Romney and the tax thing

[quote name='camoor']First the rich are going to run away. Now the rich will just sit on their riches and noone will invest.[/QUOTE]

This can be the same thing - If there are no sound investments, investors will sit on their money. If there are sound investments, but those investments are elsewhere, then investors will go elsewhere.

The primary goal of investing is to gain money. Investors will consider each possible outcome and go with the choices that they believe will maximize their bank accounts.

Why is this so hard to understand?
 
[quote name='camoor']First the rich are going to run away. Now the rich will just sit on their riches and noone will invest.

What are you so worried is going to stop happening, I don't see it. Who is investing big in America now? What industry? What company? What CEO? Who?[/QUOTE]

Still waiting for your tax policy there Camoor.

And as UncleBob said, it isn't an either or thing, there are a number of contributing factors in investing. However the very notion that higher taxes on investments will spur investment is idiotic.

Myke,

it isn't shifting and molding, from the beginning I have said that they will put their money elsewhere, that includes consumption. It isn't "shifting or molding" when you take something I say, define it in more detail, then criticize the details you supplied. I love this new theme of "unless you are willing to vote for the government to take other peoples money, spend it inefficiently and poorly, hardly affect me at all, won't change much in my life" is called bootlicking. However I will give you an opportunity to redeem yourself myke, how will life turn up for a $50,000 income earner if we raise the capital gains tax to 20%? 30%? Have you even looked at the projections in increased revenue? The best projections aren't pretty, and that is assuming the best.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Still waiting for your tax policy there Camoor.

And as UncleBob said, it isn't an either or thing, there are a number of contributing factors in investing. However the very notion that higher taxes on investments will spur investment is idiotic.[/QUOTE]

Progressive tax applied evenly across all types of income.

Now - where are the rich going to go? Who is investing big in America?

Stop stalling.
 
Yep, progressive tax across all types of income is all that's needed.

I'd add some higher brackets too. Maybe go up to 50% on anything over $1 million or $5 million or whatever, rather than stopping at 35%.
 
lots to address...

1.) Taxation as a margin of ROI having a significant impact on investment decision
Depends on who is investing. Megafirms (Berkshire, Fidelity, etc...) have to show gain in their funds. Say your 401 is in Fidelity, their "buckets" need to show gains to keep people investing in the bucket. They however don't care about taxes because it's filtered in fees to the customer, who pays the taxes anyways.
Your average day-trader is buying and selling at a rapid pace and is more interested in small gains that cover the fees and provide enough margin to make the next trade.
Then you have a guy like me who looks for long term growth investing. Market shifting doesn't matter so much as buying at the right price and holding it for ages. This same guy will also buy a junk stock to hold in reserve, take a beating and then use it as a long term loss to cover other long term gains for tax purposes.
Then there's the Romney kind of guy that is just parking money in investments since the interest rate is so low right now that it makes no sense to park your money there. Dividend growth (if measures as compound interest) is astronomically higher than any investment that is FDIC insured. There's no reason not to have your wealth invested as opposed to a Scrooge McDuck money vault.

I think the main problem here is that you're confusing investing with gambling. And that you truly don't understand investing as a concept beyond "buy this stock and sell it later, hopefully making more money." Your example of people handing you money and you giving it back has literally nothing to do with investing.

2.) What are the purposes of tax?
Seriously? To pay for the infrastructure and protection that govt provides for you. Or as Rush would have you think, wealth transfer. Because, you know, buying shit isn't an upward wealth transfer or anything like that...
Certain tax codes are also there to incent behaviour. Why is there a mortgage interest deduction? Because we want people to own homes. There are a lot of transaction involved in home ownership that shift a lot of money around. This looks good on balance sheets and makes rich people a lot of money if they own CDOs from the 90's until about 2010.
As for why revenues were still up despite lower taxes, volume vs. margin. Even during a recession here we have GDP growth. Shit man, revenues are STILL up. Now, imagine the "debt crisis" that we happen to be in at the moment being lessened by what is, by your own words, a non impactful tax increase.

