Obama to Close US Tax Loophole - GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

X

BFT3K

Too lazy to set a custom title

Join Date: Dec 2005

Posts: 10764
Share

Post
#101

05-04-2009, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by sperbonzo

If you are running a business, and you can't afford to pay all the costs of doing it in the US and be able to be competitive, you go elsewhere where the business model actually makes sense.

I don't know what rock you've been hiding under Mr. Sperbonzo, but here in the states the people in the adult industry have been working on a cutting edge, newfangled, business model called the "FREE PORN TUBE SITE" and I don't care how much the govt wants to tax this new business, because taxing FREE still equals ZERO!

You suggest we move elsewhere, where this business model may make sense? Well, it is my belief that this business model does NOT make ANY sense ANYWHERE, so stick that in your uppity pipe and smoke it sir!
Comment
sperbonzo

I'd rather be on my boat.

Join Date: May 2003

Posts: 9750
Share

Post
#102

05-04-2009, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by BFT3K

I don't know what rock you've been hiding under Mr. Sperbonzo, but here in the states the people in the adult industry have been working on a cutting edge, newfangled, business model called the "FREE PORN TUBE SITE" and I don't care how much the govt wants to tax this new business, because taxing FREE still equals ZERO!

You suggest we move elsewhere, where this business model may make sense? Well, it is my belief that this business model does NOT make ANY sense ANYWHERE, so stick that in your uppity pipe and smoke it sir!

I'm not sure what you are talking about here.... I'm talking about businesses as a whole, not just the internet, adult, or tube sites.... (and btw, they DO make money, selling traffic/banner clicks.)

And if I sounded uppity, my apologies. I'm simply debating a point, but I guess I could see how some of the phrasing could seem disparaging.

Again I apologize for that. I do get worked up sometimes.

.

Michael Sperber / Acella Financial LLC/ Online Payment Processing

[email protected] / http://Acellafinancial.com/

ICQ 177961090 / Tel +1 909 NET BILL / Skype msperber
Comment
BFT3K

Too lazy to set a custom title

Join Date: Dec 2005

Posts: 10764
Share

Post
#103

05-04-2009, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by sperbonzo

I'm not sure what you are talking about here.... I'm talking about businesses as a whole, not just the internet, adult, or tube sites.... (and btw, they DO make money, selling traffic/banner clicks.)

And if I sounded uppity, my apologies. I'm simply debating a point, but I guess I could see how some of the phrasing could seem disparaging.

Again I apologize for that. I do get worked up sometimes.

Sorry man, you didn't offend anyone at all - I was just joking with you! My last message was meaningless. I just thought it would freak some people out, as so many posts have been made recently regarding the pros and cons of free porn.

No worries. Carry on....
Comment
arock10

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2006

Posts: 6217
Share

Post
#104

05-04-2009, 04:01 PM

will this effect epass?

Sup
Comment
nation-x

Confirmed User

Join Date: Mar 2004

Posts: 5370
Share

Post
#105

05-04-2009, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by sperbonzo

...yes, and what will happen is that the more the US government squeezes companies for taxes, and forces them to drive their prices up to the point where they are no longer competitive, the more that companies and business investment will simply leave the US altogether.

If you are running a business, and you can't afford to pay all the costs of doing it in the US and be able to be competitive, you go elsewhere where the business model actually makes sense.

That is literally nonsense and you know it is. It is not the current reality or any proposed reality. Let's keep it real here... I don't think that closing tax loopholes for a minority of tax paying corporations will lead to anything like what you are describing and you have nothing with which to back up that theory. It is what politicians refer to as fear-mongering.... pure and simple.
Comment
Sausage

Confirmed User

Join Date: Oct 2002

Posts: 3012
Share

Post
#106

05-04-2009, 07:16 PM

God some of you people are stupid.

If they do this then much of the rest of the world, especially China are gonna be laughing. Sure its a popular idea for stupid simple minded sheep who have no concept of how the global economy works ... many of you actually. I bet you also think taxing the rich more is a great idea. Idiots.. you deserve everything you get

IW
Skype : blance8888
Icq : 15567120
Comment
Major (Tom)

So Fucking Banned

Join Date: Nov 2003

Posts: 32492
Share

Post
#107

05-04-2009, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by 12clicks

incorrect.

this specifically is incorrect. whenever a US citizen is paid, its taxed. believing (or saying) otherwise is just not true. Is it what the vast majority of the Obama electorate believe? yes. but then, he needed a populous who doesn't understand the world they live in to buy into his promises and lies.

Interesting read, because I know both of you really know what you are talking about.
Probally the two smartest guys I know..

Duke
Comment
TheDoc

Too lazy to set a custom title

Join Date: Jul 2001

Posts: 13827
Share

Post
#108

05-04-2009, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by Sausage

God some of you people are stupid.

If they do this then much of the rest of the world, especially China are gonna be laughing. Sure its a popular idea for stupid simple minded sheep who have no concept of how the global economy works ... many of you actually. I bet you also think taxing the rich more is a great idea. Idiots.. you deserve everything you get

Clearly you have no idea what took place. This has 100% zero to do with any part of the global eco, it has nothing to do with employees on the global eco, it has nothing to do with increasing taxes for any that does contribute or anything related to that subject. It has nothing to do with taxing the rich.. You don't need to be rich to do this.

I forgive you though, you aren't American..

Last edited by TheDoc; 05-04-2009, 08:11 PM.

~TheDoc - ICQ7765825
It's all disambiguation
Comment
Sausage

Confirmed User

Join Date: Oct 2002

Posts: 3012
Share

Post
#109

05-04-2009, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by TheDoc

Clearly you have no idea what took place. This has 100% zero to do with any part of the global eco, it has nothing to do with employees on the global eco, it has nothing to do with increasing taxes for any that does contribute or anything related to that subject. It has nothing to do with taxing the rich.. You don't need to be rich to do this.

I know exactly what took place, and there will be consequences for US companies if this goes through.

