The GOP's last chance

#201
#201
Why are the budget talks not being held on the senate floor? It seems like the members of congress would want to have ownership of the deal, instead of letting it become a backdoor deal.

This would also cause transparency, instead of having he said, she said issues.
 
#205
#205
BigPapaVol said:
Surely you don't believe this.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

MG1968 said:
lawyers
Click to expand...

BigPapaVol said:
Exactly. Business attorneys, tax lawyers, accountants and tax specialists.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


Lawyers hired to obtain breaks for ..... ???? Anyone? Bueller? ...... Bueller?

What, you think the poor spend millions on tax lawyers and lobbyists?

The system is founded on the ability of the wealthy and big business to figure out ways to pay as little as possible, whilst simultaneously being able to throw up the straw man argument that corporate rates are too high.
 
#206
#206
lawgator1 said:
Lawyers hired to obtain breaks for ..... ???? Anyone? Bueller? ...... Bueller?

What, you think the poor spend millions on tax lawyers and lobbyists?

The system is founded on the ability of the wealthy and big business to figure out ways to pay as little as possible, whilst simultaneously being able to throw up the straw man argument that corporate rates are too high.
Click to expand...

It would be irresponsible fr any business owner / manager to neglect to try and horde capital. Pretending that the tax professional lobby hasn't had as much to do with this as possible is silly. Further; pretending that sorry ass congress, allowing the lobbies to write in enormous numbers of loopholes is absurd. Our congress could end this crap handily and should. Can the loopholes but don't demagogue it as Obama's sorry ass has in order to avoid cutting our profligate spending. Spending is a farging epidemic in our governments. Don't fix that, there will never be enough revenue to cover it. The root of the problem is vote buying, regardless of the side of the income statement it falls upon.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#209
#209
BigPapaVol said:
It would be irresponsible fr any business owner / manager to neglect to try and horde capital. Pretending that the tax professional lobby hasn't had as much to do with this as possible is silly. Further; pretending that sorry ass congress, allowing the lobbies to write in enormous numbers of loopholes is absurd. Our congress could end this crap handily and should. Can the loopholes but don't demagogue it as Obama's sorry ass has in order to avoid cutting our profligate spending. Spending is a farging epidemic in our governments. Don't fix that, there will never be enough revenue to cover it. The root of the problem is vote buying, regardless of the side of the income statement it falls upon.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


Of course there is a self-sustaining logic to the industry of tax lawyers. But they wouldn't bother sustaining it if they weren't getting paid, and handsomely, to help the uber wealthy dodge as much as possible.


utvolpj said:
of course not since they don't have the money to pay them anyway, which goes only to show that the wealthy would allow tax reform to occur only if in the end it meant that they paid less than they do now
Click to expand...


fyp
 
#210
#210
it would be fixed if those very things weren't already being suggested. Of course nothing short of a tax increase on the "rich" will appease money-hungry O
 
#211
#211
therealUT said:
China did not have income taxes prior to the 1980s; since instituting them, they have continued to rise while state-ownership and corporate income taxes have continued to drop.
Click to expand...

trUT,

I have said that I would like to see income taxes rise for the wealthy and even bigger tax breaks for corporations that reinvest in their company for growth/job creation. I don't like an off the top tax break hoping companies will do what the logic for the break says they will do. In other words, if the logic for tax breaks is to reinvest and grow/create jobs in a company why not eliminate off the top breaks taken as salary and give massive tax cuts if the money is used for what the cut was intended to do. I could even be in favor of tax credits in this case. I would stipulate that it only be applied to business physically located in the US and for jobs created here at home. Corporations are encouraged to reinvest and create domestic jobs. Business reaps a financial benefit and tax coffers grow by more people having jobs and paying into the system.

I know I mangled my thoughts, but hopefully you can decipher my gibberish. I know the implementation and oversight might be a bit of a bear, but we could work it out. One item to discourage misuse or cooking of the books could be MASSIVELY large monetary consequences for doing that.

Keep in mind, despite being very unpopular here, I am a pretty pro-union/worker person due to my family history. Let me know your thoughts.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#212
#212
Krauthammer can be a little out there at times, but he has this right about Obama. He's laughing at clowns like LG1 regurgitating Obama campaign lines and buying into Obama's "long term" rhetoric. His solution is the most likely and is absolutely the one that Obama wants no part of. Then, he'll have to live up to his lie about 80% wanting tax increases and be faced with really having to address expenses. Food for thought LG1: why has Obama had to make up a bunch of crap and take this to the bully pulpit if he's really looking for a solution that Americans buy into? If we buy into it, don't all congressmen benefit by getting it done?

Call his bluff - The Washington Post
 
#213
#213
MG1968 said:
a flat tax is progressive on the back end, for example if we have a 17% flat tax:

50K/year income = $8500 tax liability
100K = $17000

and so on. Now, I believe that the flat tax as proposed by Steve Forbes included an allowance for low-income people where the first 34K wasn't taxed or had no tax liability.

as much as I'd prefer a fair tax, a flat tax is probably the more likely to have a chance of being implemented.
Click to expand...

Right. The only way a flat tax could work is to start with that kind of exemption and/or allow deductions up to only a certain amount for individuals. You almost have to allow standard personal and dependent deductions.

Politically the only way it flies is if most people either benefit from it or don't get hurt by it... and it is VERY likely that could be done. The reason it hasn't been done is that our leaders are rich, their friends are rich, and all the people whose "votes" really matter to them are rich (donors).
 
#214
#214
lawgator1 said:
Big business and the wealthy loathe simplistic tax regulations. Who do you think is behind all of the complexity of the current code?
Click to expand...