3.) Fortune 500 hoarding cash
Unintended consequence of the stupidly low interest rates. Debt is a hell of a lot cheaper now than it has ever been. The second part of that story that isn't often advertised is how ugly balance sheets are right now. Ever heard the phrase "house rich, cash poor"? Flip that around and that's what you're looking at currently. If interest rates ever go up, you're going to see a massive unloading of that cash to pay down debt.
That bit about "persistent worry in the recovery" is absolute rubbish. We're regularly trading at 80-85% of the high watermark of the DJIA. The major problem right now is stalled growth. The solution is going to be a chicken/egg contest between just enough hiring to spur some demand and then more hiring to start making more supply. For the supply siders out there, your theory is now junk. There's plenty of shit to buy, nobody is buying because they're paying down debt as much as possible and hoarding cash in fear. For the deman siders out there, your theory is now gold. There's a lack of demand because the supply siders figured if they squashed out enough labour cost they'd win with supply.

4.)
The primary goal of investing is to gain money
Click to expand...
Not always. Sometimes it is to loose money to cover gains elsewhere. Sometimes it is for influence.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Click to expand...
Good question.
But just for shiggles let's take your statement here and apply it to #1. If my goal is to take $100 and turn it into $100,000. Taxation as a margin of my goal in getting to $100k is irrelevant. It's a cost of operation, not a barrier to entry.
To assume that someone will stop attempting to make more money because operational costs go up is an absolute canard. If the end goal is $X, everything along the way is just an associated cost. Let's get away from taxes for a second. Let's say it's just me and my e-trade account trying to get a 1,000% ROI. Somewhere along the way, the trade fee goes from $5 to $8. I don't just say shit and decide to never make another trade. I hold to cover. Why is that so hard to understand?

And there's much more but I don't want to write a goddamn novel here.
 
[quote name='Knoell']What do you think investments are? You are running along the lines of believing stocks are just paper and not money investments into a company that uses that money to make more money. Pretty silly.

I think the thread was deleted because it isn't in my recent posts, however I have posted about the deficit just last week. I am guessing the reason you haven't seen it before that is because I took a leave of absence from this circus. I do not see how the deficit isn't a growing concern for you. Under Clinton running a supposed surplus was like performing a miracle to you guys, then under Bush running a deficit was like being the devil, and now under Obama running a deficit is good for the bad economy. It's a good thing for whatever suits your purpose I guess.

Revenues will not increase productively or efficiently through increased taxes. History shows that.[/QUOTE]

Investment in stocks is important for the economy. However, a stock isn't really an investment "into a company that uses that money to make more money" (unless we're talking about an IPO or secondary offering).

I haven't seen any data that convinced me that capital gains tax rates affect the total amount of money invested or tax revenues. If you want to share your sources, I'd take a look at them.

You've mentioned a few times that you think that rich investors will just invest in companies in other countries if capital gains taxes are raised. If these investors are US citizens and they meet minimum income requirements, they are obligated to pay taxes on any income they make, regardless of where it was made or where they live.
 
[quote name='nasum']
2.) What are the purposes of tax?
Seriously? To pay for the infrastructure and protection that govt provides for you.[/quote]
...if only.

3.) Fortune 500 hoarding cash
Unintended consequence of the stupidly low interest rates. Debt is a hell of a lot cheaper now than it has ever been.
Click to expand...

I will agree with this. So, what we need to do is end stupidly low interest rates. Let's come up with a plan where we no longer have a secret cartel of bankers and politicians artificially controlling interest rates with virtually no oversight or restrictions. If only there was some way to END this practice that we both agree is bad for the country and that we should all be FED up with.

If interest rates ever go up, you're going to see a massive unloading of that cash to pay down debt.
Click to expand...

Wish that was true for the Federal government as well...

4.)
Not always. Sometimes it is to loose money to cover gains elsewhere. Sometimes it is for influence.
Click to expand...

So.. you're losing money in one spot to cover gains elsewhere for what purpose? To make yourself look like a bad investor?