I forgive you though, you aren't American..

It is taking all my energy not to bite ...

IW
Skype : blance8888
Icq : 15567120
Comment
Snake Doctor

I'm Lenny2 Bitch

Join Date: Mar 2001

Posts: 13449
Share

Post
#110

05-05-2009, 08:33 AM

You ever get a sense of deja-moo?

The feeling that you've heard all of this bullshit before?

Conservatives on Clinton's plan to increase taxes on the wealthy in 1993.

The simple fact is that the Clinton plan will not lower interest rates. It will not lower inflation. It will not create jobs. And it will not lower the deficit. The Clinton tax plan will spur inflation, lose jobs, increase the deficit, and hurt our economic growth.

Wally Herger (R-CA) 8/4/93

I believe this will lead to a recession next year. This is the Democrat machine's recession, and each one of them will be held personally accountable.

Newt Gingrich (R-GA) 8/5/93

The impact on job creation is going to be devastating, and the American young people in particular will suffer a fairly substantial deferment of their lives because there simply won't be jobs for the next two to three years to go around to our young graduates across the country.

Dick Armey (R-TX) 8/2/93

I will tell you, this program will not give you deficit reduction. It will be a disaster for the performance of the economy

Dick Armey (R-TX) 2/18/93

The economy will sputter along. Dreams will be put off and all this for the hollow promise of deficit reduction and magical theories of lower interest rates. Like so many of the President's past promises, deficit reduction will be another cruel hoax.

Dick Armey (R-TX) 8/5/93

*yawn*

sig too big
Comment
NickPapageorgio

Confirmed User

Join Date: Apr 2004

Posts: 8323
Share

Post
#111

05-05-2009, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by Pleasurepays

and this idea of "protecting jobs at home" is the silly dream of a hopeless retards which have no understanding of the basics of macro-economics. you can't legislate economic growth. you can't force the world to buy your products. all you can do is offer value. and you don't get to determine what the buyer considers to be value. that is determined by a free market and now, in a global economy.

+rep Very good post my friend. Spot fucking on.
Comment
Pleasurepays

BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 11913
Share

Post
#112

05-05-2009, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by Snake Doctor

You ever get a sense of deja-moo?

The feeling that you've heard all of this bullshit before?

Conservatives on Clinton's plan to increase taxes on the wealthy in 1993.

The simple fact is that the Clinton plan will not lower interest rates. It will not lower inflation. It will not create jobs. And it will not lower the deficit. The Clinton tax plan will spur inflation, lose jobs, increase the deficit, and hurt our economic growth.

Wally Herger (R-CA) 8/4/93

I believe this will lead to a recession next year. This is the Democrat machine's recession, and each one of them will be held personally accountable.

Newt Gingrich (R-GA) 8/5/93

The impact on job creation is going to be devastating, and the American young people in particular will suffer a fairly substantial deferment of their lives because there simply won't be jobs for the next two to three years to go around to our young graduates across the country.

Dick Armey (R-TX) 8/2/93

I will tell you, this program will not give you deficit reduction. It will be a disaster for the performance of the economy

Dick Armey (R-TX) 2/18/93

The economy will sputter along. Dreams will be put off and all this for the hollow promise of deficit reduction and magical theories of lower interest rates. Like so many of the President's past promises, deficit reduction will be another cruel hoax.

Dick Armey (R-TX) 8/5/93

*yawn*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_124647.html

I guess Obama understands something you don't and republicans do.

"WASHINGTON ? Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy."
Comment
sperbonzo

I'd rather be on my boat.

Join Date: May 2003

Posts: 9750
Share

Post
#113

05-05-2009, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by Snake Doctor

You ever get a sense of deja-moo?

The feeling that you've heard all of this bullshit before?

Conservatives on Clinton's plan to increase taxes on the wealthy in 1993.

The simple fact is that the Clinton plan will not lower interest rates. It will not lower inflation. It will not create jobs. And it will not lower the deficit. The Clinton tax plan will spur inflation, lose jobs, increase the deficit, and hurt our economic growth.

Wally Herger (R-CA) 8/4/93

I believe this will lead to a recession next year. This is the Democrat machine's recession, and each one of them will be held personally accountable.

Newt Gingrich (R-GA) 8/5/93

The impact on job creation is going to be devastating, and the American young people in particular will suffer a fairly substantial deferment of their lives because there simply won't be jobs for the next two to three years to go around to our young graduates across the country.

Dick Armey (R-TX) 8/2/93

I will tell you, this program will not give you deficit reduction. It will be a disaster for the performance of the economy

Dick Armey (R-TX) 2/18/93

The economy will sputter along. Dreams will be put off and all this for the hollow promise of deficit reduction and magical theories of lower interest rates. Like so many of the President's past promises, deficit reduction will be another cruel hoax.

Dick Armey (R-TX) 8/5/93

*yawn*

Yes, and what happened?

Clinton's budget proposals were reversed by the Republicans in 1994.

.

Michael Sperber / Acella Financial LLC/ Online Payment Processing

[email protected] / http://Acellafinancial.com/

ICQ 177961090 / Tel +1 909 NET BILL / Skype msperber
Comment
sperbonzo

I'd rather be on my boat.

Join Date: May 2003

Posts: 9750
Share

Post
#114

05-05-2009, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by nation-x

That is literally nonsense and you know it is. It is not the current reality or any proposed reality. Let's keep it real here... I don't think that closing tax loopholes for a minority of tax paying corporations will lead to anything like what you are describing and you have nothing with which to back up that theory. It is what politicians refer to as fear-mongering.... pure and simple.

I'm not sure in what universe you are referring, but I deal with and know personally quite a lot of business owners in all types of business, both through my own projects, as well as associations and investment groups that I participate in.

The increasing corporate tax burden has caused many of them to move operations offshore when possible or to lay people off.... or to not increase their payroll levels like they would in the normal course of growth.

