So Rise your Credit so you wont sink. What is the end game to this 20 trillion 40 trillion when does it sink how is this sloving it, you are dying a slow death. More debt you have is a BAD THING !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hello
"Social Security is officially in the red" -Washington Post
Now, Social Security is sucking money out of the Treasury. This year, it will add a projected $46 billion to the nation’s budget problems, according to projections by system trustees. Replacing cash lost to a one-year payroll tax holiday will require an additional $105 billion. If the payroll tax break is expanded next year, as President Obama has proposed, Social Security will need an extra $267 billion to pay promised benefits.
Barsense, Most McDonald's franchisees enter the McDonald's System by purchasing an existing restaurant, either from McDonald’s or from a McDonald's Owner/Operator. A small number of new operators enter the System by purchasing a new restaurant.. You are wrong again.
Barsense says this:"Naturally I was referring to the OWNER of McDonald's not the the poor managers who just own the assests they purchase they are not really the owners." The OWNER of McDonalds? These poor mangers must have $500K, that they are not borrowing, to qualify. McDonalds is a public corporation, anyone can be an "owner".
@luvcheney1 The managers of McDonalds are Not REALLY the owners , they don't own the biz they are managers that just have to buy some of the assests like equipement, they don't even own the buildings, they can not resell the biz for profit and the ceo's board of directors for McDonalds instruct them as to how they must run the biz, essentially they work for them, they just had to invest some to be able to do so and have to give a portion of their profits to Mcdonald's corp their BOSS
And large corps DO NOT pay 35% Congressional Budget Office, which estimates the effective marginal corporate-level tax rate to range from "29 percent on computer equipment to a negative 2.2 percent on petroleum and natural-gas structures."
The financial services industry is said to be taxed at 16.5%
@barsense Large Corps are multinational. That means they have subsidiaries in foreign countries. Thats means they earned profit OUT of the US. When they leave that profit OUT too, it is untaxable. Averaging together untaxable income with taxable results in a lower than statutory rate. IF you desire corps pay a higher effective rate, you must get them back in the country. You do that with lower taxes, not higher. Its like your wife. Be nice, you get some.
@barsense What makes you stupid, is are only able to report the RESULT of our tax policies, and havent a clue how the system CAUSES the result. Conservatives dont like the result any more than you do, but propose the solution. Lower US statutory corp rates to a competitive world level, REMOVING the incentive to move, and pay corp rates to foreign nations. WalMart pays 33%, United Health ( largest) pays 35%. These are corps where MOST all income is in US.
@luvcheney1 Oh yes Walmart with their low paid jobs and practicing of keeping hours below 40 in order to avoid paying benefits is desperately needed so that working people have to rely on food stamps and so they can claim their net foreign operating losses.Losses and Valuation Allowances
At January 21, 2009, the Company had international net operating
loss and capital loss carryforwards totaling approximately $4.1 billion.
@luvcheney1 Oh yes Walmart with their low paid jobs and practicing of keeping hours below 40 in order to avoid paying benefits is desperately needed so that working people have to rely on supplemental food stamps and so they can claim their net foreign operating losses.Losses and Valuation Allowances
At January 21, 2009, the Company had international net operating
loss and capital loss carryforwards totaling approximately $4.1 billion.
@luvcheney1 We do not need to lower living standards here to compete with other countries with even lower living standards. that does not make us stronger it makes us weaker, and increases in income among the majority of Americans would result in more tax revenue coming from the majority of Americans. If income inequality was not so huge then naturally high income would pay less taxes and lower incomes would pay more taxes and incomes below top could afford to pay more.
@barsense We ARE in competition with other nations. Whether you like it or not, or admit it or not. How are we "richer" by allowing jobs to leave the US? WalMart has customers, who voluntarily choose to buy their, whether you like it, or not. Those people, whether they like it or not, are FIRING union workers. Anyone who doesnt drive a GM, Ford, Chrysler product (made in US, which most arent anyway) is FIRING UAW. The PEOPLE demand the union members be fired. WE vote with our wallets.
@luvcheney1 We have the means to protect our own companies just like other countries do so we need to use them. And destroying middle income is not going to make this country better OR HELP YOUR WALLET in the end, LMAOOOOOOOOO
@barsense "We have means to protect our own companies, like other countries do". Protectionism? Tariffs, to raise import prices above domestic prices? Please review the "law of comparative advantage". Nations may have an advantage over other nations in some industries. They should specialize. Even if they have no advantage in any industry, they should specialize in the ones they do best. IE, I was a cook, and Mgr. Others better at both, but I am richer if I work at the higher paying occupation.
@luvcheney1 That makes one country dependent on another and vice versa, sometimes works in favor of peace and sometimes causes wars. I think here in America we should specialize in everything, 330 mil people with still so far although other countries are catching up but still so far the best colleges makes that doable. Course republicans cutting funding for education is going to give the other countries increasing spending for education an advantage and we may not stay no. 1 in that area.
@barsense I know what you think. If you actually understood "comparative advantage", you would already know that without free trade, the standard of living would be less, not more. I feel a higher standard of living is better. You dont.
@luvcheney1 You don't know what you are talking about that is very clear the standard of living in this country has been decreasing every since people like you started pushing supply side economic bs trying to play word games that don't mean chit.
@barsense Now, now stupid, You degenerated into your Lib rant again. The usual method you have, talking shit, then avoiding a discussion in detail. You havent a clue about comparative advantage, AND you dont care! You havent a clue about deferral of corp taxes, Foreign tax credit, and are a chicken shit lying poser who refuses to even discuss it. But Ohhhhh, when it come time to says Reps suck, because they voted against the pathetically ignorant bill, you will SAY SO, not defend. Asshole.
@luvcheney1 You are the one who insulted me with your arrogant statement regarding comparative advantage when I have already discussed this with you many times and stated quite clearly that I do not believe in lowering our living standards in order to be able to produce cheaper than countries who have living standards lower than our own. bEEN plenty of time for this to prove a viable policy and it has not profits are NOT trickling down with disgustingly failed con policies I debt INCREASED
@barsense As the Supreme Court said in 1875, "To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called a taxation."
@luvcheney1 And what is it when banks hike fees and interest rates which we are all paying to cover losses when wealthy individuals purposely allowed realestate to be foreclosed on because property values dropped so that they could buy back same properties at cheaper prices. What is it when ins. co. take premiums promising to cover and then cancel when someone get's sick ? What is it when big biz develops a monopoly so they can charge higher prices for their products ?
@luvcheney1 Hmm, which case would that be ? I only found 9 supreme courts rulings in 1875 Mason Vs. Graham, The Rio Grande, Putman vs. Day, Dan vs. Chicago Manuf co. , Monger vs. Shirley, Treat vs. Jennsion, Schow vs. Harrimon, Bass vs. Brownsville, and Rogers Locomotive and Machine works vs Helm.
@luvcheney1 The Law: The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that a person shall not be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 24 (1916), that "it is . . . well settled that [the Fifth Amendment] is not a limitation upon the taxing power conferred upon Congress by the Constitution; in other words, that the
@luvcheney1 . . . ." Further, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the summary administrative procedures contained in the Internal Revenue Code against due process challenges, on the basis that a post-collection remedy (e.g., a tax refund suit) exists and is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of constitutional due process. Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589, 595-97 (1931).
@barsense You say, "and most of that is because of state government". Are you saying you want smaller state govts? I never heard this from you. You support Chris Christie, Scott Walker, Rick Perry? You want state spending cut? State spending is Govt employees, K-12, colleges, MediCaid, cops, fire, pensions, benefits, etc. NOW you want those cut? Why do you even mention this? It may be true over a certain period, but not in last 70 yr period. Even so, you DONT wants cuts, so who cares?
@luvcheney1 LOL. I would prefer state cuts on all their regulatory state agencies especailly those over small biz, ag depts. hwy, etc etc. which have expanded at alarming rates. , I am perfectly fine with education and public services.
@luvcheney1 Suggesting that state regulators and state regulations need to be common sense and not overdone by wasting time , money, manpower where there is no risk to consumers and/or the general public is not the same thing as suggesting there should be NONE. lol Let's keep some common sense in the discussion.
@barsense Part 2. 2 minutes with the Calif budget gives these 3 items (of many, of course) being 80% of the budget, from biggest to smaller #1) K-12 #2) Health and human services #3) Higher education. There are other public services of course, but basically you like almost all of the budget. You want no state regulation of minimum wage? Labor board? Lawyer licensing? Food inspections? Restaurant inspections? You dont want to cut anything. Poser.......
@luvcheney1 Yes, I would like to cut regs like those that require a co. to have a license and file endless paperwork, etc etc. to spray weeds in cracks in parking lots. chemical industry there are some very useful and needed regs but some of it is just ridiculous and a total waste of taxpayer money going overboard and to the extreme, pretty much the same with most state agencies and regs on business. Let' keep the good reg that protect consumers but drop the ridiculous in states
@barsense I cant believe we may actually agree on something. A lot of regulations are from the Fed Gov as well, but I think it would really not be possible for many people to approve of no licensing for childcare, plumbers, electricians, contractors, lawyers, etc. It also would be hard, especially here in Ca to get this. But, I dont really think these items are much of the budget. The elimination may increase business activities, but the ca budget is 80% on only 3 items, all OK with you.
@luvcheney1 If someone babysits for a friend, relative, neighbor, etc. someone they know personally I do not think they should be required to be licensed but if they run a business advertising for childcare with clients that don't know them then of course I do think they should be licensed the same as I am and should be licensed in my business dealing with chemicals and the same applies for or course plumber, etc etc. Let's keep some common sense on board with this issue.
@barsense Babysitting for a friend, neighbor doesnt require a license. So, you actually do like everyone to be licensed. How about states regulations for a higher minimum wage? A labor board to screw businesses? Regulate safety, environmental concerns. Remember, we have to cut the horrible state govts you talk about. YOU said you dont like so many regulations. Health dept food production inspections?
@luvcheney1 Again let's not get stupid and carried away here, I said I would like to see less wasted money and time and manpower from state regulators on issues where there is no risk of harm to consumers or the general pulblic where they go way overboard with regulations with a lot of useless paperwork but that does not mean I want to throw out all state government LOL. I just advocate more common sense on the state level regarding regulations.
@barsense I know what you said, "Yes, I would like to cut regs like those that require a co. to have a license". Now of course, I cant find any kind of license you want abolished. You see, you just say you want to cut stuff, but you wont touch anything. Now, you could ask me, and I WOULD tell you something, and I wouldnt write off the vast majority of the budget as untouchable. Dp you have a state Governor who has CUT spending massively, that YOU like? Name him. I can name some.
@luvcheney1 I most certainly did touch stuff, must be those reading comprehension problems AGAIN, if you read again perhaps you will be able to see the 2 specific stuff i mentioned. LMAO basically what I am saying is keep the license requirement for the big boys and leave the little guy just making some money working for friends, neighbors, etc the hell alone.
