Conservatives Trying to Ruin More American Jobs (aka Listen to Craig234 lecture)

[Tomorrow]

2. The latest and greatest - An ebay business
3. Real Estate
4. Business - there are endless deductions
5. Job Creations Act of 2004
6. Disaster Relief
7. Insurance and Medical
8. Reporting lower than actual profits (artifically inflating cost of goods, family labor, etc...)

There are hundreds, if not thousands of books of tax loopholes. Your accountant most likely has a few dozen books on the topic.

Buck, please don't get carried away, here. Legal deductions are not "loopholes". Would you call a deduction for a dependent a loophole? Business deductions are not loopholes. And I think you are confusing a lot of things with this post. Fraud is also not a loophole. It's a crime.

 

[Vynilforlife]

Yes, you have to love a tax system that penalizes people more for succeeding. That makes sense. We need something closer to a flat tax, this will equal the playing field.

 

[craigsub]

The Flat tax is good ... but the real winner is the National Sales Tax. It is revenue neutral, and does so largely by bringing the underground economy into paying its "fair share"

A family of four would receive a $6072 annual rebate from the Government ... regardless of income. If this family is making $20,000 per year, and spends all $20,000 ... their total tax burden is $4600 ... leaving $1472 left.

This family has a net tax rate of -7.36%

A single mother of three, making $12,000 gets a rebate of $4600. If she spends all $12,000 ... she pays $2760, and keeps the remaining $1840 ... a tax rate of -15.33 %

If a drug dealer buys a Ferrari for $300,000 ... he pays $69,000 in taxes.

That is revenue we never had before.

The person who inherits $100 million through an elaborate trust, suddenly becomes a taxpayer.

Picture a world in which you pay no personal taxes, no FICA, no medicare, nor other federal taxes.

If you can save $500 per month towards a house, it is tax free.

April 15 becomes just another day. No tax return to file.

 

[warhummer]

Flat taxation/GST

I think this one would be a hard sell to Joe civillian who gets a tax refund each year. Even though s/he was way over-witholding, I can see the argument "You're not going to get your tax refund if this plan gets passed!" as a rallying cry to squash tax reform. So even though you're giving the government an interest free loan each year, people think they somehow did something "good" when they get a fat refund check.

 

[craigsub]

I think this one would be a hard sell to Joe civillian who gets a tax refund each year. Even though s/he was way over-witholding, I can see the argument "You're not going to get your tax refund if this plan gets passed!" as a rallying cry to squash tax reform. So even though you're giving the government an interest free loan each year, people think they somehow did something "good" when they get a fat refund check.

The National Sales Tax should not be too hard a sell. For Joe Civilian, the father of 2 kids, here is what he gets ... Just using a rough example for a guy grossing $600 per week and taking home $420 per week. For this example, State and local taxes are left out of the equation.

Let's say this went into effect on January 1, 2007.

1. Joe gets $6072 In January, 2007 for that year's refund.
2. He keeps the entire $600 each week.

Using the $420 per week take home he has now, that is $21,840.

Assuming he spends everything, and he spent the entire $21,840, the tax on that would be $5023. This means he spent $26,863, or $26,900 rounded off, out of his $31,200.

This means Joe Civilian got to keep that whole $6072 he got in December AND the extra $4300 left from his difference during the year.

Joe Civilian's total profit is $10,372.

In the meantime, John Kerry (for a liberal) and Rupert Murdoch (for a conservative) now start paying THEIR fair share.

Joe Civilian, when shown these #'s ... will likely be tickled.

 

[Craig234]

Recent posts

For examples of the huge, huge tax loopholes designed for the ultra wealthy at the expense of everyone else, the info has already been pointed to.

The book by David Cay Johnston has many well-documented examples. I'd post some if the people demanding them responded to facts, but they're not.

(Craigsub has explicitly indicated he has no interest in facts, other than in posting misleading his own usually misleading and irrelevant ones, with his statement that he will not discuss the facts in post #51; instead just calls them 'poopoo head' in effect and shows no interest in learning the truth).

