'Red Scares' -- OR CHOICE
in [Drive]
|
Prev: Red Scares -OR- Ironically this Social Justice is Poetic Justice.
Next: Germany considers tax on the obese.
From: Clark F Morris on 29 Jul 2010 11:10 On 29 Jul 2010 05:23:48 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> wrote: >On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:40:44 -0400, Dave Head wrote: > >> On 28 Jul 2010 22:41:30 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:37:10 -0400, Dave Head wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:10:36 -0500, "bugo" <watuzi(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Dave Head" <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote in message >>>>>news:hetv465n54e7ilv4f7mgh3f2ouvncp5j86(a)4ax.com... >>>>>> On 27 Jul 2010 16:55:27 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>We are not here to coddle the rich. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes we are!!!! They are Americans, and should be the object of >>>>>> government benevolence in allowing them to do as well as they are >>>>>> able. >>>>> >>>>>No, the poor should receive government benevolence because they need >>>>>it the most. The rich don't need welfare, and neither do >>>>>corporations. >>>> >>>> Never said anything about welfare for the rich. I just mean that they >>>> should not be harmed with high taxes. The freakin' gov't keeps >>>> talking about another stimulus, while not realizing that if they left >>>> the greater amount of money they tax away from the rich with the rich, >>>> the rich would use it to build another factory, to... make more money. >>>> >>>> Of course the factory would employ perhaps 1000's of people, and >>>> reduce the number of people living in poverty. >>> >>>Your proposition is called "supply side economics" or "trickle down >>>economics". We have been doing it ever since the Reagan revolution. >> >> No one with an income tax has really tried supply side economics. > >You must have spent the last 30 years on a different planet. > >>>And >>>this coddling of the rich in the hope that they will "invest" in America >>>has failed on all counts. >> >> Yeah, the income tax has made it unprofitable to build factories or >> other businesses here. Sooo... they get built overseas, by both >> American and foreign corporations. > >You are assigning a significance to corporate taxation that does not >exist to the degree you seem to believe. You are also missing the fact >that foreign owners of US based (meaning most income from American >consumers and perhaps employing American workers) are not taxed at a >personal level by the US government. Only the corporate entity is >taxed. The foreign stockholders are not taxed. Regardless of the merits of your other arguments, you are wrong about the taxation of dividends and interest by US companies to foreign investors. They are definitely taxed and in many/most companies this becomes a credit against the tax levied by the foreign country on the same income. Clark Morris > >>>The "investments" were "investments" in places where government >>>regulation was very lax, and where their were people willing to work for >>>almost nothing. There _WAS_ a minor rise in real economic performance >>>AFTER the Democratic tax increases on the rich in 1993. But for the >>>rest of the last 30 years ALL gdp gains have been purchased by running >>>up the debt. The increase in debt was BECAUSE of supply side economics >>>and the insane idea that these people would choose to invest in the USA >>>as opposed to elsewhere. But at the present time there is very slack >>>demand and plenty of production. Even if supply side economics was a >>>viable path, it would not serve the current situation.