@luvcheney1 If your provider is caring for more than two children who aren't related and they provide care for more than four hours a day, they probably should be licensed. In general, there are two types of programs regulated by the state, family child care homes and child care centers.
Family child care home
A smaller program offered in the provider's residence where three to five preschool children are in care. They may also provide care for three school age children
@luvcheney1 So you see if a person babysits for 2 neighbors or friend and between the 2 neighbors or friends etc. have just three children they babsit that are preschool they can be required to have a license. and I think that is going overboard.
@barsense This is a silly conversation. You dont want to cut this licensing body at all. You just want to modify a regulation. These pathetic govt leeches will still be getting overpaid, and benefits and pensions paid for by the people actually working in the daycare.
@luvcheney1 Whatever, I really don't care what you want anymore than you care about what I want , but yes I would like to see the little guy exempted from regulations which would save us a lot of money and manpower in state government and they can just concentrate on the big boys that can and do do the most damage and harm when they are dishonest or operatin solely on greed with no regard for other humans.
@barsense Lets review. If you put prisons on top of the 3 things I already mentioned for Calif, K-12, Health and human services, higher education, there is only 10% left then. What about roads, and all the rest? All you can say, is change a little rule on daycare? THAT is all you can say, after a dozen posts screwing around blaming state govt for growing? You have no answer, and you exempt everything. BTW, Govt has NO way to know who has kids from 2 or 3 families now, do they?
@luvcheney1 Not at all what I said, what I said was state agencies need to concentrate on big biz and leave the little guy the hell alone, state governments waste our money and their time and manpower messing with the little guy just struggling to get by and doing nothing that would harm anyone when they could be do some real good enforcing regulations where a lot of harm is done.
@barsense Sure, only large companies are evil. There couldnt possibly be any small childcare in a home with perverts now, could there? Even if there is no risk, little itty bitty babysitters are invisible, and arent costing govt anything now ANYWAY. You cant just think you can make tiny cuts on a few percent of a budget, and solve the crisis. The deficit is massive, a $25 bill problem with a $100bill spending, in a very high tax state! ( ca). Business, people who produce leaving, high taxes.
@luvcheney1 LOL. I don't think anyone would have a friend or neighbor babysit, people that they know well babysit for them if they had any doubts about their character so I see requiring them to carry a license or be regulated is a waste of time and money.
@barsense Note your lack of concern to permit daycare providers to care for kids without licensing. You dont care about the children, do you? Child molesters should be able to operate outside of Govt regulation? You think it is safer in a family home, than in a center with multiple employees, and more people coming and going?
@luvcheney1 There you go again lying like a jerk. I SAID COMMERCIAL CHILDCARE SHOULD BE LICENSED OR ANYBODY THAT ADVERTISES AND CARES FOR CHILDREN THAT THE PARENTS DON'T KNOW THEM PERSONALLY SHOULD HAVE TO BE LICENSED , I SAID THOSE CARING FOR CHILDREN FOR FRIENDS. NEIGHBORS PEOPLE THAT KNOW THEM PERSONALLY AND THAT THEY KNOW PERSONALLY SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BE LICENSED,
@barsense Capital letters dont make you smart. Most child molesters are people who already known to the children. You said 2 neighbors or friends, 3 kids. You support child molesters, to save money? Why not? Thats not as bad as other Lib positions, like killing the unborn. "approximately 30% are relatives of the child, most often brothers, fathers, uncles or cousins; around 60% are other acquaintances such as 'friends" Thats 90% stupid, family or friends. Asshole.
@luvcheney1 You support child molestors, you are the one that said you don't think lawyers, childcare centers etc should have to have a license, but if you know people personally cause they are friends or neighbors then you know they are OK, it is those you don't know that run daycare centers that could be a molestor.you are the one that wants to kill children , you want to force someone who can't afford to take care of them to have them but you don't want to give assistance your sick
@barsense No I didnt I said, "but I think it would really not be possible for many people to approve of no licensing for childcare, plumbers, electricians, contractors, lawyers, etc. It also would be hard, especially here in Ca to get this". I am stating a fact, it would be impossible to get people to agree to abolishing licensing of trades. You see, you take right off the table 80% of the budget, and all you can come up with specifically is a minor daycare regulation!
@luvcheney1 Ok so we both said childcare centers , etc should be licensed, If you think someone who babysits for a couple of friends or neighbors who mow them very well personally should be requred to have a license fine but I think that is unnecessary overkill on regs wasting time and money when more attention could be paid to real childcare centers, etc. Like I said, I think to much money is wasted messing with the little guy.
@barsense "Hopper, J. (1998). Child Sexual Abuse: Statistics, Research, Resources. Boston, MA Boston University School of Medicine. More than 90% of all sexual abuse victims know their perpetrator. Almost 50% of the offenders are household members and 38% are already acquaintances of the victims."
You "feel" it is safe to have a friend, neighbor, relative. You "feel" lots of shit that is pure stupidity. Out of the entire Ca budget, you suggest not regulating when daycare is 3 kids. some help.
@luvcheney1 Well I figured if parents know some one personally they would have a better chance of knowing if they are OK or not than a regulator who knows nothing about them and just checks their application for a license , parents would also know other people that know them personally and a regulator would not. A commercial childcare center they would not know the people running it or anyone that knows them,
@barsense The fact is, 90% of molesters are known to families. Perhaps you have not heard of "live scan", fingerprinting and background checks? My only point with you is this: you make a dozen posts saying growth of govt is State. We all know staets are bankrupt. When I press you, you declare off limits, right off the bat 80% or more of the budget, and all you can actually support is a minor licensing change in daycare. Poser. .
@luvcheney1 No I did not, I said leave the little guy in all areas alone and concentrate on larger commercial operations and that would save a lot of manpower and money. And BTW, license fees create revenue that is why the states try to set as many license requirements as they can get by with. It is regulating that costs money because it takes more manpower than revenue received from fines cause they waste their time messing with little guys that don't have any money.
@barsense You think little guys are good, big corps evil?? I worked in corporate businesses, and franchised, small businesses. Small businesses are far less strict, far more casual, do NOT pay the attention to detail large corp businesses do. Why? Corps with 1000 locations have lawyers, and when a store fucks up, they get sued. So, when someone fucks up, corps hates cost of fuck ups (poisoning someone, slips, mgr discriminates sexually, racially, ). and IMPROVES procedures. Small not so much
@barsense You said, "concentrate on big biz and leave the little guy the hell alone,", then followed with, " when they could be do some real good enforcing regulations where a lot of harm is done." You hear? Little guys, leave them alone. Big guys, well, thats "where a lot of HARM s done". You fucking liar.
@barsense Without big corporations, our standard of living, our way of life would be shit. Without Big Oil, the economy would grind to a halt. However, I think BP is bigger than any daycare center I ever saw. And, thats a good thing, because there is actually someone big enough to sue, in a civil court. Oh shit, Obama already extorted money from them without a civil or criminal trial. I forgot. No laws apply, Marxist in the White House.
@luvcheney1 Smaller biz would pick up to take up the slack and there would be more competition which would be better for everyone than the huge monopolies that have too much power and control.
And BP needed to be held responsible for the damage they did .
@barsense Sure, BP needed to be held accountable for what they did. In a fucking COURT. Under our laws, not the edict of a 3rd rate tinhorn dictator. Now, you dopes WONDER why Corps are sitting on Trillions? Removing their assets? When Obama stole the assets from Bondholders of GM and gave them to unions? Sure, you guys enjoy this. But corps dont piss and shit in parks, they just go away.
@luvcheney1 And they do not help the standard of living for the majority when they pay low wages and cut hours in order to avoid paying benefits and do most of their investing overseas taking profits from America to invest overseas they just help other countries. Our countries future and strength depends on the majority not on a tiny few at the top of the income range investing mostly overseas. A country is not what a few are it is what the majority of Americans are.
@barsense Luvcheney1 is not a patriot by any stretch of the imagination. He's a selfish blowhard who cares more of his mediocre investments than what is good for all.
@Athruebelief Before republican trickle down disastrous policies we had an amazing country where anyone who did not aspire to great wealth but just wanted to put thier kids thru college and live a decent but moderate lifestyle could get a job and work till they retire at that same job and make a reasonable living and and our weatly did well also, and It is people with Luvcheneytype mentality that destroyed that.
@luvcheney1 You don't know what you are talking about that is very clear the standard of living in this country has been decreasing every since people like you started pushing supply side economic bs trying to play word games that don't mean chit. I want to see standard of living increases until we are back to number one again like we used to be before nitwits started pushing dum con policies.
@barsense My quote of the Supreme Court Justice was about Tariffs. That was the subject. You see, it is YOUR game to change subjects, not mine. I am not saying all taxes are evil. Picking winners and losers is. Note this part, "to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes." That is what a Tariff does. It lays an added cost on everyone, for the purpose of FORCING free people to buy from a domestic corp.
And these small firms not in top income that you said you don't give a dam about according to 2009 data.• Generated 65 percent of net new jobs over the past 17 years.
• Create more than half of the nonfarm private GDP.
• Hire 43 percent of high tech workers ( scientists, engineers, computer programmers, and others).
• Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises.
• Made up 97.5 percent of all identified exporters and produced 31 percent of export value in FY 2008.
And small biz with fewer than 500 employers are the main employers and their income is NOT TOP INCOME In 2009,there were 27.5 million businesses in the United States, according to Office of Advocacy estimates.The lastest available Census data show that small firms with fewer than 500 employees represent 99.9 percent of the total ( employers and nonemployers),
Carter operates his business as an S corporation which means that Carter can split his $90,000 of profits into two payment amounts: salary and S corporation distributions. Suppose that Carter says only $30,000 of his profits are salary. In this case, Carter pays the 15.3% Social Security/Medicare tax only on the $30,000 in salary. Carter therefore pays roughly $4,500 in Social Security/Medicare taxes—and annually saves $9,000 in taxes
@barsense Say Carter is paying himself a salary that is lower than the market salary of the CEO of a corp in a similar situation. The IRS can/will sue you for cheating. The salary must be normal. $30K doesnt seem like the salary of someone managing a corporation. Mgr of a McDonalds unit makes way more than that. By the way you stupid fuck, $90K divided into 2 isnt $30K.
@luvcheney1 You are the stupid fuck, the instructions did NOT SAY DIVIDE EQUALLY DUMMY. IT SAID DIVIDE IN 2 30k would be the salary and 60 K would be filed as s-corp . And yes the salary does have to be reasonble and 30k is reasonable for a great many small corporations that are not BIG CORPS LIKE MCDONALDS. YOU STILL CANT GET THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SMALL BIZ AND BIG BIZ THRU THAT THICK HEAD OF YOURS.
