Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Don't forget - they get write-offs, write-downs, depreciations, cost-subtraction - all those niggley little things you and I can't do.

---

Quote:

---

All told, federal taxpayers last year received $1.08 trillion in credits, deductions and other perks while paying $1.09 trillion in income taxes, according to government estimates.

Only about 8 percent of those benefits went to corporations. (The write-off for corporate jets equals about .03 percent of the total.) The bulk went to private households, primarily upper-middle-class families that Obama has vowed to protect from new taxes.

“The big money is in the middle-class subsidies,” said Syracuse University economist Leonard Burman, former director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. “You’re not going to balance the budget by eliminating ethanol credits. You have to go after things that really matter to a lot of people.”

---

Quote:

---

On top of that, the government made up their losses for them, with tax money, unlike JQPublic, who had to eat whatever losses he (or she) had.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I'm still waiting for someone to show me where in the Constitution it says that corporations have a "right to make a profit".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Ah, yes...everyone remembers the shelves of state-run Soviet stores overflowing with bread. Socialism at work.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"The government loaned them money, which they repaid. Sort'a like ole JQ, who borrows to get the roof fixed."

Hello,

I wonder if I could get a loan on the same terms from the Federal government. I suspect not.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I'm still waiting for someone to show me where in the Constitution it says that corporations have a "right to make a profit".

---

Why? Did anyone claim they have a Constitutional right to make a profit?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Bank of America's CEO defended his bank's new $5 fee on debit cards on Wednesday, saying that customers and shareholders understand the bank has a "right to make a profit."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
There seems to be an intrinsic belief in the "right" to profit, but I haven't seen where that right is supposed to be enshrined or enumerated. Given that in the U.S., our rights come to us via our Constitution, it seems logical that if someone claims they have a "right" to something, they should be able to cite the constitutional basis for saying they have such a "right".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Folks also seem to have an intrinsic belief in:

The right to a job.
The right to education.
The right to health care.
The right to abortion.
The right to contraception.
The right to privacy.
The right to same-sex marriage.
The right to sexual preference.
The right to travel.
The right to read.
The right to be safe.
The right to a decent standard of living.
The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

etc., etc., etc.

None of these are directly enumerated in the Constitution.

So you want us to do away with them all, along with the 'right to a profit'?



"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
[Conservative]Nonsense, there is no other free, good capitalist country on the face of the earth....

This map proves it!



[/Conservative]

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
There seems to be an intrinsic belief in the "right" to profit, but I haven't seen where that right is supposed to be enshrined or enumerated. Given that in the U.S., our rights come to us via our Constitution, it seems logical that if someone claims they have a "right" to something, they should be able to cite the constitutional basis for saying they have such a "right".

---

Folks also seem to have an intrinsic belief in:

The right to a job.
The right to education.
The right to health care.
The right to abortion.
The right to contraception.
The right to privacy.
The right to same-sex marriage.
The right to sexual preference.
The right to travel.
The right to read.
The right to be safe.
The right to a decent standard of living.
The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

etc., etc., etc.

None of these are directly enumerated in the Constitution.

So you want us to do away with them all, along with the 'right to a profit'?



"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
[Conservative]Nonsense, there is no other free, good capitalist country on the face of the earth....

This map proves it!



[/Conservative]

---

I doubt some even consider that much of the world exists.

I've seen it all since I've started posting on boards. Same discussion on public health, regulation, any form of gun control which according to some leads down the slippery slope to some kind of Stalinist tyranny. never mind that lots of places - well actually every western country other than the US - has a public health system, lots of places have banking regulation, gun control, etc etc and GUESS WHAT they are not STALINIST RUSSIA. Who would have thought that any other system might work?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Compare this to the deductions of JQPublic, where you can get the standard deduction, or the itemized one with limited deductions for the taxpayer.

---

Quote:

---

All told, federal taxpayers last year received $1.08 trillion in credits, deductions and other perks while paying $1.09 trillion in income taxes, according to government estimates.

Only about 8 percent of those benefits went to corporations. (The write-off for corporate jets equals about .03 percent of the total.) The bulk went to private households, primarily upper-middle-class families that Obama has vowed to protect from new taxes.

“The big money is in the middle-class subsidies,” said Syracuse University economist Leonard Burman, former director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. “You’re not going to balance the budget by eliminating ethanol credits. You have to go after things that really matter to a lot of people.”

---

Quote:

---

Do I get to pay myself for running my corporation - my 'profit making' activity which is my work - and then subtract it from my taxable income?

---

Quote:

---

Ahem. Only part of TARP has been repaid.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Conservatives folks don't believe in any of those "rights". Just look at

Everything they say.
Everything they do.
Everything they support.

etc., etc., etc.

---

Quote:

---

Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad.

... In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.

Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published "headnotes." (Davis had already had a long career in public service, and at one point was president of the board of directors for the Newburgh & New York Railroad Company.) In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment--which would ordinarily never see print--in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, you keeping saying that people are taxed "like corporations" IF they are corporations or self-employed. But why make the distinction?

---

Quote:

---

the government apparently thinks having profitable businesses is good for the country as a whole.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
We could do all of that without corporations, and we would be better off for it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, if corporations are people, then people should be corporations, and we should all be taxed on the same schedule.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
GEEZER: No, because Cain wants a FLAT tax.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
NICK: Can I get back to this later? I have to get to work. But there are dozens of ways to raise capital. (Oh, parenthetically, I would gt rid of the stock market as well.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
Penumbra. That's how the Supreme Court explains implied Constitutional Rights.

