Bernie Sanders' Effective Tax Rate is 13.5%

[cm husker]

 

 

 

Yes, "that said, it would reduce revenue."

 

...go on.

Cutting corporate taxes (and any other taxes) would reduce federal tax revenues.

 

I think there are a lot of good reasons to do this, but that's a true statement. Republicans are wrong to argue that "tax cuts will pay for themselves" at least in terms of government revenue totals.

In my original post on the subject, I said we would raise taxes on the people who earn incomes from the corporation to make up the difference.

Also, I assume that you mean capital gains when you say "who earn income from the corporations" and not that you think we should raise income taxes on employees, right?

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

Yes, "that said, it would reduce revenue."

 

...go on.

Cutting corporate taxes (and any other taxes) would reduce federal tax revenues.

 

I think there are a lot of good reasons to do this, but that's a true statement. Republicans are wrong to argue that "tax cuts will pay for themselves" at least in terms of government revenue totals.

In my original post on the subject, I said we would raise taxes on the people who earn incomes from the corporation to make up the difference.

Also, I assume that you mean capital gains when you say "who earn income from the corporations" and not that you think we should raise income taxes on employees, right?

 

Yes, Capital gains should be raised. (however, there are potential problems with that too).

 

Yes, income taxes would be raised on employees but proportionally more on the higher level employees than lower.

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

Yes, "that said, it would reduce revenue."

 

...go on.

Cutting corporate taxes (and any other taxes) would reduce federal tax revenues.

 

I think there are a lot of good reasons to do this, but that's a true statement. Republicans are wrong to argue that "tax cuts will pay for themselves" at least in terms of government revenue totals.

In my original post on the subject, I said we would raise taxes on the people who earn incomes from the corporation to make up the difference.

Also, I assume that you mean capital gains when you say "who earn income from the corporations" and not that you think we should raise income taxes on employees, right?

 

Yes, Capital gains should be raised. (however, there are potential problems with that too).

 

Yes, income taxes would be raised on employees but proportionally more on the higher level employees than lower.

 

 

 

I'm not following your second statement. Why would we set up a parallel tax structure for corporate employees compare to sole practitioners or LLC members?

 

Why not just treat all income the same? (We have a conversation about how to define income).

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, "that said, it would reduce revenue."

 

...go on.

Cutting corporate taxes (and any other taxes) would reduce federal tax revenues.

 

I think there are a lot of good reasons to do this, but that's a true statement. Republicans are wrong to argue that "tax cuts will pay for themselves" at least in terms of government revenue totals.

In my original post on the subject, I said we would raise taxes on the people who earn incomes from the corporation to make up the difference.

Also, I assume that you mean capital gains when you say "who earn income from the corporations" and not that you think we should raise income taxes on employees, right?

 

Yes, Capital gains should be raised. (however, there are potential problems with that too).

 

Yes, income taxes would be raised on employees but proportionally more on the higher level employees than lower.

 

 

 

I'm not following your second statement. Why would we set up a parallel tax structure for corporate employees compare to sole practitioners or LLC members?

 

Why not just treat all income the same? (We have a conversation about how to define income).

 

Not sure what you mean by that. I'm not making any statement as far as what individuals should pay more or less.

 

My only contention is that the people (owners and employees) are who should be taxed with an income tax. How all those tax brackets and situations are structured are open for debate. However, the corporation itself, would not have an income tax.

 

That's not saying corporations wouldn't pay taxes. Their are obviously a lot of other types of taxes than income taxes.

 

The reason why I feel this is a better situation is that the corporation is nothing more than an organization that creates a service or product that then creates income for the owners and employees. I don't understand why that central organization should be taxed when the human beings that benefit from that organization/corporation are also taxed.

[cm husker]

I don't disagree with you in principal.

 

I just don't think individual income tax rates need to necessarily be raised. As more earnings at the corporate level go untaxed and are therefore passed to the humans, those monies will be taxed at the current rates.

 

The only thing I would do is couple the cut in income taxes on corporations with an elimination of the concept of capital gains, so that all gains are taxed as regular income (i.e., at the earners marginal tax rate).

 

I think we are saying the same thing.

[BigRedBuster]

One thing I haven't wrapped my head around for a solution but I know it is a potential problem is that a huge mega public corporation ownership and capital gains along with management compensation is a very different animal than a much smaller private/family owned organization.

 

To me, it's very different to have these scenarios:

 

1) Walmart CEO compensated in stock options to where he is making $400,000,000 per year.