Influence? Hm... I guess an investor wants influence so he looks better to St. Paul at the pearly gates or something? I'm sure it has nothing to do with using that influence to pad his wallet later.

Let's say it's just me and my e-trade account trying to get a 1,000% ROI. Somewhere along the way, the trade fee goes from $5 to $8. I don't just say shit and decide to never make another trade.
Click to expand...

...until Scott Trade, Interactive Brokers , China, or Charles Schwab comes along and offers you $4 trades.

There's a reason that e-Trade allowed the rates of, say, Brown and Company customers, to stay the same, in spite of the fact they're lower than the normal e-Trade rate. They want to keep those customers from going elsewhere.
 
[quote name='chiwii']If these investors are US citizens and they meet minimum income requirements, they are obligated to pay taxes on any income they make, regardless of where it was made or where they live.[/QUOTE]

Likewise, most of the people on here are obligated to pay a sales/use tax on Amazon.com purchases... The major difference is that these larger investors use legal tax loopholes to avoid repatriating their money until they can find another legal tax loophole to bring it home. As opposed to CAG folks who outright cheat on their taxes, brag about it on the forums, then say that they don't care that they're not paying their required amount because it's too hard or something.
 
[quote name='chiwii']Investment in stocks is important for the economy. However, a stock isn't really an investment "into a company that uses that money to make more money" (unless we're talking about an IPO or secondary offering).

I haven't seen any data that convinced me that capital gains tax rates affect the total amount of money invested or tax revenues. If you want to share your sources, I'd take a look at them.

You've mentioned a few times that you think that rich investors will just invest in companies in other countries if capital gains taxes are raised. If these investors are US citizens and they meet minimum income requirements, they are obligated to pay taxes on any income they make, regardless of where it was made or where they live.[/QUOTE]

Then we get to the fact that a lot of these investments aren't even stocks but essentially bets on stocks and the like.

The problem is that often there is more money in moving these bits of paper/piles of money around then in running a business.
 
[quote name='Knoell']You quoted the problem. The problem is not that the market is flooded with capital, and you thinking the government taking away said capital will get companies to move on to better things? You quoted it in your article "lack of incentives from the obama administration."

I am certain the WSJ did not mean an incentive in the means of taking capital away. Not to mention that people with money do not have any qualms about spending said money. If anything you guys are pro trickle down economics because raising the capital gains tax would encourage more investors to consume rather than invest. Hopefully it'll trickle down for you guys ;)[/QUOTE]
I give up. You're either the most persistent troll ever or you have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about. I think I'd rather believe you're a troll.
 
[quote name='Knoell']it isn't shifting and molding, from the beginning I have said that they will put their money elsewhere.[/QUOTE]

Let's say this is as precise a point as you made all thread.

In that case, it's shifting and molding because your initial scenario is vague enough that it can mean literally *anything* else you want it to be. Then you're able to define virtually any activity as satisfying your prediction.

"They will put their money..."
1) in a tin can
2) in a mattress
3) up their ass

those all satisfy what you've stated. so don't be proud that you want to win an argument with me by making the claim that your very claim is, at best, vapid.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']End The Fed[/quote]
Yeah, no unintended consequences there. Besides, interest rates on debt aren't controlled by the Fed.


So.. you're losing money in one spot to cover gains elsewhere for what purpose? To make yourself look like a bad investor?
Click to expand...
If you're looking to make gains with short term investing, it is good to have a long term "bad" investment to cover short term gains with a long term loss. I'll give you my personal story here. I bought a couple thousand shares of a company that was (at the time) involved in litigation with Apple. They weren't going to win because it was a bogus claim. The price I bought was $1.75 or something like that per share. It's now $0.15 per share. So I'm basically at a 90% loss here. But only on a
 
[quote name='nasum']
If you're looking to make gains with short term investing, it is good to have a long term "bad" investment to cover short term gains with a long term loss. I'll give you my personal story here. I bought a couple thousand shares of a company that was (at the time) involved in litigation with Apple. They weren't going to win because it was a bogus claim. The price I bought was $1.75 or something like that per share. It's now $0.15 per share. So I'm basically at a 90% loss here. But only on a
 
essentially yes. I'm holding it strictly for the purpose of selling at the same time that I sell a "winner" otherwise I would have cut my losses well before 90% The cash has been replaced by other gains so it's no biggie to have lost that amount earlier. I've recouped the losses strictly due to using them to cover gains.

