tax

[chadta]

10 men go out for beer and the bill for all 10 comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The 10 men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."

Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100 percent savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33 percent savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28 percent savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25 percent savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22 percent savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16 percent savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"'Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got 10 times more than I!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

[Requiem]

http://i54.tinypic.com/2egcm4i.jpg

[TonyR]

The current GOP policy is to borrow money to fund tax cuts for the wealthy. Sorry, I just can't support that.

In a post notable mostly for its risible self-regard, lobbyist/tax preparer Ryan Ellis of Americans for Tax Reform declares that NRO has “ceased to be a serious website” because it has published the thoughts of Andrew Stuttaford and yours truly.

“ATR is the most influential and important tax-focused conservative group,” he writes. “That means we’re in charge of the tax issue.” Harrumph harrumph. Can we vote on that? Because I do not think he needs to be in charge of splitting up a lunch bill. Andrew doesn’t need me defending him, but I will note for the record that he actually makes a living in the financial business and knows a thing or two about counting money and European economies, and has never to my knowledge declared his own importance as though it were an argument.

Ellis also writes that Governor Daniels’s position was “outside those bounds” defined by himself and ATR. Can we have a show of hands indicating who exactly cares? Daniels is an elected governor who is getting some useful things done and who approaches the job with a welcome sense of sobriety. I’m not sure that a sub-Grover gets to tell him what’s in bounds or not. Debate is one thing; dictating to governors is another. (Would love to see him try that with Rick Perry.)

I myself do not favor a VAT; I’m a flat-income-tax guy, myself. But, as I always insist, taxes are secondary. Every dollar you spend is a dollar that has to be raised in taxes, eventually. There is no way around that, Sunshine. You can clap as hard as you want, but Tinkerbell still has to fill out a 1040. Can I imagine a universe in which a VAT is preferable to our current system? Yes, I can. But the problem is not the engineering of the revenue code — it is spendthrift congressmen of both parties.

So, no, I don’t favor a VAT. But I also do not favor letting conservatives’ position be defined by magical thinking — magical thinking of precisely the sort that already has destroyed the Republican party’s credibility on fiscal restraint and has undermined the conservative movement’s credibility in the process. The GOP has been listening to the likes of ATR for a generation, buying into the canard that they can do the feel-good stuff (cutting taxes) without worrying too much about the hard part (cutting spending). The results are all around you, and they are dismaying.

The fact that Mr. Ellis would use the word “apostasy” to describe my thinking and Andrew’s on the issue is telling: We’re supposed to accept his vision on faith, in spite of three decades’ worth of evidence (or more) that cutting taxes while allowing spending to run wild is a recipe for ruination.

Ryan Ellis can stamp his feet all day, but the evidence speaks for itself: Santa Claus is no fiscal conservative, and no model of responsible governance. Taxing and spending are the same issue, and Ellis is on the wrong side of it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/250186/grover-norquist-needs-better-help-kevin-d-williamson

[Spider]

...........

[TonyR]

While I agree that liberals should give more credit to the value of hard work in becoming successful, more conservatives should give more credit to the myriad other factors that either enable or detract from success.

The obvious one that most liberals point out is cultural/societal influences, but the one I would highlight is the conditions put in place by a developed country’s government. The rich are able to make their money, whether it’s from inheritance or hard work, because of the security, infrastructure, research, education, patent enforcement, etc. that the government provides, and they should be responsible for providing funding for these services in the future if they are deriving the vast majority of the benefits from their provision.

No less a conservative figure than Ben Stein has highlighted this. In a column in the NYT a few years ago, he wrote, in reference to raising taxes during wartime:

"But if they are superrich, they derive special benefits from life in the United States that the nonrich don't. For one thing, they can make the money in a safe environment, which is not true for the rich in many countries. It is just common decency that they should pay much higher income taxes than they do. Taxes for the rich are lower than they have been since at least World War II — that is to say, in 60 years.

This makes no sense in a world at war, in a nation with so many unmet social needs, in a nation with so many people without health care, in a nation running immense and endless deficits."

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/10/the-successful-ctd.html

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Why the OP is a crock of sh*t...

After virtually eight years of Republican control of government, here's what we know about their tax cuts for the wealthy (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010104005/americas-fiscal-choices-we-still-have-them-now):


The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy only benefited the very wealthy (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html).
The average tax rate for the wealthiest 1% fell to its lowest level in eight years (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121677287690575589.html).
From 2000 to 2007, two thirds of income growth went to the top-earning 1% (http://elsa.berkeley.edu/%7Esaez/saez-UStopincomes-2007.pdf) (pdf), whose income grew 10.1% annually compared to 2.7% for the rest of us.
Two thirds of U.S. corporations avoided paying taxes from 1998 to 2005 (http://web.archive.org%e2%80%940,8599,1831790,00.html%20w eb.archive.org%e2%80%940,8599,1831790,00.html%20/), placing a greater burden on working families.
The wealthy don't spend their tax cuts. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-13/rich-americans-save-money-from-tax-cuts-instead-of-spending-moody-s-says.html)
Tax cuts for the wealthy, thus, don't stimulate the economy (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010104005/americas-fiscal-choices-we-still-have-them-now).
By the end of the decade, the jobless rate was at at 26-year high (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8238358.stm).
By the end of the decade, there were 6.5 job seekers for every job (http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/jolts_20091208/).
Republican rule and Republican-backed tax cuts for the wealthy resulted in 10 years of zero job creation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/01/AR2010010101196.html?wprss=rss_business).

Not only are Republicans fighting to extend the same tax cuts for the wealthy that proved disastrous for America's economy, its middle class and working class, but they are holding hostage tax cuts for middle and working class Americans (http://www.kansas.com/2010/09/14/1492466/heels-over-bush-tax-cuts.html) in order to preserve tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

For eight years, the Republican answer to every problem was "tax cut," to the point that it was almost comical. Then, at least. It's a lot less funny now, given the seriousness of the challenges facing America, and the GOP's "pledge" doesn't begin to offer real solutions to the problems fueling the joblessness crisis. In fact, those issues barely get a mention.