@luvcheney1 An analysis done by the Tax Policy Center shows that 8.9% of ALL individuals who report small business income or loss (including self-employment income; income from S-corps, partnerships, and limited liability companies; farm income; and income from rental property and royalties), have household income greater than $250,000
@luvcheney1 Naturally I was referring to the OWNER of McDonald's not the the poor managers who just own the assests they purchase they are not really the owners.You'll pay McDonald's a monthly fee of 4 percent of your sales, and either a flat base rent or a percentage rent of at least 8.5 percent of your sales. How much money you make depends on many things, including the location and its popularity, the efficiency of your operating costs, and your ability to manage and control the business.
@luvcheney1 S corporations are not right for all business, for some it is better to file LLC or C-corp, but for those that S-corp is right for. As compared to almost every other business form, S corporations can save their owners self-employment or Social Security/Medicare taxes.
@barsense And, stupid fuck, keep in mind of your ridiculous claim YOU paid 39% corporate income taxes, when in fact, you are now pretending to be an S-corp, which DOESNT pay the damn corp income tax. THAT is what I called you on, you are a piece of shit liar. S-corp makes sense, in some cases, but a small business paying corp tax is a stupid lie, THAT`S why now you change your story. LIAR. Dunce.
@luvcheney1 LOL. cussmouth I never said whether I do or don't pay 39% corporate tax rate I said a fall in the 39% corporate tax rate. And it depends on how a biz fies. And again it is none of your business HOW i FILE SO you can stop fishing because I am not going to tell you.
@156sbr You need to change your sponge, the one you have seems to totally saturated with the same monotonous nonsense you keep spouting at everyone who does not follow the same sheepstink that you follow.
@09051961butts Ron Paul is part of the problem not the solution. He would not agree to cutting his own pay by not extending his own tax cuts but he sure wants to cut pay for 99% of Americans
@barsense Of course, we never had a choice if we want to pay in or not. This program overpaid those who have gone before us, will underpay those who are paying in now. According to the CBO, beneficiaries ( old farts), will grow by 50% in relation to workers from 2000 to 2030. SS started out as 1% total, of payroll, supposed to be 12.4%, but currently, temporarily, 10.4%. That is a whole lot of payroll.
@luvcheney1 All they need to do is lift the cap on higher incomes and SS will be just fine like it was before the cap was set. It is a pretty simple and fair fix.
@barsense The "cap" has existed ever since the first old guy received a Social Security check. In the 1970`s, I saw that the cap was close to my moderate income, and thought my income would have some of it eventually tax free, for SS. As I earned more, the cap went higher and higher, and even though I progressed in my job, and wages, I never escaped any of the tax. Small business profits taken as income. You want them paying 10.4% more?
@luvcheney1 The Social Security component of the FICA tax is regressive, meaning the effective tax rate regresses (decreases) as income increases. Since no tax is owed on wages above the Wage Base limit, the total tax rate declines as wages increase beyond that limit. They can pay the same effective tax rate as lessor incomes is what I WANT.
@barsense Then you want massive tax increases. Lets be clear, small businesses take income as personal, and is subject to these taxes. Regardless of WHO is taxed, this would simply reduce spending and investment in the private sector. Social Security was sold to the public as an insurance plan, and as such their is a cap on taxes because there is a cap on benefits. I know you dont want to remove the cap on benefits. Therefore, all you want is SS to be another welfare program.
@luvcheney1 There is no massive increase being proposed and it is not necessary to implement a massive increase. we just need higher income levels to pay the same percentage of their share of income as lower incomes pay of their income . If that is too massive then lower incomes need their taxes REDUCED.
@barsense Raising taxes 10.4% for now, or 12.4% as it ought to be, is massive. And starting at $108,000 it is certainly on the middle class, and especially on small businesses. You KNOW, of course, the Warren Buffet doesnt take a salary, therefore wouldnt be affected? Most of the billionaires dont either. Most CEO`s take the vast majority of their income in stocks, options, etc and are subject to cap gains too, not wages. You would miss all the rich you want to screw. You ought to aim better.
@luvcheney1 If those with lessor incomes can pay 15% then those with higher income can pay that much also and it sure is not going to make them broke like it does those with lessor incomes. Your arguments fail the test of reason and common sense on this point especially since higher incomes have paid a GREAT deal more taxes in the past AND STILL CONTINUED TO GAIN WEALTH just took two or three days instead of ONE DAY. LMAOOOOOOOOOOO.
@barsense But those with higher incomes will do exactly the same today, as they did when top rates were 90%. They wont pay. Go to the white house historical tables, table 1.2, and note ( do the math) percent of GDP receipts 1950-1959 averaging 17.2%, and 2001-2008 ( Bush ) being 17.6%. Of course, top personal rate 91%, top corp 51% in `50`s, during Bush top personal 35%, top corp 35% too. Those high rates did NOT generate high revenue. Or look at Clinton`s term, compare to `50`s.
@luvcheney1 yes , they did pay, when Bush passed his first tax cuts REVEUE DROPPED DRASTICALLY FOR FOUR YEARS IN A ROW, AND RIGHT NOW IT IS STILL AT A 2000 LEVEL. PRIOR TO 2000 REVENUE INCREASED EVERY YEAR BY A FAIRLY STEADY SUM.
@barsense Top tax rates only went down 1/2% in 2001, 1/2% in 2002, and then an additional 3.6% in 2003, bring rate from 39.6 to 35% in 2003. That means 79% of the cuts in 2003, and rising again 2005. Note recession March, 2001. Recessions reduce revenues. Note Nadaq index about $5400 march 2000, and around $2400 jan 1, 2001, a loss of over 50%, in Clinton1s last yr. BEFORE Bush. Revenue fell, for recession, just as currently, since crash. BUT, if you avg Bush term, its 17.6%, 17.3 in `501s.
@luvcheney1 THE TAX CUTS REDUCED THE REVENUE FOUR STRAIGHT YEARS IN A ROW AND EVEN NOW IT IS STILL AT A 2000 LEVEL WHEN IT SHOULD BE AT A 2011 LEVEL. AND BEFORE BUSH REVENUE INCREASED EVERY YEAR.
@barsense Note you are yelling. Note that is rude. Note you suggested we be civil. Note you are not being nice. Note I am restraining myself. Now, lets not pretend, that in the short run, tax policy is the ONLY variable.I averaged 10 yrs in `50`s, suggested Clinton`s 8 yr term, and averaged Bush`s term over 8 yrs. You are taking 4 yrs as a trend, with a business contraction starting to be obvious, in last yr of Clinton term, and ignoring the consequences of it.Shame on you.
@luvcheney1 Lmao, you caught me I was rude, just tired of your fake numbers game playing . FACT: revenue increase every year prior to Bush tax cuts and then it decreased for four years in a row while debt skyrocketed, and after Reagan tax cuts there was also a decine in revenue although not so drastic that the year end total did not show some increase and the debt skyrocketed so Reagan started taking back much of his tax cuts increasing taxes every year after his first year tax cut
@barsense Are you saying that recessions have no impact on tax revenue? That increased Govt spending,. on higher unemployment costs, welfare, food stamps, etc, while tax receipts fall, from people who lost jobs, corporations earning and paying less, fewer cap gains as stocks fall, etc, have no effect? Recession pegged at 3/2001 by economists, Bush cuts not passed until June, Dems insisted they come on line SLOWLY. 1/2% a yr? Big deal!
@barsense Part 2, Hey, what "fake" numbers? I took those numbers from White House.org., they came from CBO. Now, you are using fake reasoning, ignoring the business cycle. But, this is normal, Obama always uses the cycle to blame Bush, never accepts the improvements as being part of the cycle, when things improve. Clinton is a hero, because he came in as the cycle had bottomed already, and a recovery, prolonged by excessive money creation at the Fed ushered in a bubble in Tech stocks(nasdaq).
@luvcheney1 Lol. you play games with numbers . I talk about gov growth meaning employment and you come back with spending numbers not employment growth. And Clinton tax policies were favorable to small biz nott JUST big biz like republicans and that is what ushered in the Dot.com era along with gov investments he pushed to get it started.
@barsense Please refer me to CBO budget statistics that dont use spending numbers. Thats what a budget is. As for the employment figures you claim to use, I havent seen them, nor will you reference them, so i can comment. In that case, what difference does it make? I reference my figures, using CBO stats on white house.org site. DotCom era ended as a bubble burst. Recession marked as March, 2001, couple months after Bush elected, and 3 or 4 months BEFORE tax cuts started slow phase in.
@barsense When measuring the impact of govt spending on the economy, the ratio of spending, in relation the the economy, is what the subject is. Numbers of govt employees affect govt expenditures, but is not a total measure of them. I already gave you stats that show 2.2 times growth of Fed Govt by % of GDP 1940-2010, and 1.77 times for state/ local same period. Overall, about 20% in 1940, to 40% now. DOUBLE. Anyway, BEA is a huge site, again, you dont document WHAT you mean.
@luvcheney1 Cutbacks at the federal level saw the federal labor force drop to 2.7 million by 1998, but employment by state and local governments more than offset that decline, reaching almost 16 million in 1998
@barsense Total govt spending ( Fed, State, and local was 7% in1903, 20% in 1940, 40% today. Of course, by 1920 we were the greatest nation on earth, and today in a state of decline.
@luvcheney1 Yes and a lot of that spending was STATES expanding thier governments so much and depending more and more on federal funding. Naturally I think even the most mentally challanged can grasp that with more people it costs more and always will unless living standards decline drastically which we don't want because that would not be good for our country. But also naturally the increase needs to be reasonalbe according to population growth, improvements in our lives
@barsense With more people, there is a higher GDP as they work and produce. As inflation drives up prices, the value of the increased amount of products increases as well. That is why percent of GDP is the only way to analyze data over time. It accounts for pop changes, inflation values. If the trend continues. You doubt the GDP reflects more people working, producing, over decades? You doubt the prices of things are not reflected in GDP ?
@luvcheney1 Republicans are the ones that set the deficit and spending level and the dems have been working to reduce that in a fair and balanced manners and as always it takes time when the previous administration created such a dam mess , democrats have always had to fix the mess republicans leave.
@barsense My post was just explaining the reality that economists all the time express taxes, revenue, as percents of GDP. You refuse to accept what is common practice, among all economists. There is NO ther way to compare countries, or the same country, over time, without doing so. Instead of trying to learn just a concept, without even attaching a Conservative policy view to it, you change the subject. Now, read your off the subject comment. It is general, no specific policy objection.
@barsense What you mean is, "I dont know anything, so I copy and paste when I get pinned down". I just want you to see, Percent of GDP eliminates the need to worry about population changes, inflation, etc. Thats why economists use it. YOUR reference is not at all on that topic.