Michael Sperber / Acella Financial LLC/ Online Payment Processing

[email protected] / http://Acellafinancial.com/

ICQ 177961090 / Tel +1 909 NET BILL / Skype msperber
Comment
Snake Doctor

I'm Lenny2 Bitch

Join Date: Mar 2001

Posts: 13449
Share

Post
#115

05-05-2009, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by Pleasurepays

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_124647.html

I guess Obama understands something you don't and republicans do.

"WASHINGTON ? Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy."

Yeah because delaying a tax increase and wanting to cut taxes all the time are basically the same thing. :rollseyes

He never said that increasing taxes on the wealthy would further hurt the economy, that's the inference that the Huff Post writer made.

If he really agreed with republicans and thought that raising taxes on the wealthy would hurt the economy, as you are suggesting, then he wouldn't plan to raise the top rate EVER, would he?

Originally posted by sperbonzo

Yes, and what happened?

Clinton's budget proposals were reversed by the Republicans in 1994.

.

Not only do you have serious reading comprehension problems, you have a really distorted view of history.

I'm not even gonna bother with you anymore.

sig too big
Comment
MrCodey
Share

Post
#116

05-05-2009, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by TheDoc

This loophole change isn't a tax increase. YOU and your Company isn't going to pay more taxes because of this. That would be a tax increase.

So #1 isn't a factor.. So how about #3

3#) Correct the loopholes, remove the money going offshore, take away tax breaks for doing that, give tax breaks for coming on shore, and then...... give tax cuts. But that can only be done, after the 'problems' are corrected.

Yup, so wrong on these points.. Here is an example

Downtown Seattle is a web design company, or so you would think you are hiring seattle employees to do your design, after all you arae paying them $4500 for the web site design... To bad you are clueless and as it turns out that they are nothing more than outsourcing the job to a Manilla, Phillipines hired designer who works for $200/m

They are doing 30-60 jobs per month, with 3 designers... Total cost to the company
$600/m in true labor..

Meanwhile they brought in $135,000 to $270,000 in income and they check that box
and pay $0 in taxes.

Yeah that's real fair to the kid who workos at McDonalds makes $300/w and pays $100 in taxes. or anyone for that matter
Comment
Pleasurepays

BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 11913
Share

Post
#117

05-05-2009, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by Snake Doctor

Yeah because delaying a tax increase and wanting to cut taxes all the time are basically the same thing. :rollseyes

no. they are not the same thing. that's not what i was saying and you know that. what is the same is the basic understanding that tax increases put pressure on and retards economic growth.

As a candidate, Mr. Obama called for immediately repealing those tax cuts. He decided instead to keep them in place through 2010, as scheduled, reflecting the widespread belief that raising taxes further depresses economic activity.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/22/...bush-tax-cuts/

Aides to President-elect Barack Obama suggested on Sunday that he wouldn?t immediately implement a pledged rollback of tax cuts for the top tier of American income earners, because of the worsening economic outlook.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/1...ld-be-delayed/

you can't have it both ways. you can't argue that rescinding tax cuts for the wealthy will slow economic recovery (i.e. have a negative economic impact) and at the same time argue that tax increases for the wealthy will increase tax revenue to the federal government. the two concepts are diametrically opposed to each other.
Comment
Pleasurepays

BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 11913
Share

Post
#118

05-05-2009, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by MrCodey

Yup, so wrong on these points.. Here is an example

Downtown Seattle is a web design company, or so you would think you are hiring seattle employees to do your design, after all you arae paying them $4500 for the web site design... To bad you are clueless and as it turns out that they are nothing more than outsourcing the job to a Manilla, Phillipines hired designer who works for $200/m

They are doing 30-60 jobs per month, with 3 designers... Total cost to the company
$600/m in true labor..

Meanwhile they brought in $135,000 to $270,000 in income and they check that box
and pay $0 in taxes.

Yeah that's real fair to the kid who workos at McDonalds makes $300/w and pays $100 in taxes. or anyone for that matter

you really don't understand offshore business and banking and international tax law. its not this simple at all. this is not about what small companies do. this is about what large, multi national companies do - who are also competing on a global scale.

and people should stop to consider this example regarding outsourcing:

a guy wants to start a web design company in Seattle. he understands that people are only willing to pay XXX.00 for a design. He outsources that work to the philippines because it was never feasible to pay someone in the states to do it in the first place. He then has a profit. He grows his company. He hires more staff. He creates new business and new jobs.

OR...

a guy wants to start a web design company in Seattle. he understands that people are only willing to pay XXX.00 for a design. He does the quick math and realizes it can't work hiring locally and goes back to his job as a radio station intern... and the net result is that we all lose.

Last edited by Pleasurepays; 05-05-2009, 12:23 PM.
Comment
TheDoc

Too lazy to set a custom title

Join Date: Jul 2001

Posts: 13827
Share

Post
#119

05-05-2009, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by MrCodey

Yup, so wrong on these points.. Here is an example

Downtown Seattle is a web design company, or so you would think you are hiring seattle employees to do your design, after all you arae paying them $4500 for the web site design... To bad you are clueless and as it turns out that they are nothing more than outsourcing the job to a Manilla, Phillipines hired designer who works for $200/m

They are doing 30-60 jobs per month, with 3 designers... Total cost to the company
$600/m in true labor..

Meanwhile they brought in $135,000 to $270,000 in income and they check that box
and pay $0 in taxes.

Yeah that's real fair to the kid who workos at McDonalds makes $300/w and pays $100 in taxes. or anyone for that matter

I'm not sure which side you argued here.. You made my point for me, other than Companies check the box, not workers.

If a Company brought in $100k+ money from any place, it's going to owe taxes, box checked or not.

And this has nothing to do with hiring our sourced workers for your U.S. based company. If the design company wishes to do that, and not pay local employee type taxes, then that is legal as long as the person doesn't actually work in your office.