[bronclvr]

Boy, I'm glad you got that off of your Chest.........

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Boy, I'm glad you got that off of your Chest.........

Translation: "I don't like it when the lies of the right are exposed."

[chadta]

Why the OP is a crock of sh*t...


WOW thats the best you could come up with after 9 days ?

[bronclvr]

Enjoy the next two weeks or so.....your Boy Obozo is about to be castrated........

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Enjoy the next two weeks or so.....your Boy Obozo is about to be castrated........

I'll take that as a "no, I can't refute anything you just said about my boy GeeDubya's disastrous tax policies."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

WOW thats the best you could come up with after 9 days ?

Apparently it was good enough that you have no answer for it.

[bronclvr]

I'll take that as a "no, I can't refute anything you just said about my boy GeeDubya's disastrous tax policies."

And I'll take that as Yep, you're right.......

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Enjoy the next two weeks or so.....your Boy Obozo is about to be castrated........

How quickly you forget the reasons why your party was crushed in a landslide two years ago (if you ever understood to begin with.)

And now, two years later, you would have us believe that you have somehow reformed and rehabilitated yourself?

It takes more than hiding behind an alias (read: Tea Party) to convince most thinking people.

Luckily for you, thinking people are in short supply these days.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Tax the rich or face worsening standards of living. It’s that simple. (http://firedoglake.com/2010/10/17/tax-the-rich-now/)

[bronclvr]

How quickly you forget the reasons why your party was crushed in a landslide two years ago (if you ever understood to begin with.)

And now, two years later, you would have us believe that you have somehow reformed and rehabilitated yourself?

It takes more than hiding behind an alias (read: Tea Party) to convince most thinking people.

Luckily for you, thinking people are in short supply these days.



Tell you what-I'll make you a bet, right here, right now-if the Dems keep the majority in the House and Senate, I will not post here for 6 Months-if the Repugs neuter Obozo, you don't Post for 6 Months-how confident are you?

[TonyR]

...your Boy Obozo...

Did you know that "Obozo" actually cut taxes for 95% of working families? Most people don't. Interesting that somehow the "liberally biased" media mostly missed this, isn't it?


In a troubling sign for Democrats as they head into the midterm elections, their signature tax cut of the past two years, which decreased income taxes by up to $400 a year for individuals and $800 for married couples, has gone largely unnoticed.

In a New York Times/CBS News Poll last month, fewer than one in 10 respondents knew that the Obama administration had lowered taxes for most Americans. Half of those polled said they thought that their taxes had stayed the same, a third thought that their taxes had gone up, and about a tenth said they did not know.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/politics/19taxes.html?hp

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Tell you what-I'll make you a bet, right here, right now-if the Dems keep the majority in the House and Senate, I will not post here for 6 Months-if the Repugs neuter Obozo, you don't Post for 6 Months-how confident are you?

I never claimed the Dems were going to keep the majority in both chambers.

Are you just pulling that out of your ass like everything else you post here?

[TonyR]

...Cooper doesn’t mention the most likely reason people think taxes went up: they’ve been told that Barack Obama and the Democrats are raising taxes, nonstop, by GOP pols and conservative talk show hosts. Anyone listening to Rush and watching Fox News -- and having no other source of news - would naturally believe that Obama and the Democrats had done nothing but raise taxes from day one...

...this story is a good example of why media bias is so difficult to measure. On the one hand, here’s the (liberal?) New York Times running a story unprompted by events, and just two weeks before Election Day, highlighting a policy which presumably would help Democrats if people knew about it. On the other hand, the fact that such a story could be written -- the fact that most people think Obama has raised taxes when in fact the opposite is true -- is strong evidence against the idea that Americans are influenced by a liberal media...

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/78492/the-phantom-tax-cut

[bronclvr]

Did you know that "Obozo" actually cut taxes for 95% of working families? Most people don't. Interesting that somehow the "liberally biased" media mostly missed this, isn't it?




Did you know that in less than two years that Obozo has doubled the federal deficit, accumulating as much debt as all preceding administrations combined?

[bronclvr]

I never claimed the Dems were going to keep the majority in both chambers.

Are you just pulling that out of your ass like everything else you post here?


No more than you do-

[TonyR]

I never claimed the Dems were going to keep the majority in both chambers.

Are you just pulling that out of your ass like everything else you post here?

These dopes are confused about many things, but two are apparent here:
1) They think the GOP taking over the House is a good thing that's going to lead to spending cuts and fiscal sanity, as if 2000-2006 never happened, and
2) They think we don't know the GOP is going to win the House (but probably not the Senate).

[TonyR]

Did you know that in less than two years that Obozo has doubled the federal deficit, accumulating as much debt as all preceding administrations combined?

To the extent this is true, do you know how and why? You need to start practicing some reality based conservatism.


Much of government is an exercise in choosing the least bad option. A movement that demands everything and punishes any politician who strikes a bargain that is better than the status quo but less than libertarian perfection – well, we’ll have our chance to see how much that movement achieves.

The Wyden-Bennett health plan that wrecked the career of Senator Bob Bennett would have been better from a conservative point of view than Obamacare.

TARP and the rescue of the banking system are better from a conservative point of view than a new Great Depression that would have involved a decade of massive government support of the private economy.

Some form of consumption or energy tax will be better from a conservative point of view than what we are on our way to getting instead: the lapse of the Bush tax cuts on saving, work and investment – and new payroll taxes to fund Social Security and Medicare.

People are responsible not only for their actions, but for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions.
http://www.frumforum.com/fight-smart-not-loud

[bronclvr]

These dopes are confused about many things, but two are apparent here:
1) They think the GOP taking over the House is a good thing that's going to lead to spending cuts and fiscal sanity, as if 2000-2006 never happened, and
2) They think we don't know the GOP is going to win the House (but probably not the Senate).

No, I just want to stop Obozo's wild checkbook and policies-I don't have a real problem with a lot of the Democratic policies (but not all of them)-we have to stop Obozo before he bankrupts America-

[TonyR]

I just want to stop Obozo's wild checkbook and policies...