@luvcheney1 We were talking about government growth and state growth has far exceeded federal growth and the increase in government employment in states compared to federal prove that. You appear to not want to have to face this reality so you go off on a tangent about percent of GDP. And of course the state gov. increases with them depending more of federal funding has created a larger % of GDP for federal spending.
@barsense Lets assume the States are growing faster, just to make you happy, and for us to move on to my point. My point is that Total spending by Govt ( Fed, State, local, etc) was 7% 1910, 20% 1940, and 40% today. Govt keeps growing. Private sector shrinks. YOU are unhappy with the results we have, and this is the major, long term trend. .
@barsense So now you like Scott Walker? It is the Libs who want more union workers in govt, and bigger pensions, higher wages. Hell, I am for firing hundreds of thousands of union state workers, from sea to shining sea.
@luvcheney1 Government growth has nothing to do with whether they are union workers are non-union workers what it has to do with is how many they put on the payroll no whether they are union or not. LMAO
@barsense Your point is that unions pay lower wages, have less benefits, smaller pensions than non- union employees? If it doesnt matter, then what is the point of unions, if not to get more? You want smaller state govts?? Fine with me. AS to your BS about stopping the "deferral" of Corps taxes, you refuse/ are unable to discuss. Refuse FTC discussion. You "brag" about the corp tax bracket your corp is in, then discuss a S-Corp, which doesnt pay corp taxes. Liar!
@luvcheney1 I never said that unions pay less wages/benefits lol, the discussion was on the numbers of employees not what they were paid, and I was not bragging about the corporate rate bracket my biz falls in I was complaining about it because the rate is higher than top income corporate rate. And I discussed several types of corps on here, LLC, s-corp, c- corp as well as sole proprietorship biz and how I file my taxes for my biz is none of your business.
@barsense If you state your corp is in the 39% tax bracket, you cant claim YOU are paying 39%. That would make you anti-Obama, and anti Buffet when they both claim Buffet`s secretary pays higher taxes than he does. The only way that works is if you omit the corp taxes Buffet pays. If you claim 39% corp rate, you cant then pretend you are an S-Corp. You are just a poser.
@luvcheney1 39% is the Federal corporate tax rate for corporations earning between 100K to 335 K while those earning over 18 million is 35% not the state tax rate, Taxes on biz vary among the states, some have corp rates which vary from 4.63% to 12 % among the states, and some states tax on gross reciepts for biz instead of net profits and don't have a state coporate tax rate, some allow federal taxes to be deducted first and others do not. self-employed sole proprietorship another issue
@luvcheney1 But what you are doing is avoiding the issue and avoiding answering the question I asked by trying to turn it into a personal fishing expediction for info own how I file my taxes for my biz and what state I live in and I am not giving that information to you. THE question was HOW is it fair that corporations in the 100K to 335K be taxed at a higher rate than corporations making over 18 million are taxed ???????????
@barsense I never asked, nor care which state you live. I havent a fucking clue why the corp tax rates go to 39%, and then back down to 35%. I dont know, or care much. It is a point of minor interest. I only care that every other industrial nation has more favorable statutory rates, and they are attracting our corps, and capital, and jobs, and revenue, and I am NOT happy about it. I see Trillions parked abroad, because of high rates. This is the "deferral", and how to stop it? Not your bill.
@barsense I said, "and they are attracting our corps". ATTRACTING, not attacking. Please go to a Ford dealership, look at a new 2012 Ford Fiesta. Note the parts content. Go to Dodge/ chrysler dealers, note Mexican engines, etc. Note all US cars say, "US and Canadian parts content", then list a percentage. Never say just US, just with canada too. Funny? But Canada is NOT 3rd world, pays good wages, but has a LOW corp tax rate. ATTRACTING.
@luvcheney1 LOL. I meant to type attracting, the attacking was a typo. and this might interest you regarding Canada and your argument. Of note is that Canada's largest companies by value, and largest employers, tend to be foreign-owned in a way that is more typical of a developing nation than a G8 member The best example is the automotive sector, one of Canada's most important industries. It is dominated by American, German, and Japanese giants.
@barsense Being dominated by the evil giant corporations mean they come in Canada, give jobs to Canadians, and pay tax revenue to the govt. Sounds great to me. Lets contrast that with the Lib point of view, eh? Lets raise the taxes higher than everyone else, make life difficult for the corps, and drive them out of the US. Sounds great, eh Lib? No tax revenue, no jobs. Any wonder our trading partners get more money from corporation taxes than we do?
@luvcheney1 LOL great twist and spin attempt to save and divert since your argument was blown out the water. . And no one is discussing raising taxes on corporations overall just changing the tax breaks by , closing loopholes that benefit them for taking our money and investing it in other countries and GIVING tax breaks for them to invest HERE. That is not a tax cut that is a change in taxes giving tax breaks for producing here in America and reducing tax breaks for producing elsewhere.
@luvcheney1 So how are you going to twist and spin THIS ? I can't wait to see. LOL
The Gallagher, Flynn Approach
Gallagher, Flynn offers a broad range of services to Canadian-affiliated businesses, historically working with numerous companies establishing US operations. These include manufacturers, importers, distributors, service companies and construction firms.
@luvcheney1 If tax rates in Canada are such a great enticement and our tax rates are so punishing why are Canadian companies setting up operations in so many industries here in America ????????????
@luvcheney1 You and I both know the truth is that higher income corporations NEVER pay the base tax rate set and after all the deductions they are allowed rarely pay more than 10 or 15% which is lower than most other industriaized countries and many of them pay ZERO federal tax and some even get huge refunds. Even if they paid ZERO taxes all the time without an increase in consumerism they are NOT going to expand in America they are going to go where they can sell thier products.
@luvcheney1 An increase in demand is what we need here in America and that means some increase in income among the majority of Americans that would do more than any corporate tax cut would do,
@luvcheney1 And your statement that you don't give a dam about 100k to 355K being taxes more and saying it is irrevelant is about the most brash hyposcrisy I have heard from so-called tea party supporter TO DATE , these are the main employers in this countries the vast majority of small biz that supposedly the Tea party was all about. You just proved the tea partyclaims are a TOTAL LIE.
@barsense I I stated to you that I dont know why that bracket exists, nor do I care much, since it is a minor issue. It is one bracket, in an entire corp tax code that is far higher than the rest of the industrial world. All my discussions on the issue of Corp taxes are to the point that US corp taxes must be LOWERED, to a competitive world level. That means most likely 20% at a minimum. That would cut that 39% rate almost in half. Now you maintain outsourcing doesnt exist? All moving HERE??
@luvcheney1 This is the bracket that the majority of our small biz fall under who are the main job providers BECAUSE higher incomes outsource so much of thier labor. Please stop making false claims about what I said when I said NO such thing, And we don't need to compete with countries where living standards are disgustingly low we have plenty of competition within our own country between our own companies, we need to protect our own commerce.
@barsense Small businesses normally do NOT pay Corp tax rates. It makes NO sense to pay 39% corp tax rate, then take and pay Payroll taxes and income taxes too. That could be over 75% tax! They become an S-Corp, and pay payroll ( up to the limit) and income taxes ( about 50%, then 35%), with zero corp taxes. THAT is why you are a fucking liar. Who believes that business people are that fucking stupid? ( Besides you)
@luvcheney1 I don't consider 100k t0 335 K rich that is middle income biz however they file, and the democrats dropped all proposals to make any tax increases on anyone below 1 million dollars a long time ago. whether individual or corporate. And obviously you did not read the information that I gave you where it show examples as to how filing as an S corp can SAVE money on taxes. I will post it on here though for other people to show that YOU ARE THE LIAR.
@barsense The National Federation of Independent Business says "small businesses typically file taxes on the income tax level, as a sole proprietorship or S corporation, which is essentially filing as an individual. At least 75% of small businesses file taxes on business income at individual rates. Two thirds, or 65%, of joint filers with income above $250,000 and 50% of single filers above $200,000 earn business income.". Small business is the "rich', they pay personal income tax, not corp.
@luvcheney1 No I don't doubt GDP which always does better under democratic policies , always has and always will. since 1945 the most increases in private industry and therefore GDP has been under democrat policies while under republican policies we have had more increase in government.
@luvcheney1 Cutbacks at the federal level saw the federal labor force drop to 2.7 million by 1998, but employment by state and local governments more than offset that decline, reaching almost 16 million in 1998
Amazing!!! BBC News and New York Times: This just in: Barack Obama has come down with a seriously homosexual condition called extremepenisbreathobia and fuckAmericansuptheassophidas. It is a serious condition and apparently is not gender specific. Leading medical officials on his staff are reporting that it does not apply to any gender specifically. From the latest tests that they have performed with the President the results show that Obama will fuck everyone up the ass regardless of gender.
Who are any of you to criticize President Obama? Dont you realize Bush increased the national deb six trillion dollars. Cheney said in 2002 that "Deficits don't matter". BLAME THE SO CALLED "CONSERVATIVES"
What the hell happened to the money we've paid all these years? The government not only spent what they received in taxes , but they had to spend our investment for our future also? We need to take their spending power away this is Bullshit!
DEAR CONGRESS, Last year I mismanaged my funds and this year my family and I cannot decide on a budget. Until we have come to a unified decision that fits all of our needs and interests, we will have to shut down our checkbook and will no longer be able to pay our taxes. I'm sure you'll understand . Thank you very much for setting an example we can all follow.
@ktlee26 If the repus in congress were not so set on cutting pay/benefits for 99% of hardworking Americans struggling to attain financial security and would agree to cut their own pay/benefits since most of them in congress are the 1% top income and we can't afford to keep paying them so much when they cut our pay/benefits then we could get a balanced budget again.
@ktlee26 i like your comment republicans arent fair, but are democrats??? i believe their is a major problem in tax cuts budget do u? moral issues are a hate or real freedom in politics now ..do you believe in that?
So Rise your Credit so you wont sink. What is the end game to this 20 trillion 40 trillion when does it sink how is this sloving it, you are dying a slow death. More debt you have is a BAD THING !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hello
mars188 3 months ago
"Social Security is officially in the red" -Washington Post
Now, Social Security is sucking money out of the Treasury. This year, it will add a projected $46 billion to the nation’s budget problems, according to projections by system trustees. Replacing cash lost to a one-year payroll tax holiday will require an additional $105 billion. If the payroll tax break is expanded next year, as President Obama has proposed, Social Security will need an extra $267 billion to pay promised benefits.
chuck9788 3 months ago
Barsense, Most McDonald's franchisees enter the McDonald's System by purchasing an existing restaurant, either from McDonald’s or from a McDonald's Owner/Operator. A small number of new operators enter the System by purchasing a new restaurant.. You are wrong again.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Barsense says this:"Naturally I was referring to the OWNER of McDonald's not the the poor managers who just own the assests they purchase they are not really the owners." The OWNER of McDonalds? These poor mangers must have $500K, that they are not borrowing, to qualify. McDonalds is a public corporation, anyone can be an "owner".
