Do you know where California gets its revenue from???
50% comes from Income tax
35% comes from Sales tax
That's 85% of the revenue coming from you, the worker.
Do you know how much the rich businesses in California contribute to California's revenue??
10%
That's right....only 10%, while you the worker are left to pay 85%. Does that seem fair to you??
Why do you guys allow businesses to reap in the cash, distribute the profits to its executives and shareholders, while you the WORKER are left holding the bag to pay all the bills??????
Raise business taxes!!! Lower income taxes.
Originally posted by uzlessI would elminate the business taxes entirely -- but make sure that when all those executives and shareholders receive those profits, they have to pay their taxes. If the money is being re-invested back into the business, it creates jobs and strengthens the economy. Wait until that money becomes somebody's income and then tax it.
Do you know where California gets its revenue from???
50% comes from Income tax
35% comes from Sales tax
That's 85% of the revenue coming from you, the worker.
Do you know how much the rich businesses in California contribute to California's revenue??
10%
That's right....only 10%, while you the worker are left to pay 85%. Does that se ...[text shortened]... olding the bag to pay all the bills??????
Raise business taxes!!! Lower income taxes.
Originally posted by Melanerpesha.
I would elminate the business taxes entirely -- but make sure that when all those executives and shareholders receive those profits, they have to pay their taxes. If the money is being re-invested back into the business, it creates jobs and strengthens the economy. Wait until that money becomes somebody's income and then tax it.
What happens when a person incorporates themself, thus becoming a company (like many execs/consultants are) They don't get taxed according to your plan.
Construction workers are like that too. They pay no tax until the end of the year. Your plan would see them pay no tax.
Originally posted by uzlessgood point
ha.
What happens when a person incorporates themself, thus becoming a company (like many execs/consultants are) They don't get taxed according to your plan.
Construction workers are like that too. They pay no tax until the end of the year. Your plan would see them pay no tax.
When businesses consist of more than one person, at some point money has to distributed to the various workers and shareholders, and this would be recognizable as "personal income". When a business consists of only one person, there's no "distribution" -- so in this case, you might have to treat the profits from these businesses as if it was "individual income".
I know there are still a lot of issues here that would probably require an advanced law degree to resolve. The main reason why I want to end all business taxes is because of the incessant whining you hear from conservatives about "double taxation" and all of the accounting gymnastics that make balance sheets a lot more complex than they need to be -- and it seems like there are legions of ways for businesses to evade taxes.
Useless... Raising taxes is the reason why Cali is in trouble.
We pay about 38% off the top for our business. When I want to pay a divedend to myself it is taxed at 37-38%. That adds up to paying 78% in taxes for every dollar I make off of my ownership in a business. Bush lowered the divedend tax to 10-15%, that was great, Obama is only going to raise the divedend tax to 20% I can live with that.
I really get the feeling that you do not "get it" when it comes to owning a business. (useless)
Originally posted by WeadleyThis is why I don't like the whole "double taxation" situation -- you end up with examples like this. There needs to be a way to ensure that all income is only taxed once.
Useless... Raising taxes is the reason why Cali is in trouble.
We pay about 38% off the top for our business. When I want to pay a divedend to myself it is taxed at 37-38%. That adds up to paying 78% in taxes for every dollar I make off of my ownership in a business. Bush lowered the divedend tax to 10-15%, that was great, Obama is only going to raise the ...[text shortened]... really get the feeling that you do not "get it" when it comes to owning a business. (useless)
Originally posted by WeadleySounds like one tax on revenue and one tax on profit. Or, in other words, the business it taxed on it's capital, and you are taxed on your income. Sounds reasonable.
Useless... Raising taxes is the reason why Cali is in trouble.
We pay about 38% off the top for our business. When I want to pay a divedend to myself it is taxed at 37-38%. That adds up to paying 78% in taxes for every dollar I make off of my ownership in a business. Bush lowered the divedend tax to 10-15%, that was great, Obama is only going to raise the ...[text shortened]... really get the feeling that you do not "get it" when it comes to owning a business. (useless)
38 + 38 = 76
38% tax leaves 62% of the money
38% of 62% is not 38
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI don't own a business, but what a friend of mine pays is nearly 50%. He writes off all expenses etc... but still pays a ridiculas amount. He loves what he does, but uncle sam is dicouraging him.
Sounds like one tax on revenue and one tax on profit. Or, in other words, the business it taxed on it's capital, and you are taxed on your income. Sounds reasonable.
38 + 38 = 76
38% tax leaves 62% of the money
38% of 62% is not 38
Originally posted by joe beyserWhat kind of net income is the guy pulling in? What's the business and where is it located? What else might this person do instead?
I don't own a business, but what a friend of mine pays is nearly 50%. He writes off all expenses etc... but still pays a ridiculas amount. He loves what he does, but uncle sam is dicouraging him.
These are the kinds of questions that should be addressed in such an analysis, not just percentages.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHe is in art sculpture. He has quite a passion for it. I would say that is why he is still with it. He has been working on all kinds of marketing strategies. I don't know exactly how much he pulls in but last quarter was $60000 in taxes. That should give him 240,000 a year for himself, but I know it isn't that much. His inventory on large pieces that had not been delivered yet bit him hard I know. He has seriously considered going back to working for wages, so He makes way less than 240,000
What kind of net income is the guy pulling in? What's the business and where is it located? What else might this person do instead?