Can you provide a few examples? Particularly regarding this "wild checkbook"?

[bronclvr]

Can you provide a few examples? Particularly regarding this "wild checkbook"?

Please.....you're not going to drag me into that-it has been discussed here ad nauseum-look it up, we have a Search feature-

[JJJ]

While I agree that liberals should give more credit to the value of hard work in becoming successful, more conservatives should give more credit to the myriad other factors that either enable or detract from success.[/B]."


You mean excuses right?

How many rich kids have squandered their inheritance? Plenty. Money will part ways with the stupid and end up in the hands of the clever ones in every society, be it a free market democracy, full-on communism, or anything in between.

The concept of redistribution of wealth is pure folly as you can't redistribute brain cells very easily and the smart aggressive personalities will prevail in every case.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

To the extent this is true, do you know how and why? You need to start practicing some reality based conservatism.


Much of government is an exercise in choosing the least bad option. A movement that demands everything and punishes any politician who strikes a bargain that is better than the status quo but less than libertarian perfection – well, we’ll have our chance to see how much that movement achieves.

The Wyden-Bennett health plan that wrecked the career of Senator Bob Bennett would have been better from a conservative point of view than Obamacare.

TARP and the rescue of the banking system are better from a conservative point of view than a new Great Depression that would have involved a decade of massive government support of the private economy.

Some form of consumption or energy tax will be better from a conservative point of view than what we are on our way to getting instead: the lapse of the Bush tax cuts on saving, work and investment – and new payroll taxes to fund Social Security and Medicare.

People are responsible not only for their actions, but for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions.
http://www.frumforum.com/fight-smart-not-loud

Exactly.

bronclvr and other right-wing rubes like him can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that we wouldn't have needed TARP or a stimulus package had their party not run the economy off the cliff.

[bronclvr]

Exactly.

bronclvr and other right-wing rubes like him can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that we wouldn't have needed TARP or a stimulus package had their party not run the economy off the cliff.

Keep swinging-OH NO! Another one in the dirt-

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You mean excuses right?


They're only "excuses" to "I got mine - f*ck everybody else" types like you.

Odds are you're some trust fund baby who's never had to work a day in your life.

[chadta]

Apparently it was good enough that you have no answer for it.

dood i gave up clicking links you posted months ago, its always the same crap

www.itsnotmyfault.com

www.blamethelastguy.com

www.bushisevil.com

so no you wont get a rebuttal from me, i said what i had to say in my original post, it took you 9 days to think of a reply and the best you could come up with is the same crap you spew in every other thread day in and day out.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Keep swinging-OH NO! Another one in the dirt-

So you conceded somewhere that neither TARP nor a stimulus package would have been necessary had your party not crashed the economy?

Link?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

so no you wont get a rebuttal from me...

On that much I know I can rely.

Anyone who is too mentally lazy to reach for the "shift" key is probably not going to bother with something as challenging as an actual rebuttal to factual assertions.

[bronclvr]

So you conceded somewhere that neither TARP nor a stimulus package would have been necessary had your party not crashed the economy?

Link?


Link? You never anwer any question without posing a question, so why would I do that?

Your boy has taken us from a troubled Economy to one that is in serious dis-repair-the Repugs are not going to fix it, they're just going to stop the bleeding-to fix a mess this big we need Harry Truman-

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Link? You never anwer any question without posing a question, so why would I do that?

Too much trouble for you?

OK - forget the link, just answer yes or no: Did you make the aforementioned concession?

Your boy has taken us from a troubled Economy...

"Troubled" economy?

Ha ha ha! :laugh:

It's this sort of language that exposes you as a complete right-wing Kool-Aid guzzler.

The economy the Smirking Sociopath bequeathed to Obama wasn't "troubled" - it was the worst economic crisis since the great depression.

[bronclvr]

The economy the Smirking Sociopath bequeathed to Obama wasn't "troubled" - it was the worst economic crisis since the great depression.


And your Boy has really done something to make it better hasn't he? Ha! What a joke-

He has spent your Grandchildren's money, and you haven't even figured that out yet-

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And your Boy has really done something to make it better hasn't he? Ha! What a joke-

He's done something - you can certainly debate whether it's enough.

Your party, on the other hand, has done nothing but lay on the gas pedal and point the car toward the cliff.

He has spent your Grandchildren's money, and you haven't even figured that out yet-

Hilarious!

Are you sh*tting me?

Bush had already accomplished that before Obama was a blip on anyone's radar.

[JJJ]

They're only "excuses" to "I got mine - **** everybody else" types like you.

Odds are you're some trust fund baby who's never had to work a day in your life.

Don't go to Vegas anytime soon. Pop was a marine officer with six kids.

[Garcia Bronco]

Did you know that "Obozo" actually cut taxes for 95% of working families? Most people don't. Interesting that somehow the "liberally biased" media mostly missed this, isn't it?


In a troubling sign for Democrats as they head into the midterm elections, their signature tax cut of the past two years, which decreased income taxes by up to $400 a year for individuals and $800 for married couples, has gone largely unnoticed.

In a New York Times/CBS News Poll last month, fewer than one in 10 respondents knew that the Obama administration had lowered taxes for most Americans. Half of those polled said they thought that their taxes had stayed the same, a third thought that their taxes had gone up, and about a tenth said they did not know.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/politics/19taxes.html?hp

He didn't actually cut taxes. He just lessened the impact of people that got returns.


He changed withholding rates, but the tax percentage paid on income stayed the same. Good grief.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Don't go to Vegas anytime soon. Pop was a marine officer with six kids.

So you just speak for trust fund babies everywhere?

Gotcha.

[Arkie]

10 men go out for beer and the bill for all 10 comes to $100.

The bill will be $120 tomorrow night. It gets higher every single time despite all the promises that we will cut down on our drinking.

