Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (143694)	10/28/2008 12:49:49 PM
From: tonto	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

What we did not learn in business school we can learn here on SI! LOL A 'corporation' is a made up 'person'

To: geode00 who wrote (143694)	10/28/2008 1:38:59 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 173976

so there is no reason that an individual should not be able to have an income statement that shows top line revenue and bottom line profit. The reason is the definition of the word profit. Of course the law can make a distinction between different types or levels of income, and can even (inaccurately) use the word profit, so in that sense the definition isn't exactly a vital point. The amount needed the bare amount needed to survive effectively isn't taxed. Over 30% of people have no net income tax burden. And the other 70%, don't pay income tax on the first chunk of their income. WHAT? Where are your numbers for this statement? So I should post them again so you can ignore them and ask for them again as if I had not provided them? Message 25109457 "Of the 138 million households who file tax returns, only about 16 million, or 11 PERCENT, earn enough to pay more to the feds in taxes than they get back in services..." corner.nationalreview.com Message 25113320 Message 24937013 Message 24937307 I've been talking about federal taxes not state and local. But state and local income taxes charge the rich a higher percentage, and property taxes are charged to owners of property who tend not to be poor. Sales taxes hit the poor harder but not enough for your quote from the "Citizens for Tax Justice" to be true, unless they are carefully cherry picking what they count and what they don't count in a distorted way (for example not counting corporate taxes as applying to the owners of corporations, and not counting the reduced income in lieu of taxes from tax free bonds, but counting the property tax on rental units as applying to the renters even though its nominally paid by the owner not the renter). And since the whole issue has been about Bush and "reverse robin hood", well Bush isn't governor. So the issue is federal taxes not state taxes. The poor pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes when you include all taxes. But even if they did pay a higher percentage it still wouldn't amount to "reverse robin hood" because the rich would be paying most of the cost in terms of absolute dollars, and the poor would be receiving more of the income transfer and subsidies than the rich. So even if your quote was accurate (and it clearly isn't) its not directly relevant to the point. It could be used to argue "the poor should pay less", but not that they are net payers to the government, when the reality is they are net receivers. Even when you just count the payroll tax and don't consider the income tax at all, wealthy people pay more dollars in to payroll tax than poor people do. Also that article was from 2003, and wouldn't have had any data later than 2002 at latest, but the relative burden of the rich has climbed since then.