As for the nonsense that the national sales tax is anything but yet another device to make the rich richer and poor poorer, I refer the reader to any of the many studies - I won't even pick one - by people slightly more expert than Craigsub to comment on the effects, and to the fact that the groups who push things in the interest of the ultra wealthy just love the idea.

Of course on a common sense level, it's not hard to understand that everyone has some basic common needs, and that someone who makes 500 times what someone else does doesn't spend 500 times as much on things - the vast majority of their money is put into increasing their ownership, their wealth.

They can spend ten times the median CA price on a house and have a $5 million house; 20 times as much on food and a car, and be eating at the best restaurants every night with friends and driving a $600,000 car at 20 times the typical new car price of $30K.

To net it out, the sales tax is a very regressive tax which would, yes, make the rich richer and the poor poorer, among other effects.

We're living in a fantasy land today of six year olds being told 'Johnny doesn't want to pay his taxes? Then Johnny doesn't have to', while debt goes up.

The men who led our nation to its greatest successes did things quite differently than the people in power - I don't call them leaders - today.

Check out sometime our policies in the 1950's when the republicans controlled the presidency and congress - a 'golden era' for the economy.

What was union membership at? What were tax rates at for the wealthy? What share of all taxes did business pay?

The answer show the current right-wing mythology to be the total lies it is.

 

[craigsub]

Mr 234 ... Once again, Your "post 51" that you keep raging about is not worth any more response. It is a collection of graphs from fringe websites.

As for the so called "regressive nature" of the national sales tax. Look at anyone making under $100,000 per year, do the math, and show how it is factually worse for these people than today's system.

 

[Craig234]

Craigsub

My 'post 51' is important information disproving your entire paradigm of the economic situation in the Unites States.

The info is solid; you cannot and have not refuted it; it's based on reliable government info generally.

It's 'worth a response' from someone who is interested in the truth.

You ask for a response to your latest claims. As I said, if you can't or won't respond when you get good facts presented to you, it's clear you don't want a discussion, and I'll let you have your monologue, and simply post to others, including about your info if it seems to warrant it - but why would I spend any more time writing up info for you to run away from as you did with #51?

You can respond to the subtstance of #51 if you want any other responses. You do not get a credit line beyond the couple hours that post took.

The national sales tax info is easily available to you with basic google skills. Try 'national sales tax regressive'.

 

[craigsub]

I will do as you asked in regards to googling 'national sales tax regressive'.

Its very name is biased against the National sales tax. This should be interesting, as I have every fact available on the proposed National Sales Tax system.

This will be some fun research.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Buck, please don't get carried away, here. Legal deductions are not "loopholes". Would you call a deduction for a dependent a loophole? Business deductions are not loopholes. And I think you are confusing a lot of things with this post. Fraud is also not a loophole. It's a crime.

RJ,

There is a very fine line between legal and illegal deductions. Call it what you want. It's a spin on the wording of the tax system. My post was about how the mega wealthy avoid paying taxes on income. If you're an accountant, you know the trade. I don't need to explain it to you.

 

[Craig234]

Craigsub

I will do as you asked in regards to googling 'national sales tax regressive'.

Its very name is biased against the National sales tax. This should be interesting, as I have every fact available on the proposed National Sales Tax system.

This will be some fun research.

If you put the effort in and I see a post reflecting it, I'll suspend my lack of response and discuss the topic.

Of course the search is 'biased', it's looking for the arguments I described. If I wanted the arguments in favor of the tax, I'd use other search words.

I hope it is fun. I regret to say my hopes are not high at comments beyond calling web sites 'fringe' and some nit-picking. But I hope for the best.

One thing I'll mention up front: there will be many variations of the national sales tax proposed, some of which go to great lengths to look like they address the regressive issue. However, it's anothe rquesiton what the tax would end up doing.

Remember, we have George Bush saying 'most of benefits of his tax cuts go to those at the bottom', when the large majority go to the few at the top.