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 The managers of McDonalds are Not REALLY the owners , they don't own the biz they are managers that just have to buy some of the assests like equipement, they don't even own the buildings, they can not resell the biz for profit and the ceo's board of directors for McDonalds instruct them as to how they must run the biz, essentially they work for them, they just had to invest some to be able to do so and have to give a portion of their profits to Mcdonald's corp their BOSS
barsense 4 months ago
And large corps DO NOT pay 35% Congressional Budget Office, which estimates the effective marginal corporate-level tax rate to range from "29 percent on computer equipment to a negative 2.2 percent on petroleum and natural-gas structures."
The financial services industry is said to be taxed at 16.5%
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense Large Corps are multinational. That means they have subsidiaries in foreign countries. Thats means they earned profit OUT of the US. When they leave that profit OUT too, it is untaxable. Averaging together untaxable income with taxable results in a lower than statutory rate. IF you desire corps pay a higher effective rate, you must get them back in the country. You do that with lower taxes, not higher. Its like your wife. Be nice, you get some.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@barsense What makes you stupid, is are only able to report the RESULT of our tax policies, and havent a clue how the system CAUSES the result. Conservatives dont like the result any more than you do, but propose the solution. Lower US statutory corp rates to a competitive world level, REMOVING the incentive to move, and pay corp rates to foreign nations. WalMart pays 33%, United Health ( largest) pays 35%. These are corps where MOST all income is in US.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 Oh yes Walmart with their low paid jobs and practicing of keeping hours below 40 in order to avoid paying benefits is desperately needed so that working people have to rely on food stamps and so they can claim their net foreign operating losses.Losses and Valuation Allowances
At January 21, 2009, the Company had international net operating
loss and capital loss carryforwards totaling approximately $4.1 billion.
barsense 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 Oh yes Walmart with their low paid jobs and practicing of keeping hours below 40 in order to avoid paying benefits is desperately needed so that working people have to rely on supplemental food stamps and so they can claim their net foreign operating losses.Losses and Valuation Allowances
At January 21, 2009, the Company had international net operating
loss and capital loss carryforwards totaling approximately $4.1 billion.
barsense 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 We do not need to lower living standards here to compete with other countries with even lower living standards. that does not make us stronger it makes us weaker, and increases in income among the majority of Americans would result in more tax revenue coming from the majority of Americans. If income inequality was not so huge then naturally high income would pay less taxes and lower incomes would pay more taxes and incomes below top could afford to pay more.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense We ARE in competition with other nations. Whether you like it or not, or admit it or not. How are we "richer" by allowing jobs to leave the US? WalMart has customers, who voluntarily choose to buy their, whether you like it, or not. Those people, whether they like it or not, are FIRING union workers. Anyone who doesnt drive a GM, Ford, Chrysler product (made in US, which most arent anyway) is FIRING UAW. The PEOPLE demand the union members be fired. WE vote with our wallets.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 We have the means to protect our own companies just like other countries do so we need to use them. And destroying middle income is not going to make this country better OR HELP YOUR WALLET in the end, LMAOOOOOOOOO
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense "We have means to protect our own companies, like other countries do". Protectionism? Tariffs, to raise import prices above domestic prices? Please review the "law of comparative advantage". Nations may have an advantage over other nations in some industries. They should specialize. Even if they have no advantage in any industry, they should specialize in the ones they do best. IE, I was a cook, and Mgr. Others better at both, but I am richer if I work at the higher paying occupation.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 That makes one country dependent on another and vice versa, sometimes works in favor of peace and sometimes causes wars. I think here in America we should specialize in everything, 330 mil people with still so far although other countries are catching up but still so far the best colleges makes that doable. Course republicans cutting funding for education is going to give the other countries increasing spending for education an advantage and we may not stay no. 1 in that area.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense I know what you think. If you actually understood "comparative advantage", you would already know that without free trade, the standard of living would be less, not more. I feel a higher standard of living is better. You dont.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 You don't know what you are talking about that is very clear the standard of living in this country has been decreasing every since people like you started pushing supply side economic bs trying to play word games that don't mean chit.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense Now, now stupid, You degenerated into your Lib rant again. The usual method you have, talking shit, then avoiding a discussion in detail. You havent a clue about comparative advantage, AND you dont care! You havent a clue about deferral of corp taxes, Foreign tax credit, and are a chicken shit lying poser who refuses to even discuss it. But Ohhhhh, when it come time to says Reps suck, because they voted against the pathetically ignorant bill, you will SAY SO, not defend. Asshole.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 You are the one who insulted me with your arrogant statement regarding comparative advantage when I have already discussed this with you many times and stated quite clearly that I do not believe in lowering our living standards in order to be able to produce cheaper than countries who have living standards lower than our own. bEEN plenty of time for this to prove a viable policy and it has not profits are NOT trickling down with disgustingly failed con policies I debt INCREASED
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense As the Supreme Court said in 1875, "To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called a taxation."
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 And what is it when banks hike fees and interest rates which we are all paying to cover losses when wealthy individuals purposely allowed realestate to be foreclosed on because property values dropped so that they could buy back same properties at cheaper prices. What is it when ins. co. take premiums promising to cover and then cancel when someone get's sick ? What is it when big biz develops a monopoly so they can charge higher prices for their products ?
barsense 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 Hmm, which case would that be ? I only found 9 supreme courts rulings in 1875 Mason Vs. Graham, The Rio Grande, Putman vs. Day, Dan vs. Chicago Manuf co. , Monger vs. Shirley, Treat vs. Jennsion, Schow vs. Harrimon, Bass vs. Brownsville, and Rogers Locomotive and Machine works vs Helm.
barsense 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 The Law: The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that a person shall not be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 24 (1916), that "it is . . . well settled that [the Fifth Amendment] is not a limitation upon the taxing power conferred upon Congress by the Constitution; in other words, that the
barsense 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 . . . ." Further, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the summary administrative procedures contained in the Internal Revenue Code against due process challenges, on the basis that a post-collection remedy (e.g., a tax refund suit) exists and is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of constitutional due process. Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589, 595-97 (1931).
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense You say, "and most of that is because of state government". Are you saying you want smaller state govts? I never heard this from you. You support Chris Christie, Scott Walker, Rick Perry? You want state spending cut? State spending is Govt employees, K-12, colleges, MediCaid, cops, fire, pensions, benefits, etc. NOW you want those cut? Why do you even mention this? It may be true over a certain period, but not in last 70 yr period. Even so, you DONT wants cuts, so who cares?
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 LOL. I would prefer state cuts on all their regulatory state agencies especailly those over small biz, ag depts. hwy, etc etc. which have expanded at alarming rates. , I am perfectly fine with education and public services.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense So you would abolish State regulations on childcare? Electricians licenses? Construction?
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 Suggesting that state regulators and state regulations need to be common sense and not overdone by wasting time , money, manpower where there is no risk to consumers and/or the general public is not the same thing as suggesting there should be NONE. lol Let's keep some common sense in the discussion.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense Part 2. 2 minutes with the Calif budget gives these 3 items (of many, of course) being 80% of the budget, from biggest to smaller #1) K-12 #2) Health and human services #3) Higher education. There are other public services of course, but basically you like almost all of the budget. You want no state regulation of minimum wage? Labor board? Lawyer licensing? Food inspections? Restaurant inspections? You dont want to cut anything. Poser.......
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 Yes, I would like to cut regs like those that require a co. to have a license and file endless paperwork, etc etc. to spray weeds in cracks in parking lots. chemical industry there are some very useful and needed regs but some of it is just ridiculous and a total waste of taxpayer money going overboard and to the extreme, pretty much the same with most state agencies and regs on business. Let' keep the good reg that protect consumers but drop the ridiculous in states
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense I cant believe we may actually agree on something. A lot of regulations are from the Fed Gov as well, but I think it would really not be possible for many people to approve of no licensing for childcare, plumbers, electricians, contractors, lawyers, etc. It also would be hard, especially here in Ca to get this. But, I dont really think these items are much of the budget. The elimination may increase business activities, but the ca budget is 80% on only 3 items, all OK with you.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 If someone babysits for a friend, relative, neighbor, etc. someone they know personally I do not think they should be required to be licensed but if they run a business advertising for childcare with clients that don't know them then of course I do think they should be licensed the same as I am and should be licensed in my business dealing with chemicals and the same applies for or course plumber, etc etc. Let's keep some common sense on board with this issue.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense Babysitting for a friend, neighbor doesnt require a license. So, you actually do like everyone to be licensed. How about states regulations for a higher minimum wage? A labor board to screw businesses? Regulate safety, environmental concerns. Remember, we have to cut the horrible state govts you talk about. YOU said you dont like so many regulations. Health dept food production inspections?
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 Again let's not get stupid and carried away here, I said I would like to see less wasted money and time and manpower from state regulators on issues where there is no risk of harm to consumers or the general pulblic where they go way overboard with regulations with a lot of useless paperwork but that does not mean I want to throw out all state government LOL. I just advocate more common sense on the state level regarding regulations.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense I know what you said, "Yes, I would like to cut regs like those that require a co. to have a license". Now of course, I cant find any kind of license you want abolished. You see, you just say you want to cut stuff, but you wont touch anything. Now, you could ask me, and I WOULD tell you something, and I wouldnt write off the vast majority of the budget as untouchable. Dp you have a state Governor who has CUT spending massively, that YOU like? Name him. I can name some.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 I most certainly did touch stuff, must be those reading comprehension problems AGAIN, if you read again perhaps you will be able to see the 2 specific stuff i mentioned. LMAO basically what I am saying is keep the license requirement for the big boys and leave the little guy just making some money working for friends, neighbors, etc the hell alone.
barsense 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 If your provider is caring for more than two children who aren't related and they provide care for more than four hours a day, they probably should be licensed. In general, there are two types of programs regulated by the state, family child care homes and child care centers.
Family child care home
A smaller program offered in the provider's residence where three to five preschool children are in care. They may also provide care for three school age children
barsense 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 So you see if a person babysits for 2 neighbors or friend and between the 2 neighbors or friends etc. have just three children they babsit that are preschool they can be required to have a license. and I think that is going overboard.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense This is a silly conversation. You dont want to cut this licensing body at all. You just want to modify a regulation. These pathetic govt leeches will still be getting overpaid, and benefits and pensions paid for by the people actually working in the daycare.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 Whatever, I really don't care what you want anymore than you care about what I want , but yes I would like to see the little guy exempted from regulations which would save us a lot of money and manpower in state government and they can just concentrate on the big boys that can and do do the most damage and harm when they are dishonest or operatin solely on greed with no regard for other humans.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense Lets review. If you put prisons on top of the 3 things I already mentioned for Calif, K-12, Health and human services, higher education, there is only 10% left then. What about roads, and all the rest? All you can say, is change a little rule on daycare? THAT is all you can say, after a dozen posts screwing around blaming state govt for growing? You have no answer, and you exempt everything. BTW, Govt has NO way to know who has kids from 2 or 3 families now, do they?
