corps and other naturally abusive structures are subject to penalties. You should think of these rates as penalties, not taxes. The IRS is punishing people who choose these arrangements. An employee-owner c-corp generally reports unrealistic expenses and unrealistically low wages. Consider, if you are a professional and you pay yourself a dollar and take $80,000 in dividends, you escape the 15% payroll taxes. In substance, that $80,000 is earned income, not dividends. This is a loophole Congress didn't deliberately design and that the IRS attempts to close.The other special tax situations you speak of are likewise penalized positions and not significant sources of IRS revenue.
Can you provide a source for this please? I wasn't aware of there being a federal law requiring this, though I realize some states have such laws.
In some states, some companies are required to provide medical insurance. But, as a practical matter, all large companies normally have to provide medical insurance. This is a cost that these companies have that companies in other nations don't have. It doesn't help that the US has the most expensive medical care in the world.

 

[Christina]

(SiameseAddictedto;60605)
This list of Obama's record just makes me like him more...The only thing that sounds kind of odd is this:Ok to expose 6-year-olds to gay couples; they know already. (Sep 2007) Since when did six-year-olds already know about gay couples? I had no idea what "gay" meant when I was six...ps--please don't yell at me for posting this.
No one is going to yell at you but how can you justify voting for a person that advocates gay rights/marriage and killing of babies(abortion) ?These things are not only against Gods Word but should be against ones own true heartif a Christian encourages this behavior by means of support (by voting for it or otherwise) you are going aganist Gods Word.PSI see you a calling yourself an new atheist, even so you can not beleive this is right.

 

[Mel]