If you've got a good longtime gain going, it's wise (despite looking incredibly foolish) to grab a penny stock that you don't really care about and use it to offset those gains in the short term. I'm just doing it backwards, holding a piece of shit for a long time to cover other gains that are either short or long term.

I should also state that I don't make a habit of this, just using this one particular holding to my advantage.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Likewise, most of the people on here are obligated to pay a sales/use tax on Amazon.com purchases... The major difference is that these larger investors use legal tax loopholes to avoid repatriating their money until they can find another legal tax loophole to bring it home. As opposed to CAG folks who outright cheat on their taxes, brag about it on the forums, then say that they don't care that they're not paying their required amount because it's too hard or something.[/QUOTE]

Who uses the excuse that it's too hard? You can check the orders you make on Amazon online, right?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Sorry, folks, that should read multi-billion dollar loss. At the time (and still), GM is in the hole to American Taxpayers $27 Billion.http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/entities/233-general-motors[/QUOTE]

What mean Eck-Witty?
This isn't a loan. The loan was paid back. The loan was $6.7b and was paid back. That's what the old bald guy with no neck was talking about in the commercials.

So, as equity holders, the American taxpayers aren't technically "in the hole". Just as MSFT doesn't owe me a fucking penny despite me owning stock in the company.

There is a structured repayment plan in place. It will take a few years.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Who uses the excuse that it's too hard? You can check the orders you make on Amazon online, right?[/QUOTE]

More importantly - what does that have to do with the price of tea in China. Don't get sucked into the UB zone. ;)
 
[quote name='camoor']More importantly - what does that have to do with the price of tea in China. Don't get sucked into the UB zone. ;)[/QUOTE]

You're right. People cheating on their taxes has nothing to do with people using tax loopholes to limit their individual tax liability. One's illegal and ones not.

[quote name='nasum']What mean Eck-Witty?
This isn't a loan. The loan was paid back. The loan was $6.7b and was paid back. That's what the old bald guy with no neck was talking about in the commercials.[/QUOTE]

Myke, however, did not specify the "loan" - he clearly referenced the "bailout" - which was a combination of loans and stock purchases.

Also: http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/general-motors-debt/

GM paid back the loan with more government money. Yippie - we're still $27 Billion short on the entire transaction.

[quote name='IRHari']Who uses the excuse that it's too hard? You can check the orders you make on Amazon online, right?[/QUOTE]

Given time, I could probably dig it up and find out who was using that excuse. Apparently, if the government wants that poster to pay taxes, they have to make it easy. It's too hard for him/her to have to go through their online orders and figure it up his/herself.

[quote name='nasum']I'll give you my personal story here. I bought a couple thousand shares of a company that was (at the time) involved in litigation with Apple. They weren't going to win because it was a bogus claim. The price I bought was $1.75 or something like that per share. It's now $0.15 per share. So I'm basically at a 90% loss here. But only on a
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You're right. People cheating on their taxes has nothing to do with people using tax loopholes to limit their individual tax liability.[/QUOTE]

But I am right. I really, no joke, no sarcasm, am right. And you are wrong.
 
KFC-Double-Down.jpg
 
I feel my arteries clogging just looking at that damn thing.

Oh...and it really cracks me up when someone that doesn't even have solid foundational knowledge on a subject seems to think that their questions are so profound and simple that they must be right...especially when the answers they give are completely wrong.
 
[quote name='camoor']But I am right. I really, no joke, no sarcasm, am right. And you are wrong.[/QUOTE]

I'm wrong that people cheating on their taxes has nothing to do with people using tax loopholes to limit their tax liability?
 
[quote name='dohdough']I feel my arteries clogging just looking at that damn thing.