[Rigs11]

And your Boy has really done something to make it better hasn't he? Ha! What a joke-

He has spent your Grandchildren's money, and you haven't even figured that out yet-

what planet do you live in? We were losing 700,000 jobs a month when your daddy left office. We are now adding around 70,000.can that crevace you call a brain comprehend this?many economists say that the stimulus was not big enough. What are your morons on the right going to do? more tax cuts?yippee

[bronclvr]

what planet do you live in? We were losing 700,000 jobs a month when your daddy left office. We are now adding around 70,000.can that crevace you call a brain comprehend this?many economists say that the stimulus was not big enough. What are your morons on the right going to do? more tax cuts?yippee


Election.Loss.Just.Setting.In.

[Rigs11]

Election.Loss.Just.Setting.In.

Nice reply, you should stick to picking out avatars.

[chadta]

The bill will be $120 tomorrow night. It gets higher every single time despite all the promises that we will cut down on our drinking.

yeah and it will be the 6 guys that drink for free that are drinking more that caused it to go up higher.

[JJJ]

So you just speak for trust fund babies everywhere?

Gotcha.

Some people win the lottery in life that is just the way it is. There shouldn't be a tax for saving money. Taxes for investing money should be low so people will actually invest instead of simply saving it.

More power to them as their if they are able to find a way to retain the wealth built up by their family.

Hell the state believes in the concept of a lottery so much it has officially sactioned lotteries. (Allow me a small side rant on lotteries.) Really is there anything more ridiculous for the government to be involved in than state-sactioned gambling? Talk about overstretching the bounds of government, lotteries, good grief. Really a disgusting activity of the government. Let's promote it is better to be lucky in life rather than work hard. So much for our government working on a higher moral plane.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Some people win the lottery in life that is just the way it is.

That's true to a certain extent, but republi-cons (especially the the silver spooner variety who snivel about estate taxes, etc.) are always trying to rig the game in the house's favor.

And we both know that some of those "lottery winners" didn't "win" sh*t - they flat out stole it.

In any case, the real question is, "how does society treat the losers and the also-rans in this Darwinian system of yours?"

That's the real moral test, and that's where people like you always come up short.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

More power to them as their if they are able to find a way to retain the wealth built up by their family.



As usual, you're at odds with the founding fathers on that score.

Thomas Jefferson was the first president to publicly advocate for an estate tax - because we fought a war against a country that was built on the premise of landed gentry; the ability to inherit, pass along wealth without limits. That is, the premise that somebody could create enormous wealth and their family could continue to accumulate that wealth forever - to the point where you basically had England being run by about 55 families. Sort of like Mexico. You've got an oligarchy down there. 32 families basically run the country. And we said, "no, we don't want to have oligarchies." We don't have any problem with somebody accumulating enough money that forever their children never have to work. Paris Hilton's great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren will never have to work, even if the estate tax is raised to 5 million bucks.

[barryr]

What is funny is the majority of liberals, and I would guess all that frequent these forums, tend to rarely if ever give to charity, but tell others they are supposed to give their money away. No liberal around here strikes me as the good samaritan, other than just talking about it of course, which is the norm.

[TonyR]

...tell others they are supposed to give their money away.

Who's doing that? I admit I'm in favor of allowing the tax on income above a certain level to go up a few hundred basis points but I don't think that negatively effects very many of you. If your household makes more than $250K than I'm sorry for your "loss". And I'm all for spending cuts and applaud the few on the right who actually have some honest and realistic specifics on the whats and hows beyond generalizations and rhetoric.

[NUB]

Historically speaking, the 10th man being "beat up" never happened in U.S. history. However, the 10thman convincing the rest that he need not pay as much and the rest of the people quickly finding the "tab" going wildly out of control is actually quite accurate with U.S. history since the 1980s.

[Garcia Bronco]

Everyone should pay the same percentage of income period and EVERYONE has to pay taxes.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Historically speaking, the 10th man being "beat up" never happened in U.S. history. However, the 10thman convincing the rest that he need not pay as much and the rest of the people quickly finding the "tab" going wildly out of control is actually quite accurate with U.S. history since the 1980s.

Exactly.

And now a new generation of right-wing know-nothings are buying the same trickle-down snake oil.

[chadta]

Everyone should pay the same percentage of income period and EVERYONE has to pay taxes.

logic has no place in this discussion

[TonyR]

Everyone should pay the same percentage of income period and EVERYONE has to pay taxes.

Including capital gains and dividends?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

logic has no place in this discussion

Only those people who got an 'F' in logic would argue for a flat tax.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Including capital gains and dividends?

Ha!

[Garcia Bronco]

Including capital gains and dividends?

Yes, if it's income and it's been taken out of the market. If it's getting re-invested then **** no. It's not income at that point.

[Garcia Bronco]

logic has no place in this discussion

Yep. No loop holes...no deductions...just flat ****ing tax..then there is no more pandering and bull**** to get votes. Then everyone putting in has the same claim as everyone taking out. It's equal. It's fair. Everyone pays.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

If the mental midgets who support a flat tax had their way, then most of our dams, roads, bridges, sewers, water systems, schools, hospitals, train stations, railways, interstate highway system, and airports wouldn't exist.

I wonder how these clowns think we paid for all of those things, anyway?

[Garcia Bronco]

If the mental midgets who support a flat tax had their way, then most of our dams, roads, bridges, sewers, water systems, schools, hospitals, train stations, railways, interstate highway system, and airports wouldn't exist.

I wonder how these clowns think we paid for all of those things, anyway?

We spend less than 4 percent of our GDP at the federal level on all those items. Try again.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I wonder how boobs like GB think we paid for all of those things?

Do they think it would have been possible with a flat tax?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/fair-gop-share.JPG

[Garcia Bronco]

http://www.bartcop.com/fair-gop-share.JPG

It's a special brand of arrogance to curse the people that won't pay for services you want to not pay for.

[Garcia Bronco]

Do they think it would have been possible with a flat tax?

Absolutely...4 percent and some of those things aren't Federally funded.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

^ Making it up as he goes along.

http://www.bartcop.com/tb-outrage-where.jpg

[barryr]

We need billions more stimulus money to pay for roads and bridges.