The Right to Profit is a right that exists in the penumbra of several others ranging from the 1st thru the 14th. For example, the right to assemble, the right to not be a slave (which gives you s property interest in your own labor), the right to property, Due Process and so on.

I have the right to make so something, sell it for what I want, and reap the rewards. Is a corporation all that different? It's an assembly, which is protected, but an assembly of persons joining their property to do together that which they can do as one, which is make something and sell it for what they can get.

Actually the Right to Profit is better termed the Right to Risk and Reward,, since profit is only one of the possible outcomes of any business.


H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, if corporations are people, then people should be corporations, and we should all be taxed on the same schedule.

---

So you're a supporter of Herman Cain and his 9-9-9 tax plan?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Ah, the wonderful video-game tax plan.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
GEEZER: No, because Cain wants a FLAT tax.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
GEEZER: No, because Cain wants a FLAT tax.

---

That alone is reason enough to vote FOR Cain.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
GEEZER: No, because Cain wants a FLAT tax.

---

That alone is reason enough to vote FOR Cain.

---

...or for those that understand that flat tax would shift more of the tax burden onto the middle class not to vote for him.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Cain's 999 plan is actually a precursor to the FAIR Tax, which is preferable, but I'd take a flat tax over the current tax code, any day.

---

Quote:

---

House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan said in an interview with The Daily Caller that he “loves” the idea of having “specific and credible” plans, like presidential candidate Herman Cain’s signature “9-9-9″ proposal, in the national debate about tax policy.

Ryan told The Daily Caller in an exclusive interview that Cain’s plan is a good starting point for debate, and shows the GOP presidential campaign season has entered into a more advanced stage where ideas — not just personalities — have come to the forefront.

“We need more bold ideas like this because it is specific and credible,” Ryan said. “I’m more of a flat-tax kind of a guy.”

The budget chairman went on to say that ideas like Cain’s plan could help shape the debate over tax reform moving into 2013.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/13/paul-ryan-loves-herman-cains-9-9-9-t
ax-plan/#ixzz1anZMQVGa

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, if corporations are people, then people should be corporations, and we should all be taxed on the same schedule.

---

So you're a supporter of Herman Cain and his 9-9-9 tax plan?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/a-plan-to-remodel-the-t
ax-system/2011/10/13/gIQAD5VXiL_graphic.html?hpid=z1
"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Cain's 999 plan is actually a precursor to the FAIR Tax, which is preferable, but I'd take a flat tax over the current tax code, any day.

---

Good for you. How do you not understand that any of those plans, Cain's Sim City Plan, Flat tax or the FAIR Tax shift more of the tax burden onto the middle class?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I think you should be more concerned with how the $ is SPENT by the Federal govt, than where the burden lies.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I think you should be more concerned with how the $ is SPENT by the Federal govt, than where the burden lies.

---

....and that is putting the cart before the horse, and you wonder why you never get anywhere.

Plus Ryan would love it, it cuts taxes for the rich.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

You couldn't have it more backwards. We give more than enough $ to fund the PROPER functions of govt for it to run, and run in the black. And yet, there is so much unbelievable waste and pork , passed off as ' business as usual in D.C. ', it's flat out criminal. Newt Gingrich hit the nail on the head when he raised the issue of Bernanke, Frank and Dodd. And that's just the very tip of the corruption iceberg.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Well we have to cut that spending before we cut taxes so it is not backwards. and those tax cuts should not be for the people that have the most.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Well we have to cut that spending before we cut taxes so it is not backwards. and those tax cuts should not be for the people that have the most.

---

And thus we have the class warfare game.

Those who "have" the most are paying the most. Already. More so than they're making.

---

Quote:

---

It's not an issue of cutting taxes more, but cutting spending. Keep the tax rates as is, and cutting spending, will go a long way to help the economy recover.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Cain has been quite unable to explain his own tax plan.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Cain's plan raises taxes on the middle class by 18% , while cutting taxes on the top tier 17%.

---

Quote:

---

They're paying MORE than they're making? Really? Show me which people are paying more than 100% of their income in income taxes.

---

Quote:

---

The Numbers Are In, Again – The Rich Pay More Than Their “Fair Share”

* Latest IRS Data Shows that Wealthier Americans’ Portion of Taxes Actually Exceeds Their Portion of Income

In their never-ending campaign to increase taxes, those on the left endlessly allege that wealthier Americans don’t pay their “fair share” in taxes.

There’s only one problem: the exact opposite is true.

When one compares the portion of taxes paid by Americans of various income brackets to their corresponding portion of the nation’s income earned, wealthier Americans actually pay more than their fair share.

And once again, the latest Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) numbers prove that. This month, the IRS’s income statistics division released its latest data comparing the amount of income earned by various segments of the income ladder against the amount of taxes paid by those same segments.

And what do they reveal?

According to the statistics, the richest 1% of American taxpayers (those earning above $389,000) earned 22% of the nation’s reported income. But their share of the nation’s income taxes was 40%. In other words, the wealthiest 1% of Americans’ income tax payments are almost twice as much as their “fair share".

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/The-Numb
ers-Are-In-Again-The-Rich-Pay-More-Than-Their-Fair-Share.htm

---