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 Not at all what I said, what I said was state agencies need to concentrate on big biz and leave the little guy the hell alone, state governments waste our money and their time and manpower messing with the little guy just struggling to get by and doing nothing that would harm anyone when they could be do some real good enforcing regulations where a lot of harm is done.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense Sure, only large companies are evil. There couldnt possibly be any small childcare in a home with perverts now, could there? Even if there is no risk, little itty bitty babysitters are invisible, and arent costing govt anything now ANYWAY. You cant just think you can make tiny cuts on a few percent of a budget, and solve the crisis. The deficit is massive, a $25 bill problem with a $100bill spending, in a very high tax state! ( ca). Business, people who produce leaving, high taxes.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 LOL. I don't think anyone would have a friend or neighbor babysit, people that they know well babysit for them if they had any doubts about their character so I see requiring them to carry a license or be regulated is a waste of time and money.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense Note your lack of concern to permit daycare providers to care for kids without licensing. You dont care about the children, do you? Child molesters should be able to operate outside of Govt regulation? You think it is safer in a family home, than in a center with multiple employees, and more people coming and going?
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 There you go again lying like a jerk. I SAID COMMERCIAL CHILDCARE SHOULD BE LICENSED OR ANYBODY THAT ADVERTISES AND CARES FOR CHILDREN THAT THE PARENTS DON'T KNOW THEM PERSONALLY SHOULD HAVE TO BE LICENSED , I SAID THOSE CARING FOR CHILDREN FOR FRIENDS. NEIGHBORS PEOPLE THAT KNOW THEM PERSONALLY AND THAT THEY KNOW PERSONALLY SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BE LICENSED,
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense Capital letters dont make you smart. Most child molesters are people who already known to the children. You said 2 neighbors or friends, 3 kids. You support child molesters, to save money? Why not? Thats not as bad as other Lib positions, like killing the unborn. "approximately 30% are relatives of the child, most often brothers, fathers, uncles or cousins; around 60% are other acquaintances such as 'friends" Thats 90% stupid, family or friends. Asshole.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 You support child molestors, you are the one that said you don't think lawyers, childcare centers etc should have to have a license, but if you know people personally cause they are friends or neighbors then you know they are OK, it is those you don't know that run daycare centers that could be a molestor.you are the one that wants to kill children , you want to force someone who can't afford to take care of them to have them but you don't want to give assistance your sick
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense No I didnt I said, "but I think it would really not be possible for many people to approve of no licensing for childcare, plumbers, electricians, contractors, lawyers, etc. It also would be hard, especially here in Ca to get this". I am stating a fact, it would be impossible to get people to agree to abolishing licensing of trades. You see, you take right off the table 80% of the budget, and all you can come up with specifically is a minor daycare regulation!
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 Ok so we both said childcare centers , etc should be licensed, If you think someone who babysits for a couple of friends or neighbors who mow them very well personally should be requred to have a license fine but I think that is unnecessary overkill on regs wasting time and money when more attention could be paid to real childcare centers, etc. Like I said, I think to much money is wasted messing with the little guy.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense "Hopper, J. (1998). Child Sexual Abuse: Statistics, Research, Resources. Boston, MA Boston University School of Medicine. More than 90% of all sexual abuse victims know their perpetrator. Almost 50% of the offenders are household members and 38% are already acquaintances of the victims."
You "feel" it is safe to have a friend, neighbor, relative. You "feel" lots of shit that is pure stupidity. Out of the entire Ca budget, you suggest not regulating when daycare is 3 kids. some help.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 Well I figured if parents know some one personally they would have a better chance of knowing if they are OK or not than a regulator who knows nothing about them and just checks their application for a license , parents would also know other people that know them personally and a regulator would not. A commercial childcare center they would not know the people running it or anyone that knows them,
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense The fact is, 90% of molesters are known to families. Perhaps you have not heard of "live scan", fingerprinting and background checks? My only point with you is this: you make a dozen posts saying growth of govt is State. We all know staets are bankrupt. When I press you, you declare off limits, right off the bat 80% or more of the budget, and all you can actually support is a minor licensing change in daycare. Poser. .
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 No I did not, I said leave the little guy in all areas alone and concentrate on larger commercial operations and that would save a lot of manpower and money. And BTW, license fees create revenue that is why the states try to set as many license requirements as they can get by with. It is regulating that costs money because it takes more manpower than revenue received from fines cause they waste their time messing with little guys that don't have any money.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense You think little guys are good, big corps evil?? I worked in corporate businesses, and franchised, small businesses. Small businesses are far less strict, far more casual, do NOT pay the attention to detail large corp businesses do. Why? Corps with 1000 locations have lawyers, and when a store fucks up, they get sued. So, when someone fucks up, corps hates cost of fuck ups (poisoning someone, slips, mgr discriminates sexually, racially, ). and IMPROVES procedures. Small not so much
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 I did not say anyone was evil. I just said I think money is wasted messing with little guys that don't have any money.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense You said, "concentrate on big biz and leave the little guy the hell alone,", then followed with, " when they could be do some real good enforcing regulations where a lot of harm is done." You hear? Little guys, leave them alone. Big guys, well, thats "where a lot of HARM s done". You fucking liar.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 Do you really think some little guy could have an oil spill like BP come on now.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense Without big corporations, our standard of living, our way of life would be shit. Without Big Oil, the economy would grind to a halt. However, I think BP is bigger than any daycare center I ever saw. And, thats a good thing, because there is actually someone big enough to sue, in a civil court. Oh shit, Obama already extorted money from them without a civil or criminal trial. I forgot. No laws apply, Marxist in the White House.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 Smaller biz would pick up to take up the slack and there would be more competition which would be better for everyone than the huge monopolies that have too much power and control.
And BP needed to be held responsible for the damage they did .
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense Sure, BP needed to be held accountable for what they did. In a fucking COURT. Under our laws, not the edict of a 3rd rate tinhorn dictator. Now, you dopes WONDER why Corps are sitting on Trillions? Removing their assets? When Obama stole the assets from Bondholders of GM and gave them to unions? Sure, you guys enjoy this. But corps dont piss and shit in parks, they just go away.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 And they do not help the standard of living for the majority when they pay low wages and cut hours in order to avoid paying benefits and do most of their investing overseas taking profits from America to invest overseas they just help other countries. Our countries future and strength depends on the majority not on a tiny few at the top of the income range investing mostly overseas. A country is not what a few are it is what the majority of Americans are.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense Luvcheney1 is not a patriot by any stretch of the imagination. He's a selfish blowhard who cares more of his mediocre investments than what is good for all.
Athruebelief 4 months ago
@Athruebelief Before republican trickle down disastrous policies we had an amazing country where anyone who did not aspire to great wealth but just wanted to put thier kids thru college and live a decent but moderate lifestyle could get a job and work till they retire at that same job and make a reasonable living and and our weatly did well also, and It is people with Luvcheneytype mentality that destroyed that.
barsense 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul's plan will balance the budget in 3 years without raising taxes!
Social programs remain untouched as the BIG problems are resolved.
Government employees will be phased out as they quit/retire or moved to other jobs. Learn more at /watch?v=IQAHziV3HoM
vechorik 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 You don't know what you are talking about that is very clear the standard of living in this country has been decreasing every since people like you started pushing supply side economic bs trying to play word games that don't mean chit. I want to see standard of living increases until we are back to number one again like we used to be before nitwits started pushing dum con policies.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense My quote of the Supreme Court Justice was about Tariffs. That was the subject. You see, it is YOUR game to change subjects, not mine. I am not saying all taxes are evil. Picking winners and losers is. Note this part, "to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes." That is what a Tariff does. It lays an added cost on everyone, for the purpose of FORCING free people to buy from a domestic corp.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@barsense Of course the standard of living is decreasing. Govt at all levels used to take 7% of GDP, today it takes 40%.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 and most of that is because of state government increases.
barsense 4 months ago
And these small firms not in top income that you said you don't give a dam about according to 2009 data.• Generated 65 percent of net new jobs over the past 17 years.
• Create more than half of the nonfarm private GDP.
• Hire 43 percent of high tech workers ( scientists, engineers, computer programmers, and others).
• Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises.
• Made up 97.5 percent of all identified exporters and produced 31 percent of export value in FY 2008.
barsense 4 months ago
And small biz with fewer than 500 employers are the main employers and their income is NOT TOP INCOME In 2009,there were 27.5 million businesses in the United States, according to Office of Advocacy estimates.The lastest available Census data show that small firms with fewer than 500 employees represent 99.9 percent of the total ( employers and nonemployers),
barsense 4 months ago
Carter operates his business as an S corporation which means that Carter can split his $90,000 of profits into two payment amounts: salary and S corporation distributions. Suppose that Carter says only $30,000 of his profits are salary. In this case, Carter pays the 15.3% Social Security/Medicare tax only on the $30,000 in salary. Carter therefore pays roughly $4,500 in Social Security/Medicare taxes—and annually saves $9,000 in taxes
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense Say Carter is paying himself a salary that is lower than the market salary of the CEO of a corp in a similar situation. The IRS can/will sue you for cheating. The salary must be normal. $30K doesnt seem like the salary of someone managing a corporation. Mgr of a McDonalds unit makes way more than that. By the way you stupid fuck, $90K divided into 2 isnt $30K.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 You are the stupid fuck, the instructions did NOT SAY DIVIDE EQUALLY DUMMY. IT SAID DIVIDE IN 2 30k would be the salary and 60 K would be filed as s-corp . And yes the salary does have to be reasonble and 30k is reasonable for a great many small corporations that are not BIG CORPS LIKE MCDONALDS. YOU STILL CANT GET THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SMALL BIZ AND BIG BIZ THRU THAT THICK HEAD OF YOURS.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense McDonalds are franchises, and as such, are very small businesses.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 An analysis done by the Tax Policy Center shows that 8.9% of ALL individuals who report small business income or loss (including self-employment income; income from S-corps, partnerships, and limited liability companies; farm income; and income from rental property and royalties), have household income greater than $250,000
barsense 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 Naturally I was referring to the OWNER of McDonald's not the the poor managers who just own the assests they purchase they are not really the owners.You'll pay McDonald's a monthly fee of 4 percent of your sales, and either a flat base rent or a percentage rent of at least 8.5 percent of your sales. How much money you make depends on many things, including the location and its popularity, the efficiency of your operating costs, and your ability to manage and control the business.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense No McDonalds unit has 500 fucking employees.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 S corporations are not right for all business, for some it is better to file LLC or C-corp, but for those that S-corp is right for. As compared to almost every other business form, S corporations can save their owners self-employment or Social Security/Medicare taxes.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense And they dont pay corp taxes. do they stupid?