[chadta]

Google 2.4% Rate Shows How $60 Billion Lost to Tax Loopholes

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes.html


trying to charge 35% is it any wonder companies are doing whatever they can to hide money and avoid taxes ?

as much as people may want to support the mother country, and buy local and all that jazz, it gets to a point where its just not possible, and 35% tax compared to 2.4% i think is that point.

yet the middle class who dont have all the fancy lawyers and what not still get stuck paying the 35% or whatever the tax rate is in the us, where as if it was a flat say 10%, would it be worth while for google to try and hide the money ? would low income earners take home an extra 25% sounds like a win win to me. companies lost incentives to try and cheat, people get to keep more of the money they earn, damn it just makes too much sense.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

trying to charge 35% is it any wonder companies are doing whatever they can to hide money and avoid taxes ?


You act like 35% constitutes some sort of serious burden for these fat cats.

It doesn't.

Not even close.

[chadta]

You act like 35% constitutes some sort of serious burden for these fat cats.

It doesn't.

Not even close.

never said it did, but it does to me, so id rather not pay it, and unlike you i wont ask somebody else to do something that im not willing to do myself. I am more than willing to pay my share, but so should everybody else.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I am more than willing to pay my share, but so should everybody else.

Does that include the super-rich and transnational corporations?

Because they don't pay their fair share.

Warren Buffett, one of the richest people in the country, was moved to reveal that he paid a 17.7 percent tax rate on his $46 million of taxable income in 2006, while his employees paid an average of 32.9 percent, and his receptionist's tax rate was 30 percent.

[Garcia Bronco]

never said it did, but it does to me, so id rather not pay it, and unlike you i wont ask somebody else to do something that im not willing to do myself. I am more than willing to pay my share, but so should everybody else.

Flat ****ing rate no loop holes...no deductions...take it out of the political system other than the rate...and everybody has the same vested interest.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Only a moron would support a flat tax, e.g., 35% on the guy who makes $30K per year and the same rate for the guy who makes $30 million.

[rugbythug]

Flat ****ing rate no loop holes...no deductions...take it out of the political system other than the rate...and everybody has the same vested interest.

Other Bonuses. People I pay cash to to do odd jobs, Clean a house. Pull Weeds. Etc.. Get captured. Drug Money Gets Captured. Untruthful landlords pay the full amount. Also Encourages savings.

[Garcia Bronco]

Only a moron would support a flat tax, e.g., 35% on the guy who makes $30K per year and the same rate for the guy who makes $30 million.

Only a sheep would support a system where the Feds take your money, they lop off a percentage, and hand you back the difference and tell you they are doing you a favor AND ACT AS THOUGH THE RESOURCES ARE UNLIMITED. So what do you do? You put those people on a fixed budget. How? Flat tax. Simplify the tax code. Then the businesses and corporations you like to complain about so much with their money no longer have a need to influence the tax game. It's set.

[rugbythug]

A flat tax would not need to be 35%. Why should anyone have to pay a higher percentage than any other? How is that "Fair"?

[chadta]

Does that include the super-rich and transnational corporations?

in my eyes yes it does, EVERYBODY needs to pay up

especially the transnationals that dont reinvest money into the country, if you do business here, you pay here, if not get the hell out

but it has to be fair, and for poor guy to pay nothing while rich man pays 50% is not fair, does he need it, no probably not but thats not the point, he earned it, it is his, not yours.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

in my eyes yes it does, EVERYBODY needs to pay up

especially the transnationals that dont reinvest money into the country, if you do business here, you pay here, if not get the hell out

That's good to hear. :thumbs:

but it has to be fair, and for poor guy to pay nothing while rich man pays 50% is not fair, does he need it, no probably not but thats not the point, he earned it, it is his, not yours.

Prosperity is only possible in a civilized society.

(Otherwise anyone can just break into your house and take your stuff anytime they feel like it with impunity, right?)

The more you utilize the social, economic, legal, and political infrastructure that makes civilization (and prosperity) possible, the greater your responsibility for the upkeep and maintenance of that infrastructure.

[Arkie]

Does that include the super-rich and transnational corporations?

Because they don't pay their fair share.

Warren Buffett, one of the richest people in the country, was moved to reveal that he paid a 17.7 percent tax rate on his $46 million of taxable income in 2006, while his employees paid an average of 32.9 percent, and his receptionist's tax rate was 30 percent.

This is why we need to go to a consumption tax. Nobody gets taxed for the first 20,000 spent, then it gets progressive. It would work.

[JJJ]

Does that include the super-rich and transnational corporations?

Because they don't pay their fair share.

Warren Buffett, one of the richest people in the country, was moved to reveal that he paid a 17.7 percent tax rate on his $46 million of taxable income in 2006, while his employees paid an average of 32.9 percent, and his receptionist's tax rate was 30 percent.

And you do realize if there was a flat tax rate of say 25% that they would all pay the same rate, he would pay more and his secretary would pay less and it fix what everything you are complaining about right?

I wouldn't worry about his secretary though. If she paid 33% on average she is making some nice cabbage, likely well over 200k.

That being said a flat tax is pretty regressive. For a flat tax to fair it probably would have to kick in at a certain income level, say 20k.

Buffet paid about 10M in taxes on his income because nearly all his income is derived from long term capital gains, meaning he reinvested his savings into the market. He takes no large steady risk free salary.

His wealth is tied up in his investments. Since he only had 46M in income he has not cashed out his winnings effectively. Eventually when he converts his paper wealth to cash he will have to pay taxes on it. He probably also has losses in the market he is crediting against income he made on other investments.

You really need to learn the difference between an income statement and a balance sheet, i.e. income and wealth.

[JJJ]

A flat tax would not need to be 35%. Why should anyone have to pay a higher percentage than any other? How is that "Fair"?

A flat tax would likely need to be in the 25% to 30% range to balance the budget.

A flat tax can be considered unfair if it starts out at dollar 1 because the first 20k of income or so is needed to just have life sustaining levels of income. This money is spent purely on the basics like food and shelter. Anyone below those levels the theory goes has not the capacity to even spend 25% of their income on income taxes. It is an argument I can certainly buy into.