From: Michael Coburn on 29 Jul 2010 11:22 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 04:13:10 -0400, Dave Head wrote: > On 29 Jul 2010 05:49:31 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> wrote: > >>On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:37:37 -0400, Dave Head wrote: >> >>> On 28 Jul 2010 17:35:33 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>A flat rate consumption tax is a regressive tax. >>> >>> The Fair Tax is not a flat rate consumption tax. >> >>Oh but it actually IS with the exception of rebates to folks below the >>poverty level. > > Wrong. It "prebates" to absolutely every citizen. That would be even _more_ "flat". >>>> And we should not have >>>>_ANY_ fear of other nations taxing our goods. >>> >>> Kinda like not having fear of a bear in your tent... >> >>Why not look at the trade numbers instead of your religious preferences? >>Although my proposed tax and rebate system does not subsidize exports, >>it certainly could do so and the nation in aggregate would come out >>_WAY_ ahead. And it because we have an horrendous trade deficit. > > Your tariff system would trigger a world-wide trade war with the US > under the WTO rules, and we'd have to leave the WTO. The resulting lack > of trade would risk another great depression. BWAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! BOOGERMAN!! BOOGERAMAN!! BOOGERMAN!! As I said: Looking at the actual numbers, the wealth disparity in this country would abate very quickly and the middle class would be better off by not trading with Asia at all. But that is not what would happen. The duties will be slowly assessed and targeted in such a way as to work around the WTO at first and the WTO would be dissolved over a year or two. The WTO is the enemy of the American people. This is a war. > Doing it via the Fair Tax would effect a tariff that would not be in > violation of WTO rules AND it would subsidize the exports as described > previously. A VAT has that same effect and I don't recommend that either. -- "Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
From: Michael Coburn on 29 Jul 2010 11:49 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:10:38 -0300, Clark F Morris wrote: > On 29 Jul 2010 05:23:48 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> wrote: > >>On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:40:44 -0400, Dave Head wrote: >> >>> On 28 Jul 2010 22:41:30 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:37:10 -0400, Dave Head wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:10:36 -0500, "bugo" <watuzi(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>"Dave Head" <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote in message >>>>>>news:hetv465n54e7ilv4f7mgh3f2ouvncp5j86(a)4ax.com... >>>>>>> On 27 Jul 2010 16:55:27 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>We are not here to coddle the rich. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes we are!!!! They are Americans, and should be the object of >>>>>>> government benevolence in allowing them to do as well as they are >>>>>>> able. >>>>>> >>>>>>No, the poor should receive government benevolence because they need >>>>>>it the most. The rich don't need welfare, and neither do >>>>>>corporations. >>>>> >>>>> Never said anything about welfare for the rich. I just mean that >>>>> they should not be harmed with high taxes. The freakin' gov't keeps >>>>> talking about another stimulus, while not realizing that if they >>>>> left the greater amount of money they tax away from the rich with >>>>> the rich, the rich would use it to build another factory, to... make >>>>> more money. >>>>> >>>>> Of course the factory would employ perhaps 1000's of people, and >>>>> reduce the number of people living in poverty. >>>> >>>>Your proposition is called "supply side economics" or "trickle down >>>>economics". We have been doing it ever since the Reagan revolution. >>> >>> No one with an income tax has really tried supply side economics. >> >>You must have spent the last 30 years on a different planet. >> >>>>And >>>>this coddling of the rich in the hope that they will "invest" in >>>>America has failed on all counts. >>> >>> Yeah, the income tax has made it unprofitable to build factories or >>> other businesses here. Sooo... they get built overseas, by both >>> American and foreign corporations. >> >>You are assigning a significance to corporate taxation that does not >>exist to the degree you seem to believe. You are also missing the fact >>that foreign owners of US based (meaning most income from American >>consumers and perhaps employing American workers) are not taxed at a >>personal level by the US government. Only the corporate entity is >>taxed. The foreign stockholders are not taxed. > > Regardless of the merits of your other arguments, you are wrong about > the taxation of dividends and interest by US companies to foreign > investors. They are definitely taxed and in many/most companies this > becomes a credit against the tax levied by the foreign country on the > same income. > > Clark Morris Where can I