They'll do a lot to sneak in a tax. Remember, when the income tax first passed, the debate said it would never go over 1%.

They also said that it was a 'tax on the wealthy', which got the masses to support it. Oops.

Unless we're talking about some tortured version which is twisted to provide all kinds of special provisisions for the poor, the tax is regressive.

I've little doubt what the end version would end up looking like: one that benefits the wealthy *even more* than the current very weighted system under which the top 1% of Americans have doubled their share of the nation's wealth from 20% to 40% in the last 30 years. Remember, we're not talking doubled their wealth - they've done far better than that. Doubled their SHARE of the pie.

 

[craigsub]

OK ... Found one from Googling "National Sales Tax Regressive" ... who knows, maybe for next week's episode of "As Craig234 Turns" we can all Google "Evil Conservatives" for some more objective information.

The site we will discuss here is from David Price, Democrat, North Carolina.

I added numbers next to each "point" Mr. Price makes for easy reference below:

1. A working family in the bottom 20% income bracket makes on average $9,100 a year. A national sales tax would increase their federal tax burden by $4,214, partly because it would cancel the Earned Income Tax Credit and the child tax credit.

2. For a family in the 20-40% income bracket making an average of $19,700 a year, the national sales tax would increase their tax burden by $4,013.

3. For the middle 20%, their average tax burden would increase by $3,811.

4. For those in the 60-80% income bracket, their taxes would increase by $2,935.

5. Even North Carolinians in the 80-95% income bracket, making up to $124,000 would see their taxes increase by $600 a year.

6. But North Carolinians making between $124,000 and $333,000 would see their tax burden decrease by an average of $4,722 under a national sales tax, and those making over $333,000 would see their tax burden decrease by an average of $151,268.

7. Because a national sales tax would apply to virtually all new purchases, it would raise the cost of a new $110,000 house in North Carolina to $165,000, raise the cost of a $20,000 new car to $30,000, raise a $100 grocery bill to $150, a $200 bill for medication to $300, and a gallon of gas from $2.00 to $3.00.

1. Under today's system, someone making $9100 per year (assuming this person is single) pays $1650 in federal and payroll taxes.

If this person is married with 2 children, he pays $696 in payroll taxes, but receives $1648 in EITC, for a net of ($948) in federal taxes.

Under the National Sales Tax (NST), (I specifically referred to the one as presented by FairTax.org), the single person would receive a $2254 Rebate in January of the current year. Assuming this person spent the entire $9100 on "new" items, his tax burden would be $2093 against his $2254 rebate. His tax burden dropped from paying $1650 to a credit of $161.

Net gain, $1811 ... not a loss of $4214, as suggested by Mr. Price.

The married couple with 2 kids would receive $6072 against the same $2093, netting them $3979 against the current net of $948 ... a gain of $3031, not a loss of $4214, again, as suggested by Mr. Price.

2. We will assume the remaining examples are all families of 4. The $19,700 income person currently pays $507 net in total income and payroll taxes, after the EITC is factored in. Under the NST, this family gets a $6072 payment in January, and, assuming again they spend the entire $19,200 available under the old system, they have a $4416 tax ... resulting in getting back over $1600 more than they paid in, rather than paying a net of $500 ...

This person benefits $2100 ... rather than the $4013 cost as claimed by Price.

3. and 4. ... He does not say what the income is. Therefore, the premise is speculation.

5. The $124,000 per year person, assuming normal deductions, pays about $27,000 in taxes today. This leaves $97,000. Again, assuming this person spends all the $97,000, he pays $22,300. Adding back in the $6072 credit, and the net tax burden is more than $10,000 less.

6. The math on this does not come close to computing ... $151,000 tax savings for those at the $333,000 income level ? Assuming again typical net incomes from this person, they are currently paying about $65,000 - $75,000 in total taxes. Let's say we got to a net 10% savings rate in this class ... they would be paying $69,000 NST ... and at current savings rates, about $75,000 NST. It is about a draw.