A flat tax above 20 or 30k in income is perfectly fine and progressive enough for me. The government will certainly collect more revenue in such a system and spend a lot less in processing returns. Though lots of jobs will be lost initially in the tax preparation industry and at the IRS.

[NUB]

A flat tax would not need to be 35%. Why should anyone have to pay a higher percentage than any other? How is that "Fair"?

Because 35% of ten million dollars is world's apart from 35% of fifty thousand.

[TailgateNut]

A flat tax would likely need to be in the 25% to 30% range to balance the budget.

A flat tax can be considered unfair if it starts out at dollar 1 because the first 20k of income or so is needed to just have life sustaining levels of income. This money is spent purely on the basics like food and shelter. Anyone below those levels the theory goes has not the capacity to even spend 25% of their income on income taxes. It is an argument I can certainly buy into.

A flat tax above 20 or 30k in income is perfectly fine and progressive enough for me. The government will certainly collect more revenue in such a system and spend a lot less in processing returns. Though lots of jobs will be lost initially in the tax preparation industry and at the IRS.

Moron

[Garcia Bronco]

A flat tax would likely need to be in the 25% to 30% range to balance the budget.

A flat tax can be considered unfair if it starts out at dollar 1 because the first 20k of income or so is needed to just have life sustaining levels of income. This money is spent purely on the basics like food and shelter. Anyone below those levels the theory goes has not the capacity to even spend 25% of their income on income taxes. It is an argument I can certainly buy into.

A flat tax above 20 or 30k in income is perfectly fine and progressive enough for me. The government will certainly collect more revenue in such a system and spend a lot less in processing returns. Though lots of jobs will be lost initially in the tax preparation industry and at the IRS.

Jobs that shouldn't be there to begin with, but you are right about the jobs. I don't think we need 20 to 30 because part of the process, for me, is to shift the tax burden to the states. States are in a better position to properly spend tax dollars.

[Spider]

A flat tax ......... here we go non thinking again as I pointed out in another thread about how people dont realize how much tax they pay now , so now is it just a flat tax on payroll ,cause that wont get the bull off the ice , or did any of you numbnutted bastard realize that a flat tax would tax everything at 35% ? soda ? 35% .... think bout it

[TailgateNut]

Jobs that shouldn't be there to begin with, but you are right about the jobs. I don't think we need 20 to 30 because part of the process, for me, is to shift the tax burden to the states. States are in a better position to properly spend tax dollars.

HUH???

Maybe we shoulld just all become separate entities. Mini countries, if you will.;)

Maybe I should move to montana and find a "quaint" militia to join.:yayaya:

I figure there are enough Texans and extreme righties to keep me occupied for years.:approve:

It's kind of funny, in a way, how policies and politics can change a person over the years, isn't it?

[That One Guy]

HUH???

Maybe we shoulld just all become separate entities. Mini countries, if you will.;)

Maybe I should move to montana and find a "quaint" militia to join.:yayaya:

I figure there are enough Texans and extreme righties to keep me occupied for years.:approve:

It's kind of funny, in a way, how policies and politics can change a person over the years, isn't it?

When the constitution originally designated that all powers not expressly given to the Federal Government was reserved for the state, don't you think that's essentially what they wanted? An overarching federal government but then seperate entities at the state level.

I think a question we really need to face to get government together today is whether the Constitution actually limits and designates our form of government or whether it was merely a launching point for the government.

[rugbythug]

Because 35% of ten million dollars is world's apart from 35% of fifty thousand.

Um no they are both 35%.

[rugbythug]

A flat tax ......... here we go non thinking again as I pointed out in another thread about how people dont realize how much tax they pay now , so now is it just a flat tax on payroll ,cause that wont get the bull off the ice , or did any of you numbnutted bastard realize that a flat tax would tax everything at 35% ? soda ? 35% .... think bout it

Spider it is you who don't realize.

[barryr]

Yes, let's keep the idiotic tax system we have today since it's been so effective. Yikes.

[Spider]

Spider it is you who don't realize.

dont realize what ? Lets see how much you do know ....... you will have to google to keep up ......just 1 quick example , if you had to resurface I 25 from 120 th to Highway 7 , how much would you bid ? ( remember this is bein paid with tax payer monies) ........lets dont forget the SMM tax on your equipment ( just threw you a bone here , Broncolver will know what the SMM tax is ) you will to after you use google ......35% on the smm tax will kill companies , you ****ers that run around biatching about taxes and want a flat rate dont even comprehend what is taxed , and what a 35% flat tax will do , Wyoming is a flat tax state . It worked so well here , they need to turn I 80 into toll road to fix it .......

[Spider]

I 80 from evanstan to Pine bluff = toll road ......... yeah our flat tax system worked so great here ..........

[Spider]

2 options for Wyoming , either tax increase or toll road ........roughly 400 miles of toll road

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

That being said a flat tax is pretty regressive. For a flat tax to fair it probably would have to kick in at a certain income level, say 20k.

ROFL!

25% on $20K?

You call that fair?

Are you really so mathematically challenged that you don't understand 25% of $20K is a considerably greater burden on the guy who makes $20K than 25% on the guy who makes $20 million?



Buffet paid about 10M in taxes on his income because nearly all his income is derived from long term capital gains, meaning he reinvested his savings into the market.

Thanks for making my point for me.

Capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as income, and the estate tax should be reinstated.

[JJJ]

ROFL!

25% on $20K?

You call that fair?

Are you really so mathematically challenged that you don't understand 25% of $20K is a considerably greater burden on the guy who makes $20K than 25% on the guy who makes $20 million?

Thanks for making my point for me.

Capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as income, and the estate tax should be reinstated.

Do you think for 2 seconds before you post? You have serious reading comprehension problems.

I said kicking in at 20k. That means it is 0% up until 20k. Then it goes to 25% -30% flat on all income above 20k.

If a flat tax is in this range I would have no problem with capital gains rising to this level.