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@barsense And, stupid fuck, keep in mind of your ridiculous claim YOU paid 39% corporate income taxes, when in fact, you are now pretending to be an S-corp, which DOESNT pay the damn corp income tax. THAT is what I called you on, you are a piece of shit liar. S-corp makes sense, in some cases, but a small business paying corp tax is a stupid lie, THAT`S why now you change your story. LIAR. Dunce.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 LOL. cussmouth I never said whether I do or don't pay 39% corporate tax rate I said a fall in the 39% corporate tax rate. And it depends on how a biz fies. And again it is none of your business HOW i FILE SO you can stop fishing because I am not going to tell you.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense Hey, dunce, where do CEO`s make $30K?
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@156sbr You need to change your sponge, the one you have seems to totally saturated with the same monotonous nonsense you keep spouting at everyone who does not follow the same sheepstink that you follow.
barsense 4 months ago
Comment removed
mssquirrely 4 months ago
OBAMA I HATE YOU
BarbieBiitch420 5 months ago
republicans and democrats seemed to have meshed into the same thing.
yoyoboy70 6 months ago
AMERICA HAS THE OBAMA BLUES.
VOTE RON PAUL
CLICK AND LISTEN TO THE OBAMA BLUES
09051961butts 6 months ago
Comment removed
barsense 4 months ago
@09051961butts Ron Paul is part of the problem not the solution. He would not agree to cutting his own pay by not extending his own tax cuts but he sure wants to cut pay for 99% of Americans
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense 99% of Americans do not get SS checks.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 Yes , they will when they retire, those that are not getting in now will when they retire.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense Of course, we never had a choice if we want to pay in or not. This program overpaid those who have gone before us, will underpay those who are paying in now. According to the CBO, beneficiaries ( old farts), will grow by 50% in relation to workers from 2000 to 2030. SS started out as 1% total, of payroll, supposed to be 12.4%, but currently, temporarily, 10.4%. That is a whole lot of payroll.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 All they need to do is lift the cap on higher incomes and SS will be just fine like it was before the cap was set. It is a pretty simple and fair fix.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense The "cap" has existed ever since the first old guy received a Social Security check. In the 1970`s, I saw that the cap was close to my moderate income, and thought my income would have some of it eventually tax free, for SS. As I earned more, the cap went higher and higher, and even though I progressed in my job, and wages, I never escaped any of the tax. Small business profits taken as income. You want them paying 10.4% more?
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 The Social Security component of the FICA tax is regressive, meaning the effective tax rate regresses (decreases) as income increases. Since no tax is owed on wages above the Wage Base limit, the total tax rate declines as wages increase beyond that limit. They can pay the same effective tax rate as lessor incomes is what I WANT.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense Then you want massive tax increases. Lets be clear, small businesses take income as personal, and is subject to these taxes. Regardless of WHO is taxed, this would simply reduce spending and investment in the private sector. Social Security was sold to the public as an insurance plan, and as such their is a cap on taxes because there is a cap on benefits. I know you dont want to remove the cap on benefits. Therefore, all you want is SS to be another welfare program.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 There is no massive increase being proposed and it is not necessary to implement a massive increase. we just need higher income levels to pay the same percentage of their share of income as lower incomes pay of their income . If that is too massive then lower incomes need their taxes REDUCED.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense Raising taxes 10.4% for now, or 12.4% as it ought to be, is massive. And starting at $108,000 it is certainly on the middle class, and especially on small businesses. You KNOW, of course, the Warren Buffet doesnt take a salary, therefore wouldnt be affected? Most of the billionaires dont either. Most CEO`s take the vast majority of their income in stocks, options, etc and are subject to cap gains too, not wages. You would miss all the rich you want to screw. You ought to aim better.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 If those with lessor incomes can pay 15% then those with higher income can pay that much also and it sure is not going to make them broke like it does those with lessor incomes. Your arguments fail the test of reason and common sense on this point especially since higher incomes have paid a GREAT deal more taxes in the past AND STILL CONTINUED TO GAIN WEALTH just took two or three days instead of ONE DAY. LMAOOOOOOOOOOO.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense But those with higher incomes will do exactly the same today, as they did when top rates were 90%. They wont pay. Go to the white house historical tables, table 1.2, and note ( do the math) percent of GDP receipts 1950-1959 averaging 17.2%, and 2001-2008 ( Bush ) being 17.6%. Of course, top personal rate 91%, top corp 51% in `50`s, during Bush top personal 35%, top corp 35% too. Those high rates did NOT generate high revenue. Or look at Clinton`s term, compare to `50`s.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 yes , they did pay, when Bush passed his first tax cuts REVEUE DROPPED DRASTICALLY FOR FOUR YEARS IN A ROW, AND RIGHT NOW IT IS STILL AT A 2000 LEVEL. PRIOR TO 2000 REVENUE INCREASED EVERY YEAR BY A FAIRLY STEADY SUM.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense Top tax rates only went down 1/2% in 2001, 1/2% in 2002, and then an additional 3.6% in 2003, bring rate from 39.6 to 35% in 2003. That means 79% of the cuts in 2003, and rising again 2005. Note recession March, 2001. Recessions reduce revenues. Note Nadaq index about $5400 march 2000, and around $2400 jan 1, 2001, a loss of over 50%, in Clinton1s last yr. BEFORE Bush. Revenue fell, for recession, just as currently, since crash. BUT, if you avg Bush term, its 17.6%, 17.3 in `501s.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 THE TAX CUTS REDUCED THE REVENUE FOUR STRAIGHT YEARS IN A ROW AND EVEN NOW IT IS STILL AT A 2000 LEVEL WHEN IT SHOULD BE AT A 2011 LEVEL. AND BEFORE BUSH REVENUE INCREASED EVERY YEAR.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense Note you are yelling. Note that is rude. Note you suggested we be civil. Note you are not being nice. Note I am restraining myself. Now, lets not pretend, that in the short run, tax policy is the ONLY variable.I averaged 10 yrs in `50`s, suggested Clinton`s 8 yr term, and averaged Bush`s term over 8 yrs. You are taking 4 yrs as a trend, with a business contraction starting to be obvious, in last yr of Clinton term, and ignoring the consequences of it.Shame on you.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 Lmao, you caught me I was rude, just tired of your fake numbers game playing . FACT: revenue increase every year prior to Bush tax cuts and then it decreased for four years in a row while debt skyrocketed, and after Reagan tax cuts there was also a decine in revenue although not so drastic that the year end total did not show some increase and the debt skyrocketed so Reagan started taking back much of his tax cuts increasing taxes every year after his first year tax cut
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense Are you saying that recessions have no impact on tax revenue? That increased Govt spending,. on higher unemployment costs, welfare, food stamps, etc, while tax receipts fall, from people who lost jobs, corporations earning and paying less, fewer cap gains as stocks fall, etc, have no effect? Recession pegged at 3/2001 by economists, Bush cuts not passed until June, Dems insisted they come on line SLOWLY. 1/2% a yr? Big deal!
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@barsense Part 2, Hey, what "fake" numbers? I took those numbers from White House.org., they came from CBO. Now, you are using fake reasoning, ignoring the business cycle. But, this is normal, Obama always uses the cycle to blame Bush, never accepts the improvements as being part of the cycle, when things improve. Clinton is a hero, because he came in as the cycle had bottomed already, and a recovery, prolonged by excessive money creation at the Fed ushered in a bubble in Tech stocks(nasdaq).
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 Lol. you play games with numbers . I talk about gov growth meaning employment and you come back with spending numbers not employment growth. And Clinton tax policies were favorable to small biz nott JUST big biz like republicans and that is what ushered in the Dot.com era along with gov investments he pushed to get it started.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense Please refer me to CBO budget statistics that dont use spending numbers. Thats what a budget is. As for the employment figures you claim to use, I havent seen them, nor will you reference them, so i can comment. In that case, what difference does it make? I reference my figures, using CBO stats on white house.org site. DotCom era ended as a bubble burst. Recession marked as March, 2001, couple months after Bush elected, and 3 or 4 months BEFORE tax cuts started slow phase in.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 Again BEA NOT CBO for government employment growth numbers.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense When measuring the impact of govt spending on the economy, the ratio of spending, in relation the the economy, is what the subject is. Numbers of govt employees affect govt expenditures, but is not a total measure of them. I already gave you stats that show 2.2 times growth of Fed Govt by % of GDP 1940-2010, and 1.77 times for state/ local same period. Overall, about 20% in 1940, to 40% now. DOUBLE. Anyway, BEA is a huge site, again, you dont document WHAT you mean.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 Cutbacks at the federal level saw the federal labor force drop to 2.7 million by 1998, but employment by state and local governments more than offset that decline, reaching almost 16 million in 1998
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense Total govt spending ( Fed, State, and local was 7% in1903, 20% in 1940, 40% today. Of course, by 1920 we were the greatest nation on earth, and today in a state of decline.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 Yes and a lot of that spending was STATES expanding thier governments so much and depending more and more on federal funding. Naturally I think even the most mentally challanged can grasp that with more people it costs more and always will unless living standards decline drastically which we don't want because that would not be good for our country. But also naturally the increase needs to be reasonalbe according to population growth, improvements in our lives
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense With more people, there is a higher GDP as they work and produce. As inflation drives up prices, the value of the increased amount of products increases as well. That is why percent of GDP is the only way to analyze data over time. It accounts for pop changes, inflation values. If the trend continues. You doubt the GDP reflects more people working, producing, over decades? You doubt the prices of things are not reflected in GDP ?
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 Republicans are the ones that set the deficit and spending level and the dems have been working to reduce that in a fair and balanced manners and as always it takes time when the previous administration created such a dam mess , democrats have always had to fix the mess republicans leave.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense My post was just explaining the reality that economists all the time express taxes, revenue, as percents of GDP. You refuse to accept what is common practice, among all economists. There is NO ther way to compare countries, or the same country, over time, without doing so. Instead of trying to learn just a concept, without even attaching a Conservative policy view to it, you change the subject. Now, read your off the subject comment. It is general, no specific policy objection.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 I sent you a pm from a renowned economist that teaches tax, polices economic issues maybe you can learn something.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense What you mean is, "I dont know anything, so I copy and paste when I get pinned down". I just want you to see, Percent of GDP eliminates the need to worry about population changes, inflation, etc. Thats why economists use it. YOUR reference is not at all on that topic.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 We were talking about government growth and state growth has far exceeded federal growth and the increase in government employment in states compared to federal prove that. You appear to not want to have to face this reality so you go off on a tangent about percent of GDP. And of course the state gov. increases with them depending more of federal funding has created a larger % of GDP for federal spending.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense Lets assume the States are growing faster, just to make you happy, and for us to move on to my point. My point is that Total spending by Govt ( Fed, State, local, etc) was 7% 1910, 20% 1940, and 40% today. Govt keeps growing. Private sector shrinks. YOU are unhappy with the results we have, and this is the major, long term trend. .