find a more robust presentation of this taxation of foreigners? I am highly skeptical of what you have presented. >> >>>>The "investments" were "investments" in places where government >>>>regulation was very lax, and where their were people willing to work >>>>for almost nothing. There _WAS_ a minor rise in real economic >>>>performance AFTER the Democratic tax increases on the rich in 1993. >>>>But for the rest of the last 30 years ALL gdp gains have been >>>>purchased by running up the debt. The increase in debt was BECAUSE of >>>>supply side economics and the insane idea that these people would >>>>choose to invest in the USA as opposed to elsewhere. But at the >>>>present time there is very slack demand and plenty of production. >>>>Even if supply side economics was a viable path, it would not serve >>>>the current situation. -- "Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
From: Clark F Morris on 29 Jul 2010 18:06 On 29 Jul 2010 15:49:30 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> wrote: >On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:10:38 -0300, Clark F Morris wrote: > >> On 29 Jul 2010 05:23:48 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:40:44 -0400, Dave Head wrote: >>> >>>> On 28 Jul 2010 22:41:30 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:37:10 -0400, Dave Head wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:10:36 -0500, "bugo" <watuzi(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>"Dave Head" <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>news:hetv465n54e7ilv4f7mgh3f2ouvncp5j86(a)4ax.com... >>>>>>>> On 27 Jul 2010 16:55:27 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>We are not here to coddle the rich. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes we are!!!! They are Americans, and should be the object of >>>>>>>> government benevolence in allowing them to do as well as they are >>>>>>>> able. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No, the poor should receive government benevolence because they need >>>>>>>it the most. The rich don't need welfare, and neither do >>>>>>>corporations. >>>>>> >>>>>> Never said anything about welfare for the rich. I just mean that >>>>>> they should not be harmed with high taxes. The freakin' gov't keeps >>>>>> talking about another stimulus, while not realizing that if they >>>>>> left the greater amount of money they tax away from the rich with >>>>>> the rich, the rich would use it to build another factory, to... make >>>>>> more money. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course the factory would employ perhaps 1000's of people, and >>>>>> reduce the number of people living in poverty. >>>>> >>>>>Your proposition is called "supply side economics" or "trickle down >>>>>economics". We have been doing it ever since the Reagan revolution. >>>> >>>> No one with an income tax has really tried supply side economics. >>> >>>You must have spent the last 30 years on a different planet. >>> >>>>>And >>>>>this coddling of the rich in the hope that they will "invest" in >>>>>America has failed on all counts. >>>> >>>> Yeah, the income tax has made it unprofitable to build factories or >>>> other businesses here. Sooo... they get built overseas, by both >>>> American and foreign corporations. >>> >>>You are assigning a significance to corporate taxation that does not >>>exist to the degree you seem to believe. You are also missing the fact >>>that foreign owners of US based (meaning most income from American >>>consumers and perhaps employing American workers) are not taxed at a >>>personal level by the US government. Only the corporate entity is >>>taxed. The foreign stockholders are not taxed. >> >> Regardless of the merits of your other arguments, you are wrong about >> the taxation of dividends and interest by US companies to foreign >> investors. They are definitely taxed and in many/most companies this >> becomes a credit against the tax levied by the foreign country on the >> same income. >> >> Clark Morris > >Where can I find a more robust presentation of this taxation of >foreigners? I am highly skeptical of what you have presented. > >>> >>>>>The "investments" were "investments" in places where government >>>>>regulation was very lax, and where their were people willing to work >>>>>for almost nothing. There _WAS_ a minor rise in real economic >>>>>performance AFTER the Democratic tax increases on the rich in 1993. >>>>>But for the rest of the last 30 years ALL gdp gains have been >>>>>purchased by running up the debt. The increase in debt was BECAUSE of >>>>>supply side economics and the insane idea that these people would >>>>>choose to invest in the USA as opposed to elsewhere. But at the >>>>>present time there is very slack demand and plenty of production. >>>>>Even if supply side economics was a viable path, it would not serve >>>>>the current situation. There is an automatic withholding of all payments to a foreign address unless the appropriate IRS form is filed (W9 as I recall). As a US citizen living in Canada, this applied to me and I was able to eliminate the withholding. If I wasn't a citizen, I would have been stuck with the withholding. Clark Morris