[Spider]

Do you think for 2 seconds before you post? You have serious reading comprehension problems.

I said kicking in at 20k. That means it is 0% up until 20k. Then it goes to 25% -30% flat on all income above 20k.

If a flat tax is in this range I would have no problem with capital gains rising to this level.problem is that will never work , not even close ......

[JJJ]

problem is that will never work , not even close ......

Work in what way? Meaning wouldn't be passed or doesn't work to balance the budget?

[Spider]

Work in what way? Meaning wouldn't be passed or doesn't work to balance the budget?

wont balance the budget , not even close , then as I mentioned earlier , flat tax , you have to go all the way across the board , 20% SMM tax ( currently around 2%) would kill ...... Look Wyoming is a flat rate tax state , and they are drowning up here , consumers would stop spending as much , you need disposable income , better to have a lower rate % like now , then goin a flat rate and people not spending , but only on what they need .quantity spending is a healthy sign of an economy

[JJJ]

wont balance the budget , not even close , then as I mentioned earlier , flat tax , you have to go all the way across the board , 20% SMM tax ( currently around 2%) would kill ...... Look Wyoming is a flat rate tax state , and they are drowning up here , consumers would stop spending as much , you need disposable income , better to have a lower rate % like now , then goin a flat rate and people not spending , but only on what they need .quantity spending is a healthy sign of an economy

Disagree. There is absolutely no reason you have to have your consumption taxes or your special mobile machinery tax match your income and capital gains tax levels. Why? The suggestion itself makes no sense.

You can balance the budget with a flat tax in the range on both income and capital gains if it is coupled with elimination of lots of special tax credits. .

[Spider]

Disagree. There is absolutely no reason you have to have your consumption taxes or your special mobile machinery tax match your income and capital gains tax levels. Why? The suggestion itself makes no sense.

You can balance the budget with a flat tax in the range on both income and capital gains if it is coupled with elimination of lots of special tax credits. .

of course you disagree , you dont know what in the hell your talking bout ..... machinery is part of Income , just like an employee , so of course it doesnt make sense to you , just like if a surgeon were to explain open heart surgery to me ..but most see that if you start making exceptions for income made off of Machinery , then there goes your flat tax ...not so flat anymore .... You think you have a well educated opinion , but you dont ....... I pointed out Wyoming is a flat tax state , now they have to consider 400 miles of toll road , or a tax increase ....... What does that tell you ?
probably not much , you are to entrenched in this ****ed up logic to see any different ...........

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I said kicking in at 20k. That means it is 0% up until 20k. Then it goes to 25% -30% flat on all income above 20k.


This doesn't disconfirm anything I said, i.e., that you would tax the guy who earns $20K at the same rate (25%) as the guy who makes $20 million.


Do you think for 2 seconds before you post? You have serious reading comprehension problems.

Oh, the irony! Ha!

[chadta]

why are you guys making this so hard, money coming in is income, unless you get paid in machines how the heck should they be subject to the 25% tax ?

you bid on a contract, its a 1 million dollar contract, you pay tax on 1 million, i dont care if you use 20 million worth of machines to do the job.

what am i missing, and im being serious cuz i just dont see how the heck you can make something so simple so messed up

[Spider]

why are you guys making this so hard, money coming in is income, unless you get paid in machines how the heck should they be subject to the 25% tax ?

you bid on a contract, its a 1 million dollar contract, you pay tax on 1 million, i dont care if you use 20 million worth of machines to do the job.

what am i missing, and im being serious cuz i just dont see how the heck you can make something so simple so messed up

every machine over 500 pounds or moves under its own power is subjected to smm tax , just the way it is down here .......and genius , if you bid a job for a mill and spend 20 mill to get it done , your ass will be in the soup lines..operating expenses have ot be figured in for the bid ..... Including all taxes you have to pay to get the job done

[TailgateNut]

why are you guys making this so hard, money coming in is income, unless you get paid in machines how the heck should they be subject to the 25% tax ?

you bid on a contract, its a 1 million dollar contract, you pay tax on 1 million, i dont care if you use 20 million worth of machines to do the job.

what am i missing, and im being serious cuz i just dont see how the heck you can make something so simple so messed up



Oy ****ing vey.


I can do 3 different $1million dollar contracts and depending on labor, mtls and tax status of the entity, the tax will vary substantially.

[JJJ]

This doesn't disconfirm anything I said, i.e., that you would tax the guy who earns $20K at the same rate (25%) as the guy who makes $20 million.

Oh, the irony! Ha!

My god you really don't get this, do you? One can only shake their head in disbelief. No they wouldn't pay the same rate at all.

We will go very slow so you can understand. Under what I proposed the following would happen:

The guy making 20k would be taxed at 0% and pay no taxes.

If he makes 20,001 he will pay a 25 cents.

The guy making 20m will pay 4.995m.

[JJJ]

of course you disagree , you dont know what in the hell your talking bout ..... machinery is part of Income , just like an employee , so of course it doesnt make sense to you , just like if a surgeon were to explain open heart surgery to me ..but most see that if you start making exceptions for income made off of Machinery , then there goes your flat tax ...not so flat anymore .... You think you have a well educated opinion , but you dont ....... I pointed out Wyoming is a flat tax state , now they have to consider 400 miles of toll road , or a tax increase ....... What does that tell you ?
probably not much , you are to entrenched in this ****ed up logic to see any different ...........

Ha! Oh, boy.

No your special machinery is part of your expenses, not your income. Just like your employees, these are expenses. If you had no work, but still had the backhoe and the employee, you would still be paying these expenses. Your sales would be zero but your expenses would be say 50k. Net income would be -50k.

SMM comes in the form of a sales tax when you buy such a piece of specialized equipment (3.62%) and an annual property tax of 2%, with exactly how and when this is paid depending on whether it is licensed or not or whether it is for-rent equipment.

As a business when you calculate your taxable income you will deduct these sales and property taxes paid and of course the costs of your expenses for the backhoe and the employee. You are taxed on net income. In this example above you would earn a tax credit for next year with no taxes paid for this year.

