Senate GOP blocks windfall taxes on Big Oil

[Central Scrutinizer]

SD,

 

"And of course, there never will be a true flat tax because that means businesses will have to start paying their fair share."

 

No shit? That is the point and what I was saying. Business should be paying their fair share. Due to the loopholes in the current tax system they do not. So how is saying this mental masturbation? Because liberals find a flat tax to be some psuedo-right wing slight of hand? Oh bullshit. It would work if implimented, and it would be fair, and no, the poor and middle class would not be paying more IF big business were paying its fair share as well as the rich paying theirs without having all the loopholes to lessen their true tax burden. That is what I was saying. Did you read the whole thread?

 

"Never happen in our current political structure, where big biz owns our pols."

 

So you are saying then that Obama is no better than, say, McSame? They are all bought? There is no 'real' change possible? The Democrats are no different than the Republicans, right? All just crooked bought pols out for themselves, so why vote for any or either, all same same right? Obama's theme of change is just a bunch of BS for public consumption, but not really change? The "current political structure" is exactly what needs changing. That includes both teams SD. They both suck basically, and neither is really addressing the real problems the country has to deal with. It's mostly smoke and mirrors and hype, then back to the business of screwing the middle class taxpayers once again for another four years so Big Business can reap more obscene profits at the expense of the little guys, and use the tax loopholes to pay squat on those profits.

 

"Hence Chappy and my opinions that this is just "mental wanking."

 

It's only 'mental wanking' if you do not agree with it. Right? :smirk: Half the stuff posted on the board is mental wanking if you do not agree with it. Only the stuff you agree with is not 'mental wanking' then? I see now.

 

Cent

[Neo]

I can school you with facts. Your weakness is you assume every bit of left wing BS is true and anything that does not agree with it is false.

 

So for instance...urban legend? Just admit you are wrong for once. Go read wikipedia, it's in there.

 

Last I checked, the wealthiest 7% pay 70% of the IRS budget. But wait, aren't we supposed to all believe the rich aren't paying and the middle class are carrying the burden? Comments please.

 

Read about FairTax. Maybe you will learn something useful for a change.

 

[..]

To an extent they are all the same. I am going on history here. There have been several "flat tax" proposals raised in the Congress, and exactly NONE were real flat tax schemes, but a derivation of the current progressive system we have now. Why do you think it is gonna change now when we have more PACs now than ever. Maybe in 20 years, if Obama and his heirs do all they think they can. But we know that's a fairytale, and they'll get maybe 10% of what they want due to obstructionists in both parties.

 

Besides, as I told Neo, argue my facts about the increasing tax burden on the poor and middle-class at the benefit of the rich. Then get back to me.

 

Really our present tax system isn't all that far from being a very good one. If we rolled social security into the income tax removed the differential rates for various kinds of investment income, hacked away every deduction, every credit, every sheltered account, switched from old style sales taxes to VAT's, fiddled with the rates a bit, and clamped down on the variability available to the states (e.g., just give them a set of rates they can adjust) it would be very efficient, stable, fair, and simple from the point of view of the least rich 99% of the population and simplest 90% of businesses. Those who would remain with significant complexity would be there because they are living very complex financial lives, and would nearly always be the kind of people who can easily afford to deal with it.

 

Regards,

SD

[..]

So for instance...urban legend? Just admit you are wrong for once. Go read wikipedia, it's in there.

LOL, so he said it. Are you contending that a law will be passed with "exceptions" for *one* person? 55555555555555 That's just ridiculous and you know it. And once again, it has nothing to do with this debate.

 

Fair Tax? I won't even dignify that with a response. I've studied it. Bring it on. It is a JOKE. Besides, just that it has to be called "Fair Tax" leads one to be incredulous. I mean, heck, Gitmo is officially called "Camp Justice." 555555555555555

 

Best go back to Wealth of Nations. And read the whole thing mate, not just cherry pick the bits that appeal to conservatives.

 

Cheers,

SD

[..]

There is another reason why the "Fair Tax" and other "simple" tax systems are a bad idea. They are relatively bad at revenue stability.

 

The three main types of taxes used by modern wealthy nations are income, sales, and property.

 

Each of these responds to economic fluctuations differently. They respond with different magnitudes to different types of fluctuation, and they respond with different time profiles.

 

Because of these differences tax systems which use more types of taxes provide more stable revenue streams than those which use fewer types.

 

Cheers,

SD

[Neo]

Gee, who would have thought such a stupid bill could have been introduced and sponsored by DEMOCRATS.

 

And you are wrong about me. I fully expected Forbes to write his name into the law. Surely such a thing has happened before?

 

 

[Old Hippie]

"...Cent, with a true flat tax, the poor & middle classes will pay more due to losing their deductions..."

 

 

I currently have no deductions. No wife, no kids, don't own a house...basically, I pay more than a guy making the same who has all those, and he and his are using more services. Where is the fairness in that? I'm subsidizing him and his.

 

"...Big Business can reap more obscene profits at the expense of the little guys, and use the tax loopholes to pay squat on those profits..."

 

Big business can currently move these profits off shore, and or invest them in offshore ventures which means American jobs lost.

 

To me, even if there was a flat tax, and my taxes stayed the same, but big business paid more, and there was more money in the "fund," than maybe we'd have better roads, bridges, schools, education, and (gasp) universal health coverage...

[Old Hippie]

Neo,

 

I am cynical enough to think NO politician has ever been interested in a law unless it somehow benefited him personally.

[Julian2]

The government always targets the single man.

In Australia they're still paying people to have kids.

 

[Old Hippie]

Well exactly! Anything the government subsidizes, you get more of! Stop paying people to have kids and burdening the system. People always complain about people having kids to get more welfare, but it works out about the same in what we allow people to deduct for having kids...it is bullshit. Make $50K? PAY TAXES ON 50K!

 

You don't get breaks (directly) on sales tax because you have kids, or a break on property tax because you have kids, why give a break on income than? Does it make a difference if I decide to spend my money on good times Vs. Spending it on a wife and kids? why should it? A guy with a house gets tax breaks, I still have to pay rent/need a place to live, why is there a tax difference for owners and NOT renters?

 

The tax system is fucked, and hurts people who make different choices. Marriage and a family and a house is/are all choices, as is being single and renting. The tax code is nothing more than society assigning a value to morals and life style.