From: Michael Coburn on 29 Jul 2010 21:25
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:06:42 -0300, Clark F Morris wrote: > On 29 Jul 2010 15:49:30 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> wrote: > >>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:10:38 -0300, Clark F Morris wrote: >> >>> On 29 Jul 2010 05:23:48 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:40:44 -0400, Dave Head wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 28 Jul 2010 22:41:30 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:37:10 -0400, Dave Head wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:10:36 -0500, "bugo" <watuzi(a)yahoo.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>"Dave Head" <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>>news:hetv465n54e7ilv4f7mgh3f2ouvncp5j86(a)4ax.com... >>>>>>>>> On 27 Jul 2010 16:55:27 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>We are not here to coddle the rich. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes we are!!!! They are Americans, and should be the object of >>>>>>>>> government benevolence in allowing them to do as well as they >>>>>>>>> are able. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>No, the poor should receive government benevolence because they >>>>>>>>need it the most. The rich don't need welfare, and neither do >>>>>>>>corporations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Never said anything about welfare for the rich. I just mean that >>>>>>> they should not be harmed with high taxes. The freakin' gov't >>>>>>> keeps talking about another stimulus, while not realizing that if >>>>>>> they left the greater amount of money they tax away from the rich >>>>>>> with the rich, the rich would use it to build another factory, >>>>>>> to... make more money. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course the factory would employ perhaps 1000's of people, and >>>>>>> reduce the number of people living in poverty. >>>>>> >>>>>>Your proposition is called "supply side economics" or "trickle down >>>>>>economics". We have been doing it ever since the Reagan revolution. >>>>> >>>>> No one with an income tax has really tried supply side economics. >>>> >>>>You must have spent the last 30 years on a different planet. >>>> >>>>>>And >>>>>>this coddling of the rich in the hope that they will "invest" in >>>>>>America has failed on all counts. >>>>> >>>>> Yeah, the income tax has made it unprofitable to build factories or >>>>> other businesses here. Sooo... they get built overseas, by both >>>>> American and foreign corporations. >>>> >>>>You are assigning a significance to corporate taxation that does not >>>>exist to the degree you seem to believe. You are also missing the >>>>fact that foreign owners of US based (meaning most income from >>>>American consumers and perhaps employing American workers) are not >>>>taxed at a personal level by the US government. Only the corporate >>>>entity is taxed. The foreign stockholders are not taxed. >>> >>> Regardless of the merits of your other arguments, you are wrong about >>> the taxation of dividends and interest by US companies to foreign >>> investors. They are definitely taxed and in many/most companies this >>> becomes a credit against the tax levied by the foreign country on the >>> same income. >>> >>> Clark Morris >> >>Where can I find a more robust presentation of this taxation of >>foreigners? I am highly skeptical of what you have presented. >> >> >>>>>>The "investments" were "investments" in places where government >>>>>>regulation was very lax, and where their were people willing to work >>>>>>for almost nothing. There _WAS_ a minor rise in real economic >>>>>>performance AFTER the Democratic tax increases on the rich in 1993. >>>>>>But for the rest of the last 30 years ALL gdp gains have been >>>>>>purchased by running up the debt. The increase in debt was BECAUSE >>>>>>of supply side economics and the insane idea that these people would >>>>>>choose to invest in the USA as opposed to elsewhere. But at the >>>>>>present time there is very slack demand and plenty of production. >>>>>>Even if supply side economics was a viable path, it would not serve >>>>>>the current situation. > > There is an automatic withholding of all payments to a foreign address > unless the appropriate IRS form is filed (W9 as I recall). As a US > citizen living in Canada, this applied to me and I was able to eliminate > the withholding. If I wasn't a citizen, I would have been stuck with > the withholding. > > Clark Morris http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-trty/china.pdf ------------------------ It appears that alien owners of shares of businesses are taxed at 10%, i.e. the Chinese owners of American companies are taxed at 10% as opposed to whatever tax would normally inure to and American owner and that Americans owning Chinese stocks would also be taxed at 10% by the Chinese. -- "Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60 |