Sales and property taxes having nothing to do with income and capital gains tax and can and should be on completely different levels and scales.

No one on the face of the planet is proposing when they talk of a flat tax of making all of these taxes the same number except frankly you. In general they are speaking of income taxes. Making capital gains the same level of as income taxes is also sometimes discussed.

I think you perhaps are confusing a flat tax with a VAT tax which a pure consumption (sales) tax. In Europe they have both income taxes and VAT and they certainly are not the same value so I am not sure where you got this rather crazy concept.

[JJJ]

why are you guys making this so hard, money coming in is income, unless you get paid in machines how the heck should they be subject to the 25% tax ?

you bid on a contract, its a 1 million dollar contract, you pay tax on 1 million, i dont care if you use 20 million worth of machines to do the job.

what am i missing, and im being serious cuz i just dont see how the heck you can make something so simple so messed up

You are missing the fact a business is taxed on net income, not sales. The 1m is your sales but not your income. That will much less as you must take into account your costs.

For an individual who is not a small business you don't really have sales but your income is basically your salary, bonus, and other sources like stocks sold or such.

For a business who is using the personal income tax system to file tax he of course can deduct from his sales his business related expenses, like the cost of the backhoe, the taxes paid on the backhoe, and any employees he has to pay for to arrive at his net income. These deductions are simply the costs of the business.

Each job may have different costs and contribute a different amount to your net income so they are not the same. It certainly would make a difference whether you used one machine or twenty as of course your net income would be quite different on those two jobs.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

My god you really don't get this, do you? One can only shake their head in disbelief. No they wouldn't pay the same rate at all.

We will go very slow so you can understand. Under what I proposed the following would happen:

The guy making 20k would be taxed at 0% and pay no taxes.

If he makes 20,001 he will pay a 25 cents.

The guy making 20m will pay 4.995m.

This isn't what you said originally.

You simply said that the flat tax would "kick in" at 20K.

In any event, the system you're describing above isn't a flat tax - it's a progressive tax.

[chadta]

if you bid a job for a mill and spend 20 mill to get it done , your ass will be in the soup lines..operating expenses have ot be figured in for the bid ..... Including all taxes you have to pay to get the job done

never said spend 20 mil to get it done, is aid use 20 mil worth of machines, or are all machines single use now ? they cant do the same thing twice ?

say im a pizza delivery guy, i use a $20,000 car for my deliverys but only get paid 3 bucks per delivery, do i get to use a new car every time ?

I can do 3 different $1million dollar contracts and depending on labor, mtls and tax status of the entity, the tax will vary substantially.

once again you make it to difficult, no tax status, and dont care about your costs, its a 1 million dollar deal, you pay tax as a business on 1 million dollars, pretty simple and straight forward.

and as JJJ has pointed out, no way should business tax be the same 25% as income tax, but i want to tax everybody at 25%, even the guy who only makes $14,000 a year, tax system is simple and fair.

[Spider]

Ha! Oh, boy.

No your special machinery is part of your expenses, not your income. Just like your employees, these are expenses. If you had no work, but still had the backhoe and the employee, you would still be paying these expenses. Your sales would be zero but your expenses would be say 50k. Net income would be -50k.

SMM comes in the form of a sales tax when you buy such a piece of specialized equipment (3.62%) and an annual property tax of 2%, with exactly how and when this is paid depending on whether it is licensed or not or whether it is for-rent equipment.

As a business when you calculate your taxable income you will deduct these sales and property taxes paid and of course the costs of your expenses for the backhoe and the employee. You are taxed on net income. In this example above you would earn a tax credit for next year with no taxes paid for this year.

Sales and property taxes having nothing to do with income and capital gains tax and can and should be on completely different levels and scales.

No one on the face of the planet is proposing when they talk of a flat tax of making all of these taxes the same number except frankly you. In general they are speaking of income taxes. Making capital gains the same level of as income taxes is also sometimes discussed.

I think you perhaps are confusing a flat tax with a VAT tax which a pure consumption (sales) tax. In Europe they have both income taxes and VAT and they certainly are not the same value so I am not sure where you got this rather crazy concept.

LOL income is income , whether it comes from Machinery or a human , now to really screw ya up , what about owner operators ? 100% of their income comes from a machine ...........Vat tax LMFAO ..... I suggest you look up what a flat tax system is , I lived in 1 for over 15 years ......

[Spider]

never said spend 20 mil to get it done, is aid use 20 mil worth of machines, or are all machines single use now ? they cant do the same thing twice ?

say im a pizza delivery guy, i use a $20,000 car for my deliverys but only get paid 3 bucks per delivery, do i get to use a new car every time ?



.
depends on the machine and the job , yo udont need a D11 H do to the job of a D9 ........ Look these are machine , not a 20 grand car , they cost a **** load of money to operate , even an 18 wheeler you need at least , 1,750 miles a week just to break even ......

[chadta]

depends on the machine and the job , yo udont need a D11 H do to the job of a D9 ........ Look these are machine , not a 20 grand car , they cost a **** load of money to operate , even an 18 wheeler you need at least , 1,750 miles a week just to break even ......

and a pizza delivery guy needs 20 delivers to make the car payments, how is that any different ?

smaller scale yes, ratio not sure, but its the exact same thing, small pay, big machine bill, i guess the pizza could be delivered on rollerblades tho

[Spider]

and a pizza delivery guy needs 20 delivers to make the car payments, how is that any different ?

smaller scale yes, ratio not sure, but its the exact same thing, small pay, big machine bill, i guess the pizza could be delivered on rollerblades tho

no not even close , lets say you have a car payment , Insurance , and gas and oil expenses , that isnt bad , but now if you are taxed for the use of your car + all those other cost , whether u drive it , to the park, loan it to your brother or use it for work , you still cant charge the same price to deliver a pizza ........Now of that tax on your car goes up what happens ? thats right instead of lowering taxes you just raised them , specially by charging more , you pay more in income tax ..........see the same principals apply to owner operators in trucking , the more we have to charge to cover expenses the more we make on paper , the more we are taxed .......