(Follower;60628)
Sales taxes tend to be unfair because they are regressive.
The Fair Tax charges zero tax on all purchases below the poverty line. Besides, people that have more money naturally spend more. The studies are available online.(Follower;60628)
An employee nominally paid $10/hour is costing the employer about $10.77.
If this is true, the employer you're speaking of has spent time in jail for non-payment of payroll taxes. There are nearly $2 in federal payroll taxes on $10 of wage, as I showed earlier. (Follower;60628)
I've not been unclear, what you call the corporate social security tax and medicare tax comes out of the pocket of the employee, even if it is not calculated in that fashion.
Well it was unclear to me, even if everyone else got it. Ultimately, all corporate taxes of every kind are paid by individuals, not just payroll taxes. Corporations exist for the purpose of benefiting humans. Corporations aren't sentient creatures that want to make money and save money. Humans are. Corporate taxation increases the price of goods, so humans pay more for those goods. Corporate taxation decreases the amount their human employees receive in pay, as we've already discussed. Corporate taxation decreases how much money the company's human owners make. So yes, it's all ultimately paid for by individuals.I didn't realize that was your point. I was under the impression that you were trying to compare what individuals technically pay versus what corporations technically pay, when you made the statement:"Individuals pay four times as much income taxes as commercial sector. Additionally, employment taxes, which falls on the back of individuals, are twice what businesses pay in income taxes. Additionally, there are many billions of dollars in excise and other federal taxes which fall on the backs of individuals, not companies."(Follower;60628)
Your link shows that international corporations paid an effective rate of 4% on foreign income and 25% on domestic income. But, those numbers are meaningless because they're based on reported prophets, not real prophets.
I had thought we were talking about U.S.-based companies doing business within the U.S. If we were talking about international companies doing business in other countries, then the numbers I was previously quoting are irrelevant.(Follower;60628)
The Fair Tax does have some benefits (and disadvantages) relative to the income tax, but I'd prefer to end federal personal and corporate income tax without replacing it with a Fair Tax. The Constitution provides for tariffs and excise taxes for federal revenue.
I really only even mentioned the Fair Tax' positive side as a result of your only sentence on the topic declaring it to be "wicked," without citing justification. I don't think the Fair Tax is the best option out there. I just think it's better than what we have. My personal primary motivating factor in favor of it is that most Americans are deep in debt and not saving. The Fair Tax would encourage people to not be such wasteful spenders, since it would tax them to spend but not to save or make money. I think it encourages personal responsibility, unlike the welfare system we have that penalizes personal responsibility. When I said I consider it to be the most expedient option, I truly did just mean "expedient" and not "best." There are already something like 75 congressional representatives who are in favor of it, which is far more than most other alternatives. The tariff idea has a number of flaws, just as the Fair Tax does. Both ideas tend to increase the price of products. The income tax was originally supported as being the "fair" alternative to tariffs. Competition in the marketplace tends to decrease the price of goods, of course. People felt that tariffs were designed to protect our domestic companies from having to compete with foreign ones at a fair price, and that our American companies were over-inflating their prices as a result. Even if we still bought our cheap stuff from China, it would of course cost more than it does today. A cross-the-board tariff hike may also be accompanied by a cross-the-board tariff hike by other countries towards us, which would decrease the competitiveness of our companies' products with theirs. It's great if you want to encourage America to be more self-sufficient though, which can be quite important in times of war.I have no beef with excise taxes, so long as they're not just going to the general budget. A fuel tax should only be used for related governmental expenses, such as road maintenance. For the most part, I don't think these things should be run by the federal government anyways. If California and Nevada want to build a highway linking their two states, let those two states work out the details and payment. Don't make some guy in New York pay for it. If California and Nevada want to use state fuel taxes to pay for it though, I have no problem with that.(Follower;60628)
Employee-owner c-corps and other naturally abusive structures are subject to penalties. You should think of these rates as penalties, not taxes. The IRS is punishing people who choose these arrangements. An employee-owner c-corp generally reports unrealistic expenses and unrealistically low wages. Consider, if you are a professional and you pay yourself a dollar and take $80,000 in dividends, you escape the 15% payroll taxes. In substance, that $80,000 is earned income, not dividends. This is a loophole Congress didn't deliberately design and that the IRS attempts to close.
That's not a loophole. Dividends are double-taxed. An employee-owner will pay FAR more in taxes if they pay themselves via dividends instead of via wages. Having the full force of corporate income taxes on your shoulders (which is in addition to personal income taxes on that same income) more than makes up for a piddly 15% in payroll taxes, unfortunately.(Follower;60628)
In some states, some companies are required to provide medical insurance. But, as a practical matter, all large companies normally have to provide medical insurance. This is a cost that these companies have that companies in other nations don't have.
What do you mean by "have to"? At a federal level, companies can choose whether or not to provide medical insurance for their employees. They are not forced to, unless they choose to be in a state that requires it (which I brought up in my previous post). It's not just a cost that companies in other nations don't "have to" pay, either. It's actually illegal in a number of other countries. That's because private health care is illegal in many of the countries that have socialized health care. This topic was originally started with your statement, "McCain is making no effort to change the things that do put American companies at an international disadvantage." Personally, I'd rather McCain doesn't try to fix this problem by implementing socialized health care here too.

 

[SiameseAddictedto]

(Christina;60658)
No one is going to yell at you but how can you justify voting for a person that advocates gay rights/marriage and killing of babies(abortion) ?These things are not only against Gods Word but should be against ones own true heartif a Christian encourages this behavior by means of support (by voting for it or otherwise) you are going aganist Gods Word.PSI see you a calling yourself an new atheist, even so you can not beleive this is right.
Hey Christina. I definitely don't agree with abortion, but I don't agree with a lot of McCain's policies either. As for gay rights, I think all human beings should have equal rights under the law...but anyway, I hate political debates so I'm not sure why I posted here. so this'll be my last post in this thread!

 

[Christina]

(SiameseAddictedto;60677)
Hey Christina. I definitely don't agree with abortion, but I don't agree with a lot of McCain's policies either. As for gay rights, I think all human beings should have equal rights under the law...but anyway, I hate political debates so I'm not sure why I posted here. so this'll be my last post in this thread!