~TheDoc - ICQ7765825
It's all disambiguation
Comment
Snake Doctor

I'm Lenny2 Bitch

Join Date: Mar 2001

Posts: 13449
Share

Post
#120

05-05-2009, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Pleasurepays

you can't have it both ways. you can't argue that rescinding tax cuts for the wealthy will slow economic recovery (i.e. have a negative economic impact) and at the same time argue that tax increases for the wealthy will increase tax revenue to the federal government. the two concepts are diametrically opposed to each other.

I never said that rescinding tax cuts for the wealthy would slow economic recovery...and as far as I can tell, Obama hasn't either.

That's the conclusion people are drawing, but I haven't read a quote where he's said it.

Anyhoo, I really don't see the point in having the whole tax/economy/role of government argument all over again for the ten thousandth time.
At the end of the day, the liberal guy won, the conservative guy lost, so obviously alot of things are going to change.

I can totally understand where you're coming from when it comes to taxes and spending in general. (I disagree with you, but still understand the principle behind your argument)
What I don't understand is why you would be against closing loopholes that allow companies to basically get out of paying taxes by investing money in other countries.
It's one thing if they want to invest there, and create jobs there, but why should the U.S. tax system have incentives for that? Shouldn't the incentives be to invest and create jobs here?

sig too big
Comment
Pleasurepays

BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 11913
Share

Post
#121

05-05-2009, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by MrCodey

270,000 in income and they check that box
and pay $0 in taxes.

Yeah that's real fair to the kid who workos at McDonalds makes $300/w and pays $100 in taxes. or anyone for that matter

Perhaps the greatest irony of our tax system and the idea of "paying ones fair share" is that poorer people will always pay a higher percent of their income in taxes than wealthier people. that's just a fact. in addition to that, they are buying lottery tickets, cheap beer, cigarettes to further contribute to the governments coffers.

Until there is a flat tax or we eliminate income tax and replace it with a national sales tax, poorer people will lose every time. My attorneys will always trump your H&R Block $20.00 tax preparation guy.

Tax rates do nothing to make someone pay their fair share. Higher tax rates, makes more money go into hiding, go offshore etc. And you are talking about raising taxes of people that are fully capable of taking advantage of every possible method in existence to lower their tax burden.

The IRS is not going to better the collective brainpower and motivation of Deloitte and Touche, Ernst & Young, Price Waterhouse Coopers et al. and hundreds of thoudands of international tax law experts, their global reach, global offices and legions of ivy league educated tax attorneys and ex IRS attorneys.

They can however work over the kid at McDonalds making 300.00 a week with zero effort and he'll accept whatever he's told to do by the IRS at face value.
Comment
nation-x

Confirmed User

Join Date: Mar 2004

Posts: 5370
Share

Post
#122

05-05-2009, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by sperbonzo

I'm not sure in what universe you are referring, but I deal with and know personally quite a lot of business owners in all types of business, both through my own projects, as well as associations and investment groups that I participate in.

The increasing corporate tax burden has caused many of them to move operations offshore when possible or to lay people off.... or to not increase their payroll levels like they would in the normal course of growth.

While they have $5000-25,000/year club memberships, drive $100,000 cars, live in $500,000+ homes, boats with $1000 slip fees, etc etc... give me a break. It's 100% about the bottom line and they are whining bitches, I bet. You pay taxes on profit (earnings)... if you take a loss you don't pay a dime. Some of us are not stupid and also own businesses of our own.
Comment
tony286

lurker

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 57021
Share

Post
#123

05-05-2009, 01:01 PM

read bloomberg I dont think anything is going to happen.
Comment
Pleasurepays

BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 11913
Share

Post
#124

05-05-2009, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Snake Doctor

I never said that rescinding tax cuts for the wealthy would slow economic recovery...and as far as I can tell, Obama hasn't either.

That's the conclusion people are drawing, but I haven't read a quote where he's said it.

Obama started by saying early on - many times that he would roll back Bush's tax cuts on the "wealthiest americans"

example:
WASHINGTON, May 13 — If elected president, Senator Barack Obama said Sunday, he would seek to repeal President Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and use the money to pay for health care, but he did not suggest he would raise other taxes to pay for expanded services.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/14/us...cs/14talk.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ama-iowa_N.htm

this was the bullshit he was saying constantly through the democratic nomination process.

Later, he was forced to recant this - many times saying that he wasn't going to it because of the economic situation.

example:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama will allow tax breaks given to wealthier Americans under his predecessor, George W. Bush, to expire as scheduled rather than eliminate them sooner, an administration official said on Saturday.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...51K1ZF20090221

if tax increases increase revenue to the federal budget, then he should have moved to rescind them immediately right? this was his promise to America. this was part of his campaign platform about those greedy republicans fucking everything up and how he was going to fix it.

he didn't do it. why? because he understands that the net effect of increasing the tax burden on people who actually have money and make money and create wealth, will do more harm than good.

Last edited by Pleasurepays; 05-05-2009, 01:03 PM.
Comment
nation-x

Confirmed User

Join Date: Mar 2004

Posts: 5370
Share

Post
#125

05-05-2009, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Pleasurepays

he didn't do it. why? because he understands that the net effect of increasing the tax burden on people who actually have money and make money and create wealth, will do more harm than good.

They didn't expire yet.
Comment
Pleasurepays

BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 11913
Share

Post
#126

05-05-2009, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by nation-x

They didn't expire yet.

jesus man
Comment
Snake Doctor

I'm Lenny2 Bitch

Join Date: Mar 2001

Posts: 13449
Share

Post
#127

05-05-2009, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Pleasurepays

Perhaps the greatest irony of our tax system and the idea of "paying ones fair share" is that poorer people will always pay a higher percent of their income in taxes than wealthier people. that's just a fact. in addition to that, they are buying lottery tickets, cheap beer, cigarettes to further contribute to the governments coffers.

Until there is a flat tax or we eliminate income tax and replace it with a national sales tax, poorer people will lose every time. My attorneys will always trump your H&R Block $20.00 tax preparation guy.