7. The $110,000 house would be $135,300. The average $900 mortgage would be $1107. A $20,000 car is now $24,600. The $400 payment is now $492. Used cars are exempt, as are used houses. And keep in mind, the family of 4 keeps ALL its earnings, plus $500 per month.

Mr. Price's "facts" are so far off as to be not credible, under any circumstances.

The National Sales Tax does make Taxpayers out of the following ...

1. Drug dealers
2. Prostitutes
3. Moonlighters
4. ANYONE making cash.
5 ... My personal favorite ... those who make millions tax free in muni bonds, or in stock options sold for a $45 mill and then buying a 20 million dollar yacht ... that yacht costs $4.6 mill in taxes. I don't hate the rich ... even those who inherit their $$$$ ... but it would be good if every citizen helped to pay for our govt.

 

[majorloser]

OK ... Found one from Googling "National Sales Tax Regressive" ... who knows, maybe for next week's episode of "As Craig234 Turns" we can all Goggle "Evil Conservatives" for some more objective information.

Just for the fun of it, go to Google, type in Evil Conservatives and instead of clicking "Google Search", click "I'm Feeling Lucky".

 

[krabapple]

If you look at factual information, you will come to the conclusion that the higher your income, the more taxes you pay, both in percentages and in absolute dollars. That is a progressive tax system.

In other words, as with most things, you are again wrong.

Ah. So, you ahve been following all of my posts on Audioholics, not to mention the dozen or so other forums I post to, with diligence enough to claim I'm wrong about 'most things'. I' m flattered.

Or maybe you're just full of it.

The tax cuts resulted in the burden of taxes being cut, by a much larger percentage, in lower to middle class incomes, than to higher income people. That is not an opinion, it is a verifiable fact.

If you want accuracy, try staying away from lunatic sites like "FaireconomyDOTorg". Go to the IRS, and look at the raw data. Of course, facts will not "prove" the so called "inequities" in the tax system.

I guess by your lights Mr. Johnston, a Pulitzer winner for tax reportage, is somehow not aware of the raw data, or only draws from partisan sources of information.

 

[10010011]

Just for the fun of it, go to Google, type in Evil Conservatives and instead of clicking "Google Search", click "I'm Feeling Lucky".

LOL I specially like the one about the Sun, reminds me of the Simpson's comic I have. Mr. Burns is discussing alternative energy sources and his comments on solar energy were something like this:

Solar Energy people with their safe free energy source are crackpots. Why the sun in incredibly dangerous. If you went anywhere near it you would burn up instantly! While you can walk into any nuclear power plant and leave with only minor tissue damage.

 

[nibhaz]

My 'post 51' is important information disproving your entire paradigm of the economic situation in the Unites States.

This is merely your biased opinion of what the information shows. Just because you call it fact does not make so.

The info is solid; you cannot and have not refuted it; it's based on reliable government info generally.

Why, include the word generally at the end of your statement? In an academic discussion, it either is reliable or it's not. 2 of your 8 graphs come from government sources. That means 75% of your "facts” are from sources of unknown credibility.

Let's address your two reliable charts now:

1. Comparison of Real GDP Per Capita and Real Wages

First, one most note that the wages referred to by the chart are those of production non-supervisory workers in non-farm occupations.
This does not include the entire work force so why would you compare it to a chart that shows the results of all economic efforts combined. That is like saying company A's profits are at an all time high, why isn't company B raising it wages. So your charts may be from reliable sources, but the conclusions you are drawing from them are flawed because the data sets you are comparing do not directly relate to one another, nor does it include all the variables. So your "facts" actually become worthless postulations.

2. Percent of Savings as a Percent of Disposable Income

Nice chart. What's your point? Is your point that American's have grown less fiscally responsible? Okay, I'll agree with that, but your assertion that this is do to some vast conspiracy to make the wealthy more wealthy is again just your biased opinion. I was unaware that there was a constitutional provision for the federal government to determine what American's do with their own personal wealth. Could you please show me where this is?

It's 'worth a response' from someone who is interested in the truth.