Oh heavens I dont think any of us agree with all any Politians policies

 

[Follower]

(SiameseAddictedto;60677)
I definitely don't agree with abortion, but I don't agree with a lot of McCain's policies either. As for gay rights, I think all human beings should have equal rights under the law...
You're dishonest. I support equal rights for homosexuals, pedophiles, and everyone. But, I don't support people molesting children. It is equal rights to lock people up for molesting children, whether they're pedophiles or not. But, you are repulsed by equal rights. What you really mean is that you want to put me in jail if I use speech to disapprove of homosexual perversion or if I refuse to use my property in the promotion and assistance of that homosexual perversion. You mean you want the government to promote homosexual perversion and even teach it to my children. Just so we're clear.

 

[SiameseAddictedto]

...i have no idea what you're talking about...so no we're not clear whatsoever...actually i dislike personal attacks on my character such as the one you have just made. i will be apprising a moderator of this.

 

[Jordan]

(Follower;60679)
(SiameseAddictedto;60677)
I definitely don't agree with abortion, but I don't agree with a lot of McCain's policies either. As for gay rights, I think all human beings should have equal rights under the law...
You're dishonest. I support equal rights for homosexuals, pedophiles, and everyone. But, I don't support people molesting children. It is equal rights to lock people up for molesting children, whether they're pedophiles or not. But, you are repulsed by equal rights. What you really mean is that you want to put me in jail if I use speech to disapprove of homosexual perversion or if I refuse to use my property in the promotion and assistance of that homosexual perversion. You mean you want the government to promote homosexual perversion and even teach it to my children.Just so we're clear.Follower, I am also offended, do you know him? (or her) I 99.9% chance that I highly doubt that, that was a bit uncall for...

 

[Christina]

Followerplease keep you remarks confined to the subject of post and not directed at the poster

 

[Mel]

Follower,There's nothing wrong with attacking a person's argument, but it's highly inappropriate to attack a person. Just because a person has a different view than you on an issue doesn't mean they are lying. Besides that, there was absolutely nothing in SiameseAddictedto's post to suggest that the person supports what you claim they do. SiameseAddictedto,I wasn't originally going to respond to your post, especially since it sounds like you're not particularly interested in political debates anyways. But now, in light of some of the other posts on here, I want to respond just to offer an alternative perspective on things. This response relates to your statement "As for gay rights, I think all human beings should have equal rights under the law," plus your earlier statement regarding Obama's stance on the issues.I wholeheartedly agree with your statement that all human beings should have equal rights under the law. I just have a different opinion on how that should be achieved. I think the best way to achieve equality, from the government's perspective, would be if the government doesn't know or keep certain types of personal data about us citizens. I don't think it's any of the government's business whether I'm gay, straight, married, single, black, white, hispanic, rich, poor, male, female, Christian, Muslim, 7 years old, 87 years old, etc. You get the picture. Right now the government keeps that data on us for all sorts of reasons. They want to know whether we're married or not, because it affects our taxes. They want to know how old we are, because it affects whether we can collect Social Security checks yet. If the government doesn't have that data to begin with, then they can't treat us unequally. Then again, that's because I think crimes should be weighted equally as well. I think that a person who kills an adorable little 5 year old girl should be subject to the same penalty under the law as a person who kills a mean middle-aged tax auditor. From the perspective of law, why should the little girl's life be deemed any more important than the man's life? Likewise, I don't feel that a gay person's life or a black person's life should have any more value than anyone else's life. They should all be accounted as equal, whether they're black, white, or green. Anyway, that's where I differ from Obama.

 

[Follower]

(SiameseAddictedto;60687)
...i have no idea what you're talking about...so no we're not clear whatsoever...
Let me apologize for attacking you without knowing where you're coming from. When Obama says he supports equal rights for homosexuals, he doesn't mean that he wants to hold them to the same laws as he holds everyone else. On the contrrary, he means he wants to make different laws for homosexuals and he means he wants to take away my rights. He is not honest. This has nothing to do with whether homosexual behavior is a right or wrong. But, homosexual behavior is wrong. I blame the Christian and mainstream community for leaving you a victim of leftest homosexual propaganda so that you would think that homosexual conduct is anything other than abominable behavior.