Oh...and it really cracks me up when someone that doesn't even have solid foundational knowledge on a subject seems to think that their questions are so profound and simple that they must be right...especially when the answers they give are completely wrong.[/QUOTE]

Remember that Simpsons episode where it is found out Homer has an inch of water on his brain?

Everyone who fights him ends up tiring themselves out.

It is kind of like that.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm wrong that people cheating on their taxes has nothing to do with people using tax loopholes to limit their tax liability?[/QUOTE]

This false equation that failing to file for your 6-8% sales tax of Amazon purchases is somehow in the same fucking league as paying 15% of your total income rather than 30% of your income when you make $42.5 million makes you look like a raving fucking lunatic. Not just "that boy crazy" but "mommy, look at the guy on the corner that's talking to the fire hydrant" crazy.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I feel my arteries clogging just looking at that damn thing.

Oh...and it really cracks me up when someone that doesn't even have solid foundational knowledge on a subject seems to think that their questions are so profound and simple that they must be right...especially when the answers they give are completely wrong.[/QUOTE]

I'm more amused by the idea that someone would try to argue that investors don't invest money to make money, then use a personal example of how they arrange their investments to limit their own tax liability in order to maximize their profits... Then, they get to insult me even more because I'm the stupid, heartless bastard while they're out getting a DUI or something.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']This false equation that failing to file for your 6-8% sales tax of Amazon purchases is somehow in the same fucking league as paying 15% of your total income rather than 30% of your income when you make $42.5 million makes you look like a raving fucking lunatic. Not just "that boy crazy" but "mommy, look at the guy on the corner that's talking to the fire hydrant" crazy.[/QUOTE]

So... explain to me your point here - that we shouldn't care about those who cheat on their taxes when there are people who don't cheat on their taxes but could be paying in more money?

Basically, in this thread, there are a number of people who cheat on their own taxes complaining about how unfair the tax system is that someone else has legal loopholes to get out of paying their taxes.

It's actually a pretty good snapshot of the entire landscape here. "Screw you, I got mine - but damnit, everyone besides me better pitch in and fix everything that's wrong. "
 
[quote name='IRHari']Who uses the excuse that it's too hard? You can check the orders you make on Amazon online, right?[/QUOTE]

By the way, if you were seriously interested in the answer to your first question...

[quote name='dmaul1114']As for sales tax, taxes have to be as convenient as possible or I'm not fucking with them. The state revenue department can come after me if they want. My time's too valuable to bother with that kind of shit with online purchases.

Taxes should all be automated like income tax or sales tax at local places now, as well as online sales tax where applicable currently. The only taxes that should be manual are for people who are self employed who then obviously have to make income tax payments themselves.

Otherwise we shouldn't have to go through hassles to have the government take our money. Automate it or at least send me a yearly bill like for property taxes. You shouldn't have to do any work to hand over your money to stores or the government. We already work hard enough for our money in the first place! Parting with it should be easy![/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So... explain to me your point here - that we shouldn't care about those who cheat on their taxes when there are people who don't cheat on their taxes but could be paying in more money?

Basically, in this thread, there are a number of people who cheat on their own taxes complaining about how unfair the tax system is that someone else has legal loopholes to get out of paying their taxes.

It's actually a pretty good snapshot of the entire landscape here. "Screw you, I got mine - but damnit, everyone besides me better pitch in and fix everything that's wrong. "[/QUOTE]

Get this through your thick fucking skull. EVEN IF YOU SPENT $1000 on Amazon in the last year we are talking about fucking $60-80. Mitt Romney comparatively underpaid his taxes by $6 million in 2 years. That's 50,000 of those $1,000 a year Amazon spenders. Throw your fucking false indignation around all you want but those are the numbers so this bullshit about "you guys are cheating your taxes too" is completely glossing over the actual numbers.[quote name='mykevermin']I was going to post this in the 'stay classy' thread, but it seems more relevant here, at the moment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-prejudice_n_1237796.html[/QUOTE]

:rofl:

Not naming names of course...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm more amused by the idea that someone would try to argue that investors don't invest money to make money, then use a personal example of how they arrange their investments to limit their own tax liability in order to maximize their profits... Then, they get to insult me even more because I'm the stupid, heartless bastard while they're out getting a DUI or something.[/QUOTE]
His point was that all investments aren't equal and that while investments are ultimately made to make more money, there are targeted investments that are meant to lose money short term.