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 I am unhappy because more of the growth has been in the states and yet people are pushing for even bigger state governments.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense So now you like Scott Walker? It is the Libs who want more union workers in govt, and bigger pensions, higher wages. Hell, I am for firing hundreds of thousands of union state workers, from sea to shining sea.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 Government growth has nothing to do with whether they are union workers are non-union workers what it has to do with is how many they put on the payroll no whether they are union or not. LMAO
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense Your point is that unions pay lower wages, have less benefits, smaller pensions than non- union employees? If it doesnt matter, then what is the point of unions, if not to get more? You want smaller state govts?? Fine with me. AS to your BS about stopping the "deferral" of Corps taxes, you refuse/ are unable to discuss. Refuse FTC discussion. You "brag" about the corp tax bracket your corp is in, then discuss a S-Corp, which doesnt pay corp taxes. Liar!
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 I never said that unions pay less wages/benefits lol, the discussion was on the numbers of employees not what they were paid, and I was not bragging about the corporate rate bracket my biz falls in I was complaining about it because the rate is higher than top income corporate rate. And I discussed several types of corps on here, LLC, s-corp, c- corp as well as sole proprietorship biz and how I file my taxes for my biz is none of your business.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense If you state your corp is in the 39% tax bracket, you cant claim YOU are paying 39%. That would make you anti-Obama, and anti Buffet when they both claim Buffet`s secretary pays higher taxes than he does. The only way that works is if you omit the corp taxes Buffet pays. If you claim 39% corp rate, you cant then pretend you are an S-Corp. You are just a poser.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 39% is the Federal corporate tax rate for corporations earning between 100K to 335 K while those earning over 18 million is 35% not the state tax rate, Taxes on biz vary among the states, some have corp rates which vary from 4.63% to 12 % among the states, and some states tax on gross reciepts for biz instead of net profits and don't have a state coporate tax rate, some allow federal taxes to be deducted first and others do not. self-employed sole proprietorship another issue
barsense 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 But what you are doing is avoiding the issue and avoiding answering the question I asked by trying to turn it into a personal fishing expediction for info own how I file my taxes for my biz and what state I live in and I am not giving that information to you. THE question was HOW is it fair that corporations in the 100K to 335K be taxed at a higher rate than corporations making over 18 million are taxed ???????????
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense I never asked, nor care which state you live. I havent a fucking clue why the corp tax rates go to 39%, and then back down to 35%. I dont know, or care much. It is a point of minor interest. I only care that every other industrial nation has more favorable statutory rates, and they are attracting our corps, and capital, and jobs, and revenue, and I am NOT happy about it. I see Trillions parked abroad, because of high rates. This is the "deferral", and how to stop it? Not your bill.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 What countries are attacking our corporations ? Please name a few.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense I said, "and they are attracting our corps". ATTRACTING, not attacking. Please go to a Ford dealership, look at a new 2012 Ford Fiesta. Note the parts content. Go to Dodge/ chrysler dealers, note Mexican engines, etc. Note all US cars say, "US and Canadian parts content", then list a percentage. Never say just US, just with canada too. Funny? But Canada is NOT 3rd world, pays good wages, but has a LOW corp tax rate. ATTRACTING.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 LOL. I meant to type attracting, the attacking was a typo. and this might interest you regarding Canada and your argument. Of note is that Canada's largest companies by value, and largest employers, tend to be foreign-owned in a way that is more typical of a developing nation than a G8 member The best example is the automotive sector, one of Canada's most important industries. It is dominated by American, German, and Japanese giants.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense Being dominated by the evil giant corporations mean they come in Canada, give jobs to Canadians, and pay tax revenue to the govt. Sounds great to me. Lets contrast that with the Lib point of view, eh? Lets raise the taxes higher than everyone else, make life difficult for the corps, and drive them out of the US. Sounds great, eh Lib? No tax revenue, no jobs. Any wonder our trading partners get more money from corporation taxes than we do?
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 LOL great twist and spin attempt to save and divert since your argument was blown out the water. . And no one is discussing raising taxes on corporations overall just changing the tax breaks by , closing loopholes that benefit them for taking our money and investing it in other countries and GIVING tax breaks for them to invest HERE. That is not a tax cut that is a change in taxes giving tax breaks for producing here in America and reducing tax breaks for producing elsewhere.
barsense 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 So how are you going to twist and spin THIS ? I can't wait to see. LOL
The Gallagher, Flynn Approach
Gallagher, Flynn offers a broad range of services to Canadian-affiliated businesses, historically working with numerous companies establishing US operations. These include manufacturers, importers, distributors, service companies and construction firms.
barsense 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 If tax rates in Canada are such a great enticement and our tax rates are so punishing why are Canadian companies setting up operations in so many industries here in America ????????????
barsense 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 You and I both know the truth is that higher income corporations NEVER pay the base tax rate set and after all the deductions they are allowed rarely pay more than 10 or 15% which is lower than most other industriaized countries and many of them pay ZERO federal tax and some even get huge refunds. Even if they paid ZERO taxes all the time without an increase in consumerism they are NOT going to expand in America they are going to go where they can sell thier products.
barsense 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 An increase in demand is what we need here in America and that means some increase in income among the majority of Americans that would do more than any corporate tax cut would do,
barsense 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 And your statement that you don't give a dam about 100k to 355K being taxes more and saying it is irrevelant is about the most brash hyposcrisy I have heard from so-called tea party supporter TO DATE , these are the main employers in this countries the vast majority of small biz that supposedly the Tea party was all about. You just proved the tea partyclaims are a TOTAL LIE.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense I I stated to you that I dont know why that bracket exists, nor do I care much, since it is a minor issue. It is one bracket, in an entire corp tax code that is far higher than the rest of the industrial world. All my discussions on the issue of Corp taxes are to the point that US corp taxes must be LOWERED, to a competitive world level. That means most likely 20% at a minimum. That would cut that 39% rate almost in half. Now you maintain outsourcing doesnt exist? All moving HERE??
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 This is the bracket that the majority of our small biz fall under who are the main job providers BECAUSE higher incomes outsource so much of thier labor. Please stop making false claims about what I said when I said NO such thing, And we don't need to compete with countries where living standards are disgustingly low we have plenty of competition within our own country between our own companies, we need to protect our own commerce.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense Small businesses normally do NOT pay Corp tax rates. It makes NO sense to pay 39% corp tax rate, then take and pay Payroll taxes and income taxes too. That could be over 75% tax! They become an S-Corp, and pay payroll ( up to the limit) and income taxes ( about 50%, then 35%), with zero corp taxes. THAT is why you are a fucking liar. Who believes that business people are that fucking stupid? ( Besides you)
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 I don't consider 100k t0 335 K rich that is middle income biz however they file, and the democrats dropped all proposals to make any tax increases on anyone below 1 million dollars a long time ago. whether individual or corporate. And obviously you did not read the information that I gave you where it show examples as to how filing as an S corp can SAVE money on taxes. I will post it on here though for other people to show that YOU ARE THE LIAR.
barsense 4 months ago
@barsense The National Federation of Independent Business says "small businesses typically file taxes on the income tax level, as a sole proprietorship or S corporation, which is essentially filing as an individual. At least 75% of small businesses file taxes on business income at individual rates. Two thirds, or 65%, of joint filers with income above $250,000 and 50% of single filers above $200,000 earn business income.". Small business is the "rich', they pay personal income tax, not corp.
luvcheney1 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 No I don't doubt GDP which always does better under democratic policies , always has and always will. since 1945 the most increases in private industry and therefore GDP has been under democrat policies while under republican policies we have had more increase in government.
barsense 4 months ago
@luvcheney1 Cutbacks at the federal level saw the federal labor force drop to 2.7 million by 1998, but employment by state and local governments more than offset that decline, reaching almost 16 million in 1998
barsense 4 months ago
Amazing!!! BBC News and New York Times: This just in: Barack Obama has come down with a seriously homosexual condition called extremepenisbreathobia and fuckAmericansuptheassophidas. It is a serious condition and apparently is not gender specific. Leading medical officials on his staff are reporting that it does not apply to any gender specifically. From the latest tests that they have performed with the President the results show that Obama will fuck everyone up the ass regardless of gender.
AnOffenderForTheWord 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CORRUPTION IN LOUISIANA POLITICS NOW SPREADING INTO THE PERRY
CAMPAIGN! A MAJOR PLOT TO OVER THROW THE PRESIDENT IS BEING
EXPOSED IN LOUISIANA! BREAKING NEWS STORY!!! GOOGLE SEARCH
THESE THREE WORDS; DEM LEGAL SCENTS
wwwdemlegalscentscom
stevespell2 6 months ago
You guys need to all stop and think. We are 100x better off than 3rd world countries, be greateful you ungreateful fucks!
vahnfish 6 months ago
@vahnfish you're a dumb apologist.
yoyoboy70 6 months ago
WATCH THESE BEFORE YOU VOTE ALL OBAMA VIDEOS EXCEPT LAST ONE!!
/watch?v=niosF_6qsvg
/watch?v=q3SFXQfE4kk
/watch?v=quh7Bt8p9w4&feature=related
/watch?v=e26FhQo_2JY
WeedFlow420 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Who are any of you to criticize President Obama? Dont you realize Bush increased the national deb six trillion dollars. Cheney said in 2002 that "Deficits don't matter". BLAME THE SO CALLED "CONSERVATIVES"
brokenclockstudios 6 months ago
What the hell happened to the money we've paid all these years? The government not only spent what they received in taxes , but they had to spend our investment for our future also? We need to take their spending power away this is Bullshit!
mungibung1 6 months ago
DEAR CONGRESS, Last year I mismanaged my funds and this year my family and I cannot decide on a budget. Until we have come to a unified decision that fits all of our needs and interests, we will have to shut down our checkbook and will no longer be able to pay our taxes. I'm sure you'll understand . Thank you very much for setting an example we can all follow.
ktlee26 6 months ago 5
@ktlee26 If the repus in congress were not so set on cutting pay/benefits for 99% of hardworking Americans struggling to attain financial security and would agree to cut their own pay/benefits since most of them in congress are the 1% top income and we can't afford to keep paying them so much when they cut our pay/benefits then we could get a balanced budget again.
barsense 4 months ago
@ktlee26 i like your comment republicans arent fair, but are democrats??? i believe their is a major problem in tax cuts budget do u? moral issues are a hate or real freedom in politics now ..do you believe in that?
kathy160 4 months ago
why cut social security the elderly????cut welfare!
lucy9359 6 months ago