Tax rates do nothing to make someone pay their fair share. Higher tax rates, makes more money go into hiding, go offshore etc. And you are talking about raising taxes of people that are fully capable of taking advantage of every possible method in existence to lower their tax burden.

The IRS is not going to better the collective brainpower and motivation of Deloitte and Touche, Ernst & Young, Price Waterhouse Coopers et al. and hundreds of thoudands of international tax law experts, their global reach, global offices and legions of ivy league educated tax attorneys and ex IRS attorneys.

They can however work over the kid at McDonalds making 300.00 a week with zero effort and he'll accept whatever he's told to do by the IRS at face value.

Part of what you're saying there is true, and the Obama administration isn't acting unilaterally on this. This was a big topic of discussion at the G20 summit. We're not the only country losing alot of revenue to tax havens.

With enough international cooperation, this is something that can be cracked down on worldwide.

I agree that the small business owner making $250K a year gets royally screwed by our tax code. The reason he does is because the guy making $250MM a year has an army of accountants and attorneys finding new and clever ways to hide his assets and income.
So the guy making $250K a year pays 40-50% and the guy making $250MM a year pays 5%, plus a few hundred K in fees to the accountants and attorneys.

Where we disagree is the solution. I don't think that lowering tax rates is going to encourage compliance. That's like saying raising the speed limit to 90 or increasing the allowable blood alcohol level to 0.2 will cut down on speeding and drunk driving.

As long as it's cheaper to hide the money (in terms of expenses and fees) than it is to pay the taxes, a certain percentage of people are going to choose to hide it.
What's needed is to close all of the loopholes that allow them to hide money, crack down on the havens, and do a better job of enforcement and collection.

A flat tax or a national sales tax with a prebate may sound good in theory, but it's never going to happen. Getting universal health care through congress is going to be a nightmare, because of all the special interests and lobbyists that work for the affected industries.

I can only imagine what kind of Washington style pig fuck it would be if they tried to rewrite the entire tax code.

sig too big
Comment
BFT3K

Too lazy to set a custom title

Join Date: Dec 2005

Posts: 10764
Share

Post
#128

05-05-2009, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Pleasurepays

Obama started by saying early on - many times that he would roll back Bush's tax cuts on the "wealthiest americans"

example:
WASHINGTON, May 13 ? If elected president, Senator Barack Obama said Sunday, he would seek to repeal President Bush?s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and use the money to pay for health care, but he did not suggest he would raise other taxes to pay for expanded services.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/14/us...cs/14talk.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ama-iowa_N.htm

this was the bullshit he was saying constantly through the democratic nomination process.

Later, he was forced to recant this - many times saying that he wasn't going to it because of the economic situation.

example:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama will allow tax breaks given to wealthier Americans under his predecessor, George W. Bush, to expire as scheduled rather than eliminate them sooner, an administration official said on Saturday.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...51K1ZF20090221

if tax increases increase revenue to the federal budget, then he should have moved to rescind them immediately right? this was his promise to America. this was part of his campaign platform about those greedy republicans fucking everything up and how he was going to fix it.

he didn't do it. why? because he understands that the net effect of increasing the tax burden on people who actually have money and make money and create wealth, will do more harm than good.

The dumbass Bush tax cuts on the wealthy are due to expire in 2010. Obama will not renew them, don't worry..
Comment
nation-x

Confirmed User

Join Date: Mar 2004

Posts: 5370
Share

Post
#129

05-05-2009, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Pleasurepays

jesus man

You have to pick your fights... I can't expect him to keep every campaign promise... there hasn't been a president in my lifetime that was able to do that... I don't think it's because of lack of desire... it's really that he has to work with what he is dealt and this whole crisis really hadn't poked it's head out until very late in the campaign.
Comment
Snake Doctor

I'm Lenny2 Bitch

Join Date: Mar 2001

Posts: 13449
Share

Post
#130

05-05-2009, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Pleasurepays

if tax increases increase revenue to the federal budget, then he should have moved to rescind them immediately right? this was his promise to America. this was part of his campaign platform about those greedy republicans fucking everything up and how he was going to fix it.

he didn't do it. why? because he understands that the net effect of increasing the tax burden on people who actually have money and make money and create wealth, will do more harm than good.

If he truly believed that then why didn't he run as a republican?

If he truly believed that then why is he going to let them expire and have the top rate go back to 39% in 2011? Because he wants to throw us into a recession right before he runs for reelection?

C'mon man.

Did it ever occur to you that he has about 100 things he wants to do, rolling back the Bush tax cuts was only 1 of those 100, and he knows that by doing it now it would make it harder for him to get his other stuff done?
He would be giving ammo to the republicans to use against him, at a time when they're practically irrelevant. Not only that, but rescinding them earlier than 2011 would require a new bill to make it through congress.
This would allow the republicans to filibuster, to dominate news cycle after news cycle with a debate about taxes instead of the other things he wants to accomplish.
To have the cuts expire in 2011, he doesn't have to do anything, doesn't have to sign anything, and gives the republicans no weapons to use against him.

Matter of fact, they can't even say he raised taxes in 2011, because he wouldn't have. It was a republican led congress and a republican President who put sunset provisions in the tax bill.

There's alot that goes into any decision he makes, and he's taking a much longer view of this than most people are, and to say "oh he's not raising taxes right away, that means he knows republicans are right" is a bit of a stretch.

sig too big
Comment
Relentless

www.EngineFood.com

Join Date: Aug 2006

Posts: 5697
Share

Post
#131

05-05-2009, 01:22 PM

The answer is a flat tax with a poverty threshold. It has been proposed by Republican leaders like Jack Kemp (who died recently), Democrats and Independents. The main reason it doesn't happen is that the tax lawyers and accountants lobby kills it because it would simplify the tax code so much that any 9 year old could figure out your tax bill and you could file on a postcard:

Everyone would pay 0 taxes on the first 50K (or whatever they establish as the poverty threshold) and the same taxable percent on all other money above the threshold. Let's assume just for discussion that the rate was set as 15% (which is a rate commonly used by economists who support the idea) and the poverty threshold was set at 50K.