[quote name='UncleBob']So... explain to me your point here - that we shouldn't care about those who cheat on their taxes when there are people who don't cheat on their taxes but could be paying in more money?

Basically, in this thread, there are a number of people who cheat on their own taxes complaining about how unfair the tax system is that someone else has legal loopholes to get out of paying their taxes.

It's actually a pretty good snapshot of the entire landscape here. "Screw you, I got mine - but damnit, everyone besides me better pitch in and fix everything that's wrong. "[/QUOTE]
You're comparing someone that's sampling a grape or two to someone that's eating the whole goddamn produce section. Sure, both are stealing, but the person sampling grapes isn't the one putting you out of business.

Btw, you know there's a multi-quote option right?
 
[quote name='dohdough']
You're comparing someone that's sampling a grape or two to someone that's eating the whole goddamn produce section. Sure, both are stealing, but the person sampling grapes isn't the one putting you out of business.[/QUOTE]

Damn you and your more succinct analogy making my point. ;)
 
[quote name='dohdough']His point was that all investments aren't equal and that while investments are ultimately made to make more money, there are targeted investments that are meant to lose money short term.[/quote]

Which, of course, doesn't change my original point - investors invest to make money. They're going to weigh their decisions and base their actions on what they believe will provide them with the most profits - even if that means taking a loss in the short term to make more money in the long run.

Investors use their money to make money - it's what they do. Otherwise, they'd be philanthropists or such.

You're comparing someone that's sampling a grape or two to someone that's eating the whole goddamn produce section. Sure, both are stealing, but the person sampling grapes isn't the one putting you out of business.
Click to expand...

I fully understand that the amounts involved aren't comparable in any way, shape or form (except as a fraction of a percent, I suppose). However, the issue I have is with folks who freely admit to cheating on their own taxes crying about how other people should pay more. Even if everyone paid 100% of their required sales/use taxes, I still believe we'll need to re-evaluate our tax brackets (and our spending, but no one ever wants to discuss that) - but I don't need the neighbor's kid breaking out my car window then telling me it's okay because Charles Manson killed a bunch of people or some BS. Other people doing bad things don't mitigate your responsibility to do right.

Btw, you know there's a multi-quote option right?
Click to expand...

Yeah, but most of those posts were responses to posts that went up while I was typing a response to a different post. ;)

[quote name='dohdough']You should know better than to use IQ as a metric for intelligence.;)[/QUOTE]
Come on, that doesn't really help myke "prove" his "point."
 
There is the issue of scale.

But also, I'll admit I'm one that thinks it's too much hassle to pay taxes on online orders.

But at the same time, I think that's a loophole that needs close. I 100% support having sales tax on online orders. Be it at the rate of the state you live in, the state the store's main office is located in, or if it's some new federal sales tax.

As I've said, I don't knock Romney and others for using legal loopholes really. I argue that we need to close the damn loopholes. Same with online sales tax. I'm not going to knock people not paying it, I'm going to knock the government for not making it automated like sales tax at a physical place of purchase. Close that loophole.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Same with online sales tax. I'm not going to knock people not paying it, I'm going to knock the government for not making it automated like sales tax at a physical place of purchase. Close that loophole.[/QUOTE]

The sales/use tax thing isn't really a loophole though. It's merely people - some ignorantly, some willingly - disobeying the law and avoiding paying the required tax.

Does it need to be fixed? Yes... but it's not a loophole any more than saying it's a loophole to be drinking and driving and not get caught.
 
[quote name='dohdough'] You're comparing someone that's sampling a grape or two to someone that's eating the whole goddamn produce section. Sure, both are stealing, but the person sampling grapes isn't the one putting you out of business.[/QUOTE]

It is just another way of derailing the discussion.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'm not going to knock people not paying it, I'm going to knock the government for not making it automated like sales tax at a physical place of purchase. Close that loophole.[/QUOTE]

It's not like the states haven't been trying. They've been fighting Amazon tooth and nail over it for years now. It's a giant jurisdictional headache.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']There is the issue of scale.