Them.... and primarily Dems who the meanwhile demagogued anyone who talked about cutting taxes. MOST of these deductions and loopholes grew during the 40 years Dems held the House. The GOP almost always proposes broad cuts in their legislation.
 
#215
#215
lawgator1 said:
Lawyers hired to obtain breaks for ..... ???? Anyone? Bueller? ...... Bueller?
Click to expand...
Written into law by...????? Anyone? Bueller?.... Bueller?

What, you think the poor spend millions on tax lawyers and lobbyists?

The system is founded on the ability of the wealthy and big business to figure out ways to pay as little as possible, whilst simultaneously being able to throw up the straw man argument that corporate rates are too high.
Click to expand...

The system is founded on the left being able to make deals for those who support them while claiming to tax the rich and be on the side of the little guy.
 
#216
#216
Today on talk radio, heard that if we default the power of the purse goes to the POTUS. Does this include the power to levy taxes? If so, I am not sure of why Obama would give an inch at this point.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#217
#217
BigPapaVol said:
It would be irresponsible fr any business owner / manager to neglect to try and horde capital. Pretending that the tax professional lobby hasn't had as much to do with this as possible is silly. Further; pretending that sorry ass congress, allowing the lobbies to write in enormous numbers of loopholes is absurd. Our congress could end this crap handily and should. Can the loopholes but don't demagogue it as Obama's sorry ass has in order to avoid cutting our profligate spending. Spending is a farging epidemic in our governments. Don't fix that, there will never be enough revenue to cover it. The root of the problem is vote buying, regardless of the side of the income statement it falls upon.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Outstanding statement:good!:
 
#218
#218
lawgator1 said:
Of course there is a self-sustaining logic to the industry of tax lawyers. But they wouldn't bother sustaining it if they weren't getting paid, and handsomely, to help the uber wealthy dodge as much as possible.
Click to expand...

You just made a tremendous case for why we should not have an income tax... It inevitably becomes corrupt.
 
#219
#219
therealUT said:
Today on talk radio, heard that if we default the power of the purse goes to the POTUS. Does this include the power to levy taxes? If so, I am not sure of why Obama would give an inch at this point.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I think he would have discretion over which bills to pay out of available funds. That makes his SS scare tactics hollow.
 
#220
#220
sjt18 said:
I don't think so. I think he would have discretion over which bills to pay out of available funds. That makes his SS scare tactics hollow.
Click to expand...

I woul agree with your thoughts; however, I can also envision a logical argument for POTUS power over taxation in the case of a default. I would like to see where the powers during a default are spelled out; if the POTUS has supreme fiscal power during such an epoch, then the GOP could be walking into an ambush.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#221
#221
So ultimately Obama can play dictator if they don't reach a deal by the end of the deadline? I don't like where this is heading.
 
#222
#222
therealUT said:
I woul agree with your thoughts; however, I can also envision a logical argument for POTUS power over taxation in the case of a default. I would like to see where the powers during a default are spelled out; if the POTUS has supreme fiscal power during such an epoch, then the GOP could be walking into an ambush.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

A tax increase would require new law. POTUS cannot constitutionally do that.

It is probably an ambush but who knows who gets caught? In spite of LG's hopefulness, this SHOULD play into the TP sentiment that gov't is not on our side and needs to be put back in its place.

In that case, establishment Republicans and Dems will take the beating as they should. THey are the ones that created the problem and benefited from it.
 
#223
#223
sjt18 said:
A tax increase would require new law. POTUS cannot constitutionally do that.

It is probably an ambush but who knows who gets caught? In spite of LG's hopefulness, this SHOULD play into the TP sentiment that gov't is not on our side and needs to be put back in its place.

In that case, establishment Republicans and Dems will take the beating as they should. THey are the ones that created the problem and benefited from it.
Click to expand...

The POTUS cannot Contitutionally appropriate money, either; yet, this power is ceded to him if we default. This is why I would like to see this spelled out. Are there any ConLaw experts out there that have dealt with this situation in theory?

The WI Dems thought they could stall legislation by fleeing to IL; however, someone poured over the Parliamentary Procedures in WI and found a loophole. I hope the GOP Congressmen have poured over the law regarding this circumstance, else we could have a temporary dictator with the authority to tax whomever and however he wants.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#224
#224
Cartervol said:
So ultimately Obama can play dictator if they don't reach a deal by the end of the deadline? I don't like where this is heading.
Click to expand...

In a respect, yes. He will get to decide which commitments get made and which don't. It is a no win situation for him. For once, the dependency Dems have cultivated within the population could hurt them.

If it comes to that (which I doubt it will), Obama will pay SS. He will likely delay payment to landlords, doctors, contractors, etc. He may do partial shutdowns of some agencies and offices. In essence, the voters the left have been buying off with tax payer dollars would be hurt more than those who've been supplying the dollars.

I think he knows it is a losing proposition for him and possibly something that wouldn't hurt the GOP as much... and that's why he's flailing about like he is.
 
#225
#225
therealUT said:
The POTUS cannot Contitutionally appropriate money, either; yet, this power is ceded to him if we default. This is why I would like to see this spelled out. Are there any ConLaw experts out there that have dealt with this situation in theory?

The WI Dems thought they could stall legislation by fleeing to IL; however, someone poured over the Parliamentary Procedures in WI and found a loophole. I hope the GOP Congressmen have poured over the law regarding this circumstance, else we could have a temporary dictator with the authority to tax whomever and however he wants.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

That would turn into a SCOTUS battle. The 5-4 conservative majority would probably treat it like a judge supervised bankruptcy. They would then decide who gets paid. They might even force an unpaid layoff of gov't workers... It MIGHT even extend into a long needed SCOTUS decision on the actual constitutionality of many programs.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top