 

[SiameseAddictedto]

I accept your apology. However, I cannot say that you are criticizing me any less by blaming others for what you infer to be my political viewpoints. I will not be discussing my viewpoints on these subjects at this stage. I don't consider myself a victim of anything and I would prefer that my posts in this thread not be responded to any longer as I no longer intend to contribute to this thread. This isn't strictly because of anything you said. I do appreciate your apology.

 

[Follower]

(Mel;60660)
The Fair Tax charges zero tax on all purchases below the poverty line.
You're speaking of the rebate which will allow Congress to salvage (by reapplication) all of the existing tax code, plus put everyone on a monthly government check. A big win for friends of Big Government. The rebate is a solution worse than the problem.
If this is true, the employer you're speaking of has spent time in jail for non-payment of payroll taxes. There are nearly $2 in federal payroll taxes on $10 of wage, as I showed earlier.
Yes, the employer's payroll expense is $10.77 and the employee receives 9.23 on a nominal $10 of pay.
The Fair Tax would encourage people to not be such wasteful spenders, since it would tax them to spend but not to save or make money.
What you think is a major virtue of the Fair Tax I think contributes to the unfairness of the tax. Not everyone has the same spending needs, so people with greater needs are taxed more heavily. The Fair Tax kicks people when they're down. Also, it's really not the government's business how we spend our money.
A cross-the-board tariff hike may also be accompanied by a cross-the-board tariff hike by other countries towards us, which would decrease the competitiveness of our companies' products with theirs.
Nearly all countries, except the US have significant import taxes. They're just not called tariffs. Mexico, at a national level, collects 15% on the sale of everything imported to Mexico from the USA. European countries typically have an effective tax of 20-ish percent on imports.Remember, I'm concerning myself with substance, not official decrees. Just like with the payroll taxes, the official claims do not match the substance. Mexico claims not to tax imports, but what's the difference when they're collecting at least 15% of the sales price on all imports? Let us tax things as we see fit and let the other countries do as they wish. We're not doing it to punish them, but if they want to punish us, it's to both our losses. But, as it is, they're doing what they see fit for themselves and we're not.
I have no beef with excise taxes, so long as they're not just going to the general budget. A fuel tax should only be used for related governmental expenses, such as road maintenance. For the most part, I don't think these things should be run by the federal government anyways. If California and Nevada want to build a highway linking their two states, let those two states work out the details and payment. Don't make some guy in New York pay for it. If California and Nevada want to use state fuel taxes to pay for it though, I have no problem with that.
I absolutely agree.
That's not a loophole. Dividends are double-taxed. An employee-owner will pay FAR more in taxes if they pay themselves via dividends instead of via wages. Having the full force of corporate income taxes on your shoulders (which is in addition to personal income taxes on that same income) more than makes up for a piddly 15% in payroll taxes, unfortunately.
The executive stock options, used by MS to eliminate taxable income, are not dividends. Even if these were dividends, the same point applies, big companies usually don't pay significant income taxes, even when they are doing very well. As for dividends, I don't think it's really "double taxation" because we're talking about two different legal entities each being taxed one time. It's not like personal property taxes that I have to pay over and over and over and over on the same property. Republicans want to eliminate taxes on dividends received. They'd be more reasonable if they rather pushed to have dividends eliminated on dividends paid. I'd be happy to do away with corporate income taxes, except for the accountability it helps provide.
What do you mean by "have to"? At a federal level, companies can choose whether or not to provide medical insurance for their employees.
If big companies were in substance free to choose, then why is it practically universal for big companies to provide health insurance? I would love to trade in my corporate health insurance for cash. But, I don't have that option. Even if it's illegal in Canada to provide medical insurance, that doesn't change my point - American companies have significantly higher operating costs than foreign companies, wages aside.
"McCain is making no effort to change the things that do put American companies at an international disadvantage." Personally, I'd rather McCain doesn't try to fix this problem by implementing socialized health care here too.

Both McCain and Obama have plans to further destroy what little is left of the free market in medical care. But, at least both would make US companies a little more competitive by relieving them of the health care burden.