But also, I'll admit I'm one that thinks it's too much hassle to pay taxes on online orders.

But at the same time, I think that's a loophole that needs close. I 100% support having sales tax on online orders. Be it at the rate of the state you live in, the state the store's main office is located in, or if it's some new federal sales tax.

As I've said, I don't knock Romney and others for using legal loopholes really. I argue that we need to close the damn loopholes. Same with online sales tax. I'm not going to knock people not paying it, I'm going to knock the government for not making it automated like sales tax at a physical place of purchase. Close that loophole.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. By what right does a state have jurisdiction to tax my business transaction with an out of state vendor? It's an arbitrary tax... and a money grab...

The fewer taxes, the better... then the government has less money with which to do stupid things or with which to pay back lobbyists for their bribes... take California... should we give Governor Moonbeam more money for his "monorail to nowhere" plan?
 
^ arbitrary tax? money grab? That's a convenient excuse and hyperbole, respectively.

Changing the nature of how purchases are taxed is vital - it reflects the nature of our economy today. If we applied the tax code's failure to catch up to technology to other aspects of government, we would see why it's silly.

We wouldn't, for instance, have any cybercrime laws - so almost everything done on craigslist would be legal by default.

We wouldn't have cyberstalking laws at all.

Wire fraud would be far more expanded.

Would we then say "good" in response to the criminal justice system's inability to enforce laws based on *where* they happen, and not *what* they are?

[quote name='mykevermin']I was going to post this in the 'stay classy' thread, but it seems more relevant here, at the moment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-prejudice_n_1237796.html[/QUOTE]

[quote name='cochesecochese']I want, so badly, to be surprised by this.[/QUOTE]

I know, right?

Herp.

I want a tax code that can fit on an index card.

9-9-9.

Derp.
 
[quote name='BigT']I disagree. By what right does a state have jurisdiction to tax my business transaction with an out of state vendor?[/QUOTE]

By this same logic, if I'm working out of state, should I be paying income tax in that state or my own state? The business transaction is occurring out of state...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I was going to post this in the 'stay classy' thread, but it seems more relevant here, at the moment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-prejudice_n_1237796.html[/QUOTE]
Stupid people like simple ideas, there's a surprise. Of course like was said in the study, the world is messy and complicated, conservatives tend to not care about understanding the complexities of, well anything really. These people are bad, we're the good guys etc.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']The sales/use tax thing isn't really a loophole though. It's merely people - some ignorantly, some willingly - disobeying the law and avoiding paying the required tax.

Does it need to be fixed? Yes... but it's not a loophole any more than saying it's a loophole to be drinking and driving and not get caught.[/QUOTE]

So should Romney use a tax loophole?

If it's legal it's legal right? If it's legal it's got to be ethical amirite?
 
Ok...enough with this IQ bullshit. IQ tests are a horrible metric because there has been a clear cultural bias ever since its inception. The race gap as explained in bob's eugenics-lite-but-still-pretty-racist link is all wrong as it has less to do with genetics and more to do with early childhood development as black children tend to be exposed to more lead, low nutrition, and a plethora of other things that those that are poor and in poverty do. Rolling out the model minority trope and saying that lighter skinned black children are "smarter" is something that has been studied for decades and has shown that lighter skinned black children are treated better than darker skinned ones. I could go on and on, but I got shit to do. Needless to say bob source is once again borked.

The argument could be made that white people scoring low on a test designed for white people by white people is news, but there are far better ways to call people dumb than using a shitty test that gives tainted results.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm more amused by the idea that someone would try to argue that investors don't invest money to make money, then use a personal example of how they arrange their investments to limit their own tax liability in order to maximize their profits... Then, they get to insult me even more because I'm the stupid, heartless bastard while they're out getting a DUI or something.[/QUOTE]

Well duh, of course investments are made in order to make money 98% of the time. You're veering of course of your argument however.
Your premise is that raising the capital gains and dividend tax will hinder investment. That is wrong.
Think about your basic point. Investing is done to make money. Will people stop investing if the outcome is still making money, even if it is less money? Then you follow it up with they'll go elsewhere. Fine. Where?