These are the kinds of questions that should be addressed in such an analysis, not just percentages.
Originally posted by whodeyWow, you folks on the right wing are quite the spin doctors. If these "tax and spend Liberals' are so inept at running an economy, then why was the last President that gave America a budget surplus William Jefferson Clinton...a LIBERAL Democrat?? Bush 41 didn't, "W" didn't, Regan didn't (and he's equal to GOD in the eyes of republicans!)...and who was presidents in office just before and during the worst economic times in America's history (the great depression and the recession of 2008??) Herbert Hoover and George W Bush, both good REPUBLICANS!! If you folks want to talk about deficits and economics, then tell the WHOLE story, not just the parts of it you want people to read about!😏
Here is an interesting article about California
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/november-december-magazine/sundown-for-california/?searchterm=california
In the article the author searches for the downfall of the once great state. What donwfall you may ask other than their ballooning deficts? The once upwardly mobile state now ranks as the 15th hi ...[text shortened]... t, somene who seems to have had a sex change. LOL.
So having said that, is the US next?
Originally posted by bill718I agree with most of that. Just goes to show the left right paradigm is breaking up. Look at George W. what he did.
Wow, you folks on the right wing are quite the spin doctors. If these "tax and spend Liberals' are so inept at running an economy, then why was the last President that gave America a budget surplus William Jefferson Clinton...a LIBERAL Democrat?? Bush 41 didn't, "W" didn't, Regan didn't (and he's equal to GOD in the eyes of republicans!)...and who was presid ...[text shortened]... s, then tell the WHOLE story, not just the parts of it you want people to read about!😏
Originally posted by bill718First, Clinton was not a liberal democrat. Economically, he was very much a centrist. Most Europeans would likely call him a conservative, at least from an economic perspective. Socially, he was more liberal, but still very moderate (pro death penalty, 3 strikes, don't ask, don't tell)
Wow, you folks on the right wing are quite the spin doctors. If these "tax and spend Liberals' are so inept at running an economy, then why was the last President that gave America a budget surplus William Jefferson Clinton...a LIBERAL Democrat?? Bush 41 didn't, "W" didn't, Regan didn't (and he's equal to GOD in the eyes of republicans!)...and who was presid s, then tell the WHOLE story, not just the parts of it you want people to read about!😏
Second, Clinton's surplus had more to do with the strong economy buoyed by the tech boom than with low spending or high taxes. To be sure, Clinton does deserve some of the credit, but let's not pretend here that Clinton walked in, made us all socialists, and the the economy thrived.
Edit: People rarely are able to become governor of Arkansas if they're really all that liberal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America
Contract with America
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Contract with America was a document released by the United States Republican Party during the 1994 Congressional election campaign. Written by Larry Hunter who was aided by Newt Gingrich, Robert Walker, Richard Armey, Bill Paxon, Tom DeLay, John Boehner and Jim Nussle, and in part using text from former President Ronald Reagan's 1985 State of the Union Address, the Contract detailed the actions the Republicans promised to take if they became the majority party in the United States House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. Many of the Contract's policy ideas originated at The Heritage Foundation, a highly influential conservative think tank.
The Contract with America was introduced six weeks before the 1994 Congressional election, the first mid-term election of President Bill Clinton's Administration, and was signed by all but two of the Republican members of the House and all of the Party's non-incumbent Republican Congressional candidates.
Proponents say the Contract was revolutionary in its commitment to offering specific legislation for a vote, describing in detail the precise plan of the Congressional Representatives, and marked the first time since 1918 that a Congressional election had been run broadly on a national level. Furthermore, its provisions represented the view of many conservative Republicans on the issues of shrinking the size of government, promoting lower taxes and greater entrepreneurial activity, and both tort reform and welfare reform.
When the Republicans gained a majority of seats in the 104th Congress, the Contract was seen as a triumph for Party leaders such as Minority Whip Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, and for the American conservative movement.
Contents [hide]
1 Content of the Contract
1.1 Government reform
1.2 Major policy changes
2 Implementation of the Contract
2.1 The Fiscal Responsibility Act
2.2 The Taking Back Our Streets Act
2.3 The Personal Responsibility Act
2.4 The American Dream Restoration Act
2.5 The National Security Restoration Act
2.6 The "Common Sense" Legal Reform Act
2.7 The Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act
2.8 The Citizen Legislature Act
2.9 Other sections of the Contract
Originally posted by uzlessEr...um....businesses are already leaving in droves. Perhaps the workers can employ themselves once your plan is put into action and even more businesses decide to leave. You know, kinda like Ringwitts utopian vision of how workers took over a business in South America.
Do you know where California gets its revenue from???
50% comes from Income tax
35% comes from Sales tax
That's 85% of the revenue coming from you, the worker.
Do you know how much the rich businesses in California contribute to California's revenue??
10%
That's right....only 10%, while you the worker are left to pay 85%. Does that se ...[text shortened]... olding the bag to pay all the bills??????
Raise business taxes!!! Lower income taxes.