Earn 2K = you pay 0% on 1st 50K and 15% of 0 above 50K = 0.00
Earn 55K = you pay 0% on 1st 50K and 15% of 5K over 50K = $750
Earn 250K = you pay 0% on 1st 50K and 15% of 150K over 50K = 22,500
Earn 1billion = you pay 0% on 1st 50K and 15% of 950K over 50K =142,500

Every person would get their first 50K in earnings tax free no matter what they earn. That 50K dollar amount covers basic necessities whether you are poor or wealthy. Every person then pays the identical tax percentage rate on each dollar above that 50K threshold.

The beauty of the system is that it is fair to everyone and simple. It would save the government billions of dollars in bureaucracy that is no longer needed, would help the poor, would cause the middle class and rich to pay less than their legislated tax rate today and would increase the total tax revenue by including wealthy people who currently pay little or no taxes whatsoever.

Each year the government would need to adjust only two numbers:

1) The amount of the exclusion all taxpayers get (50K in my example)
2) The % of income over that threshold all taxpayers pay (15% in my example)

Corporate taxes could be simplified in a similar manner. And for those who think corporations should not pay taxes.... you are delusional. They get all the benefits of being a person legally - without those protections they would be unable to do business in the modern world, the trade off is that they have to pay taxes just like any other citizen. Giving up those protections so that you don't have to pay taxes on a corporate level would be as retarded as agreeing to give up your rights and protections on a personal level to avoid income tax.

Last edited by Relentless; 05-05-2009, 01:23 PM.

Website Secure | Engine Food
ICQ# 266-942-896
Comment
Snake Doctor

I'm Lenny2 Bitch

Join Date: Mar 2001

Posts: 13449
Share

Post
#132

05-05-2009, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Relentless

Earn 1billion = you pay 0% on 1st 50K and 15% of 950K over 50K =142,500
.

sig too big
Comment
nation-x

Confirmed User

Join Date: Mar 2004

Posts: 5370
Share

Post
#133

05-05-2009, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Snake Doctor

I think he meant 1million
Comment
sperbonzo

I'd rather be on my boat.

Join Date: May 2003

Posts: 9750
Share

Post
#134

05-05-2009, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Snake Doctor

Not only do you have serious reading comprehension problems, you have a really distorted view of history.

I'm not even gonna bother with you anymore.

History? I'm 46. You don't remember Newt's 10 points promise to America, that took Republican control of the House and Senate for the first time since WWII?

.

Michael Sperber / Acella Financial LLC/ Online Payment Processing

[email protected] / http://Acellafinancial.com/

ICQ 177961090 / Tel +1 909 NET BILL / Skype msperber
Comment
Snake Doctor

I'm Lenny2 Bitch

Join Date: Mar 2001

Posts: 13449
Share

Post
#135

05-05-2009, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by sperbonzo

History? I'm 46. You don't remember Newt's 10 points promise to America, that took Republican control of the House and Senate for the first time since WWII?

.

I realize that for me to correct every misstatement and wrong assumption you've made in this thread would take alot more time than I'm willing to spend, so for the most part I'm going to have to choose to ignore you.

Yes I remember the republicans gaining a majority in congress in 1994. That doesn't mean they took over the entire government. Remember that whole government shut down thing over the budget?
Clinton won that one, not Newt.

They also didn't rescind Clinton's tax increase on top earners, which is what I was referring to when I posted all of those quotes from republicans circa 1993.

sig too big
Comment
Pleasurepays

BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 11913
Share

Post
#136

05-05-2009, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by BFT3K

The dumbass Bush tax cuts on the wealthy are due to expire in 2010. Obama will not renew them, don't worry..

his promise to you and to voters and those who elected them was that he was going to roll them back, repeal them... rescind them. not sure how many other phrases i would have to use for you guys to understand that. he promised to get rid of them BEFORE they expired because he was telling YOU that was going to raise revenue to the federal government.

he didn't do it.

furthermore, in a democrat controlled house and senate where its a slam dunk AND where we desperately need increase revenue to the federal government, he didn't do it. that doesn't make much sense does it?

he didn't live up to his promise to you to get rid of this tax cut and raise revenues.

he didn't do it because as with most of the promises he made, the goofy idealism of a naive politician was confronted with the harsh reality of the situation.
Comment
BFT3K

Too lazy to set a custom title

Join Date: Dec 2005

Posts: 10764
Share

Post
#137

05-05-2009, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Pleasurepays

his promise to you and to voters and those who elected them was that he was going to roll them back, repeal them... rescind them. not sure how many other phrases i would have to use for you guys to understand that. he promised to get rid of them BEFORE they expired because he was telling YOU that was going to raise revenue to the federal government.

he didn't do it.

furthermore, in a democrat controlled house and senate where its a slam dunk AND where we desperately need increase revenue to the federal government, he didn't do it. that doesn't make much sense does it?

he didn't live up to his promise to you to get rid of this tax cut and raise revenues.

he didn't do it because as with most of the promises he made, the goofy idealism of a naive politician was confronted with the harsh reality of the situation.

Okay, then "the harsh reality of the situation" will end next year. Call it what you like.

As far as his promises to the people who voted him in goes; he is doing a pretty good job ticking one off at a time, including steps to close tax loopholes, which is where this post began.
Comment
DatingGold

$6 PER EMAIL JOiN

Join Date: Feb 2003

Posts: 13185
Share

Post
#138

05-05-2009, 02:25 PM

Everything Obama does is bad news for me. If your broke, uneducated and unemployed its all great news for you because you can continue to live that life.