Your secondary premise is a false equivalency based on investing with a broker that has the smallest fees is somehow or another the same as the tax rate. That is also wrong. Sure, I can shop around for the lowest fee, but the tax rate is there and is not a variable in the equation.

I never said anything about heartless, nor did I call you stupid. I simply stated that you ought to have some real info as opposed to an opinion (that is misinformed).

I haven't had a DUI in 9 years. I've taken chances, but whatever. Your assertion that I'm a lush is 100% accurate and correct.

By this same logic, if I'm working out of state, should I be paying income tax in that state or my own state? The business transaction is occurring out of state...
Click to expand...
http://taxes.state.mn.us/other_supporting_content/pages/wi_reciprocity.aspx#P53_1690
This is a bit tricky so stick with me here.
If you live in the state with lower taxes but work in the one with higher, you'll likely be fine. Vice versa, you will pay 100% of the income tax due to the lower state as well as the "difference" to the other state. Let's say it's $100 in WI and $125 in MN. You will pay $100 to WI and $25 to MN now that the reciprocity agreement has ended. Mainly because Pawlenty wanted to eff over the outgoing (D) Gov.
I don't live close enough to the IA or either Dakota border to know the agreements there.
In general you pay the tax where the work is done. This is part of the reason everyone loves when the NY Yankees come to town because their payroll is taxed in the state.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob']Even if everyone paid 100% of their required sales/use taxes, I still believe we'll need to re-evaluate our tax brackets (and our spending, but no one ever wants to discuss that) - but I don't need the neighbor's kid breaking out my car window then telling me it's okay because Charles Manson killed a bunch of people or some BS. Other people doing bad things don't mitigate your responsibility to do right.[/QUOTE]

Yeah but using the immortal wisdom of FFXIII, some things are forgivable but Manson ain't one of them.

If Romney forgot to pay taxes on a DVD boxset of Bonanza he ordered off of Amazon then I could forgive him. But how could anyone trust a guy who uses every loophole in the book to avoid paying his fair share of taxes and then outright denies it?
 
Romney, 64, a former private equity executive, is facing fresh questions about whether he is out of touch with less- fortunate people after remarking to CNN in an interview that “I’m not concerned about the very poor” because they have many programs to help them.
He told reporters on his campaign plane yesterday that his comment was taken out of context.
Romney Protests
“No, no, no, no,” Romney protested when asked about his statement. “I’ve said throughout the campaign my focus, my concern, my energy is going to be devoted to helping middle- income people, all right?” He said poor people have an “ample safety net,” including Medicaid, housing vouchers, food stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Click to expand...

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...emark-stays-on-attack-as-race-moves-west.html

Oh wow.

PS I love how his excuse is to essentially double-down. Who here thinks any of those programs would be safe if Romney became Prez.
 
[quote name='camoor']If Romney forgot to pay taxes on a DVD boxset of Bonanza he ordered off of Amazon then I could forgive him. But how could anyone trust a guy who uses every loophole in the book to avoid paying his fair share of taxes and then outright denies it?[/QUOTE]

In all fairness, dude doesn't touch his taxes, he has people for that.

RE: GM Bailout funds
Here we enter the realm of equity again. GM has a structured stock buyback plan with the govt to pay it back. However, with the equity built into the deal, the govt could sell those shares on the open market and given the current trading prices make a profit on the remaining $27b.
I'm operating under the assumption that it's a zero sum deal between the two parties (hypothetically the shares were purchased at $8 and will be bought back at $8) but it's a long term asset for the govt as a receivable. In the end it's highly advantageous to GM since they can resell the shares on the open market at current price as opposed to the mythical $8 per share.
Considering that the site in the link mentions none of this shows that the site is not the best source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top