 

2) Stock investor buys $1,000,000 in Facebook stock and cashes out after 5 or 10 years (or even 6 months) for a nice gain.

 

3) A smaller company where the owner has been working his ass off for years and possibly decades putting his own money and resources into the company to make it successful. Now he wants to retire and sell the company for $2,000,000 to retire on.

 

4) Owner in example (3) has a second generation who has worked in the company for almost as long as it's been operating and are just as responsible for it's success and the owner now wants to pass that ownership onto the next generation so the company survives.

[VectorVictor]

 

 

Why is that more concerning?

 

Everyone who receives value from Verizon's profits, whether as an employee salary or a shareholder, pays taxes on those monies.

Do you suffer from OCD?

No.

 

Do you suffer from willful blindness?

 

 

Funny, after reading your posts, I was going to suggest this for you. Especially when you fail to provide citations that back up your willfully myopic beliefs and Cornographic has gone above and beyond to debunk yours with citations.

[cm husker]

There's a fundamental question to be asked: why would any of those be treated differently?

 

If we want to add tax rates to get at the "mega rich," ok. But I don't think we should try to wade into reclassifying certain types of income and then treating it differently.

 

As to part (4), the person can receive those shares, but when they do cash out on them (i.e., realize an income event), then they should pay the tax. I don't want to see people lose their farms, businesses, homes, etc. but they should pay tax on the income they receive (and and all forms of it) when they do cash out.

 

I won't pretend it's a simple issue, though. It's one of the fundamental reasons we should be taxing consumption as opposed to income if we really want to be progressive.*

 

A consumption tax would be coupled with a rebate fo X dollars for everyone so that low wealth people are not hit with a regressive tax.

[cm husker]

 

 

 

Why is that more concerning?

 

Everyone who receives value from Verizon's profits, whether as an employee salary or a shareholder, pays taxes on those monies.

Do you suffer from OCD?

No.

 

Do you suffer from willful blindness?

 

 

Funny, after reading your posts, I was going to suggest this for you. Especially when you fail to provide citations that back up your willfully myopic beliefs and Cornographic has gone above and beyond to debunk yours with citations.

 

 

 

You want to read links to tax codes?

 

Or should I just send you a link to a course on taxation at your local community college?

[BigRedBuster]

There's a fundamental question to be asked: why would any of those be treated differently?

 

If we want to add tax rates to get at the "mega rich," ok. But I don't think we should try to wade into reclassifying certain types of income and then treating it differently.

 

As to part (4), the person can receive those shares, but when they do cash out on them (i.e., realize an income event), then they should pay the tax. I don't want to see people lose their farms, businesses, homes, etc. but they should pay tax on the income they receive (and and all forms of it) when they do cash out.

 

I won't pretend it's a simple issue, though. It's one of the fundamental reasons we should be taxing consumption as opposed to income if we really want to be progressive.*

 

A consumption tax would be coupled with a rebate fo X dollars for everyone so that low wealth people are not hit with a regressive tax.

I think we can all agree on #1 and #2 and possibly even #4.

 

So, to me, is # 3 different.

 

My argument would be that #1 and #3 are very very different. In #1, the person has not put any of his own resources into the company and he probably has easily been able to put money away for retirement or when he no longer can work to earn a living.

 

I know many many situations where in #3, the owner has sacrificed having anything in retirement because he has had to put all of it back into the company. He/she could have easily worked for someone else, possibly making more money and put money away and never bothered. But, instead, he decided to take the jump and risk everything in a venture that also produced jobs for other people.

 

I just don't see those two as the same thing.

[cornographic]

 

 

 

Why is that more concerning?

 

Everyone who receives value from Verizon's profits, whether as an employee salary or a shareholder, pays taxes on those monies.

Do you suffer from OCD?

No.

 

Do you suffer from willful blindness?

 

 

Funny, after reading your posts, I was going to suggest this for you. Especially when you fail to provide citations that back up your willfully myopic beliefs and Cornographic has gone above and beyond to debunk yours with citations.

 

Thanks, VV,

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

Why is that more concerning?

 

Everyone who receives value from Verizon's profits, whether as an employee salary or a shareholder, pays taxes on those monies.

Do you suffer from OCD?

No.

 

Do you suffer from willful blindness?

 

 

Funny, after reading your posts, I was going to suggest this for you. Especially when you fail to provide citations that back up your willfully myopic beliefs and Cornographic has gone above and beyond to debunk yours with citations.

 

Thanks, VV,

 

 

 

Why do you refuse to answer straightforward questions?