Again, just your opinion, just as your concept of truth is confused with opinion.

You ask for a response to your latest claims. As I said, if you can't or won't respond when you get good facts presented to you, it's clear you don't want a discussion, and I'll let you have your monologue, and simply post to others, including about your info if it seems to warrant it - but why would I spend any more time writing up info for you to run away from as you did with #51?

Your grand post #51 really isn't worth responding to, but you wouldn't understand since you’re so mired in your world view that you can’t be academically honest with yourself.

You can respond to the subtstance of #51 if you want any other responses. You do not get a credit line beyond the couple hours that post took.

Sorry you wasted so much time, on an academically unsound post.

 

[ForMiseri]

Good Rule To Live By

I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

 

[mulester7]

I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

.....hey, you can bet your last dollar republicans will be armed with worthless stats to confuse the real issues as they greedily plod on.....

 

[Craig234]

Lost post

Again the post I put up last night is missing.

Very short version: I said I was suspicious Craigsub's 'research' would consist of saying that the web sites disagreeing with him were wrong without a case.

That's what happened he picked one, not one of the many more thorough studies to choose from but rather one quote from a Congressman. He simply said in a word that the guy was wrong, and then presented his own view in comparison without any analysis or rebuttal of any substance.

We then had someone else make a post which is so shallow that he assumed that the charts which don't list the government sourcing in the graphic are not based on government data - and assumes they're wrong without any of his own info to support his claim whatsoever. It's just pathetic.

You can lead a horse to water, and hold its head underwater, and it can still whinny that it's not wet.

You can't make it drink though, when it's stuffed to the gills with the kool-aid.

There has yet to be any response of any substance to #51.

Just to look at what appears to be his least empty argument:

Is your point that American's have grown less fiscally responsible? Okay, I'll agree with that, but your assertion that this is do to some vast conspiracy to make the wealthy more wealthy is again just your biased opinion. I was unaware that there was a constitutional provision for the federal government to determine what American's do with their own personal wealth. Could you please show me where this is?

How can you sort through this sort of rat's nest? He ignores the context of the worsening condition of most Americans, and when one piece of the evidence shows that their savings rate has plummeted from the prosperous years under the democrats for decades, to become negative for the first time, what conclusion does he suggest? Why, not that they're less able to save because of declining economic conditions.

No, they're magically just less fiscally responsible. Nothing to see here in the right-wing ideology's flaws, just some bad behavior by the average American.

Oh, and it's "biased' to infer that the reduced savings might have anything to do with their declining economic condition making it cost more to stay even.

And then, going completely batty, he suggests that my argument is based on the constitution forcing Americans to save.

I mean, there are straw men, but this is just embarrassing to him.

I point out a broad variety of economic histories over several decades with a consistent explanation, and he comes up with that straw man, that if I can't show the cosntitution tells Americans they have to save, then my point that their deteriorating economic condition affects their ability to save is affected? What nonsense! It's just too bizarre for comment, and too tedious to respond to point by point.

The lengths that the ideologues go to to ignore the facts are appalling.

 

[rr2465]

Fiscally responsible

He ignores the context of the worsening condition of most Americans, and when one piece of the evidence shows that their savings rate has plummeted from the prosperous years under the democrats for decades, to become negative for the first time, what conclusion does he suggest? Why, not that they're less able to save because of declining economic conditions.

No, they're magically just less fiscally responsible. Nothing to see here in the right-wing ideology's flaws, just some bad behavior by the average American.

I've been reading this thread for a few days now - I love this forum - so many interesting topics and posts...

I have a hard time blaming fiscal responsibility on democrats or republicans. I believe that more and more people buy things on credit and the average american is spiraling into debt. This has to do with our culture of wanting what we don't have - thats what advertising (TV/internet) is all about. Show people what they don't have and how it will make their lives so much better. (actually my new sub has made my life better... )

People are more apt to get thier morning cup of joe than put some money into savings. I just don't see how that can be equated with the particular party in power. (I have no stats to back any of this up of course.)