9 Years of SOLID payouts and conversions!

ADULT DATING - $100 PPS

LIVE CAMS - $214 PPS

WWW.DATINGGOLD.COM

ICQ: 27442303
Comment
Pleasurepays

BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 11913
Share

Post
#139

05-05-2009, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by BFT3K

Okay, then "the harsh reality of the situation" will end next year. Call it what you like.

As far as his promises to the people who voted him in goes; he is doing a pretty good job ticking one off at a time, including steps to close tax loopholes, which is where this post began.

ticking one off at a time? all he did was pass the most moronic spending bill ever... which was voted on and passed by people who admit they didn't even read it... never mind even debate it or discuss it for a day or two.

Last edited by Pleasurepays; 05-05-2009, 02:28 PM.
Comment
TheDoc

Too lazy to set a custom title

Join Date: Jul 2001

Posts: 13827
Share

Post
#140

05-05-2009, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by DatingGold

Everything Obama does is bad news for me. If your broke, uneducated and unemployed its all great news for you because you can continue to live that life.

Damn, your life changed so much because of Obama that you're poor now?

~TheDoc - ICQ7765825
It's all disambiguation
Comment
Pleasurepays

BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 11913
Share

Post
#141

05-05-2009, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by BFT3K

Okay, then "the harsh reality of the situation" will end next year. Call it what you like.

the "harsh reality of the situation" is that he was forced to come to terms with the fact that higher taxes have a negative impact on the economy.

its politically expedient for him to simply to allow them to expire rather than take decisive action and live up to his promises, because if he allows them to expire, he can't be blamed for their existence or non existence or the consequences of either.

it doesn't take a genius IQ to be able to wrap your mind around that simple fact.
Comment
nation-x

Confirmed User

Join Date: Mar 2004

Posts: 5370
Share

Post
#142

05-05-2009, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Pleasurepays

the "harsh reality of the situation" is that he was forced to come to terms with the fact that higher taxes have a negative impact on the economy.

its politically expedient for him to simply to allow them to expire rather than take decisive action and live up to his promises, because if he allows them to expire, he can't be blamed for their existence or non existence or the consequences of either.

it doesn't take a genius IQ to be able to wrap your mind around that simple fact.

Oooohhh... Cpt. Obvious strikes again! I posted above that he had to pick his fights and he is already going to win this one by default... the tax cuts were never made permanent.
Comment
Pleasurepays

BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 11913
Share

Post
#143

05-05-2009, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by TheDoc

Damn, your life changed so much because of Obama that you're poor now?

his life is going to change because this administration is going to quadruple the national debt, devalue his wealth and do so, while taking more money away from him to pay for printing all this money we don't have in addition to newly created entitlement programs we can't afford to begin with.

that's not tough to understand.

i'm sure you guys won't notice being that you give all your money to charity and spend your days toiling away for free in the childrens wards of hospitals as volunteers.
Comment
Snake Doctor

I'm Lenny2 Bitch

Join Date: Mar 2001

Posts: 13449
Share

Post
#144

05-05-2009, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by Pleasurepays

his promise to you and to voters and those who elected them was that he was going to roll them back, repeal them... rescind them. not sure how many other phrases i would have to use for you guys to understand that. he promised to get rid of them BEFORE they expired because he was telling YOU that was going to raise revenue to the federal government.

he didn't do it.

furthermore, in a democrat controlled house and senate where its a slam dunk AND where we desperately need increase revenue to the federal government, he didn't do it. that doesn't make much sense does it?

he didn't live up to his promise to you to get rid of this tax cut and raise revenues.

he didn't do it because as with most of the promises he made, the goofy idealism of a naive politician was confronted with the harsh reality of the situation.

I made a point about this earlier, you obviously chose to ignore it because it doesn't gel with your philosophy that Obama secretly agrees with you.

It's nowhere near a slam dunk to pass congress. It would face a filibuster in the Senate, and that's a fight he doesn't need right now, not with 100 other things on his plate.
Especially because the cuts will expire in another year anyways. So he avoids a big fight, big drama, big bullets for the republicans to use against him, just for waiting a year.

Sounds more like a shrewd politician than someone who secretly believes the republicans are right to me.

sig too big
Comment
BFT3K

Too lazy to set a custom title

Join Date: Dec 2005

Posts: 10764
Share

Post
#145

05-05-2009, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by Pleasurepays

ticking one off at a time? all he did was pass the most moronic spending bill ever... which was voted on and passed by people who admit they didn't even read it... never mind even debate it or discuss it for a day or two.

You sound like you're describing The Patriot Act or something. Either you watch too much Fox Noise, or you're addicted to right-wing radio.

A partial list of promises kept by Obama within his first 100 days...

? Create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners.
? Expand loan programs for small businesses.
? Extend and index the 2007 Alternative Minimum Tax patch.
 ? Expand eligibility for State Children's Health Insurance Fund (SCHIP).
 ? Expand funding to train primary care providers and public health practitioners.
 ? Direct military leaders to end war in Iraq.
 ? Send two additional brigades to Afghanistan.
 ? Give a speech at a major Islamic forum in the first 100 days of his administration.
 ? Grant Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send money to Cuba.
 ? Restore funding for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne/JAG) program.
 ? Release presidential records.
 ? Require new hires to sign a form affirming their hiring was not due to political affiliation or contributions.
 ? Remove more brush, small trees and vegetation that fuel wildfires.
 ? Create a White House Office on Urban Policy.
 ? Support increased funding for the NEA.
 ? Fund a major expansion of AmeriCorps.
 ? Work to overturn Ledbetter vs. Goodyear.
 ? Ban lobbyist gifts to executive employees.
 ? Weatherize 1 million homes per year.
 ? Invest in all types of alternative energy.
 ? Enact tax credit for consumers for plug-in hybrid cars.
 ? Support high-speed rail.
 ? Provide grants to encourage energy-efficient building codes.
 ? Get his daughters a puppy.
 ? Appoint at least one Republican to the cabinet.
 ? Extend unemployment insurance benefits and temporarily suspend taxes on these benefits.
 ? Reverse restrictions on stem cell research.
Comment
Pleasurepays

BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 11913
Share

Post
#146

05-05-2009, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by nation-x

Oooohhh... Cpt. Obvious strikes again! I posted above that he had to pick his fights and he is already going to win this one by default... the tax cuts were never made permanent.

what "fight" genius??

there is no fight if he truly believed that rolling them back would raise federal tax revenues as he said he did. Pelosi begged him constantly, in public, on the record to live up to his word and do it. if he believed in them to begin with, he would have just done it and lived up to his promise to you and made the nation more financially sound.

but he didn't did he?

he didn't truly believe that increasing taxes on the wealthy was a way to boost revenues to the federal government or help the economy.

i know you guys hate that i'm right. i'm ok with that. i know you can't escape the sound logic of my points and its pissing you off. let it go. you still won. Obama is president. You have at least 4 years to drive the country into recession, created massive entitlement programs we can't afford, print money like there is no consequence and tax the shit out of people that actually create wealth.

i'm moving back out of the country because this idiocy is just too much to bear. no reason to run a company that's not only one of the most taxed in the world but to run it in THE most litigious nation in the world and definitely not friendly to adult. this nation, in the interest of this retarded notions of "fair" and "what's right" is aggressively removing any incentive for people to operate here that don't need to operate here.

of course, you guys will never get that, because you see the world in a way that prevents you from seeing any other side of the situation and you want to believe that success and successful people are your enemy which does nothing but provide you with an easy excuse to rationalize your own failure. and you think that if you just beat down rich people and big corporations, you're lives will improve and that's NEVER happened in the history of the world. but when some smooth talking jackass stands up on stage and tells you that's what he's gonna do, you cream your pants like you just won the lottery because you're too shortsighted and naive to understand that wealth is not created by, nor managed by low income people. Alienating those who create and manage wealth in the interest of "fairness" always has the same results and in the meantime, we're about to be owned by China because you fucking idiots can't wait to quadruple the debt and have to hope to christ they will keep buying it before the worlds largest ponzi scheme collapses on itself and your life savings of 1000.00 becomes toilet paper while americans have to sneak across the border into mexico to work for pesos.
Comment
TheDoc

Too lazy to set a custom title

Join Date: Jul 2001

Posts: 13827
Share

Post
#147

05-05-2009, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Pleasurepays

his life is going to change because this administration is going to quadruple the national debt, devalue his wealth and do so, while taking more money away from him to pay for printing all this money we don't have in addition to newly created entitlement programs we can't afford to begin with.

that's not tough to understand.

i'm sure you guys won't notice being that you give all your money to charity and spend your days toiling away for free in the childrens wards of hospitals as volunteers.

Quadruple? over the more than double that Bush pushed to? He is going to have to spend 8 times faster than Bush did... when he is spending slower. But still possible I guess.

I'm pretty sure his wealth, like most Americans was devalued before Obama got into office.

The printed money isn't going to devalue our dollar, it's not like we actually printed trillions and gave it to PEOPLE...

I'm not aware of his new entitlement programs are... I have heard him say that the current Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs we have are screwed up, and they cost a ton of money.. Entitlement Reform...

I already donated my time to Country.. Sounds like you guys need some kitchen work yourself..

~TheDoc - ICQ7765825
It's all disambiguation
Comment
Snake Doctor

I'm Lenny2 Bitch

Join Date: Mar 2001

Posts: 13449
Share

Post
#148

05-05-2009, 03:03 PM

Ok Pleasurepays, you went way off the reservation there.

Most of the time I disagree with you but can respect your position.

This time though it's not enough for you to have a position, but you're utterly convinced that President Obama believes that raising taxes on the wealthy will decrease revenue to the Treasury and that's why he didn't do it.

Get a grip man.

sig too big
Comment
TheDoc

Too lazy to set a custom title

Join Date: Jul 2001

Posts: 13827
Share

Post
#149

05-05-2009, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by Snake Doctor

Ok Pleasurepays, you went way off the reservation there.

Most of the time I disagree with you but can respect your position.

This time though it's not enough for you to have a position, but you're utterly convinced that President Obama believes that raising taxes on the wealthy will decrease revenue to the Treasury and that's why he didn't do it.

Get a grip man.

If I remember correctly... and I quote "he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession"

That's the line he and the right, are going off of. They twisted it to mean that Obama 'knows' that this tax cut, would raise taxes, thus hurting the eco and not actually making the fed money.

I read it.. I'm already going to raise your taxes, so I will wait until the recession is over to fully ass rape you.

~TheDoc - ICQ7765825
It's all disambiguation
Comment
Pleasurepays

BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 11913
Share

Post
#150

05-05-2009, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by TheDoc

Quadruple? over the more than double that Bush pushed to? He is going to have to spend 8 times faster than Bush did... when he is spending slower. But still possible I guess.

lets forget interest and "quadruple" and stick to Obamas math.

As of today, it’s $10.8-trillion. The administration projects it’ll climb to $14-trillion next year and in 2013 wind up at $17.1-trillion dollars – very close to matching the size of the entire economy as measured by the projected Gross Domestic Product. And taxpayers will be paying hundreds of billions in interest on the debt each year.

The budget, which carries the title “A New Era of Responsibility,” shows that at the end of ten years, the National Debt will hit $23.1-trillion dollars – exactly matching the GDP that year.

and you're exactly right. Bush... sent the national debt totally sideways. Fucked up real bad even though we were in two wars etc.. And democrats bitched about it non-stop.

So the democrats response once they take the reigns? they create the largest single one year increase in history. nice to see some real fiscal responsibility in Washington finally. I feel much better.

The printed money isn't going to devalue our dollar, it's not like we actually printed trillions and gave it to PEOPLE...

you apparently have no idea how currency markets work.

Last edited by Pleasurepays; 05-05-2009, 05:05 PM.
Comment

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next

Working...