PDA

View Full Version : Herbert, Harry & Dwight



Marvin S
03-26-2012, 07:04 PM
What did they have in common?

During the Great Depression, POTUS Herbert Hoover ordered the deportation of ALL illegal aliens to make jobs available for US citizens who desperately needed the work.

POTUS Harry Truman deported over 2 million illegals after WW II to create openings for returning veterans.

Again in 1954, POTUS Dwight Eisenhower deported 13 million Mexican narionals in a program called "Operation Wetback". Done to ensure openings for returning veterans. It took 2 years but they deported them.

If it could be done then, why not now? Does anyone believe that illegals have earned any right to be here or stay?

Just asking :).

zeus3925
03-26-2012, 11:03 PM
Because there is not enough tax dollars to fund such a big operation. Now if you got, lets say, our friends Mit and Newt to pay their fair share maybe we could do a bit more in that direction.

Oh by the way, felony prosecutions for immigration crimes increased by 42 percent during Obama's first two years in office, a factor in the record 400,000 deportations this fiscal year.

BonMallari
03-27-2012, 12:17 AM
in 1942 FDR signed Executive Order 9066, which relocated some 100K+ Japanese American to despicable interment camps, some 60% of those were AMERICAN CITIZENS..lets just hope we NEVER revisit another dark day in US history like that again

duckheads
03-27-2012, 08:22 AM
Because there is not enough tax dollars to fund such a big operation. Now if you got, lets say, our friends Mit and Newt to pay their fair share maybe we could do a bit more in that direction.

Oh by the way, felony prosecutions for immigration crimes increased by 42 percent during Obama's first two years in office, a factor in the record 400,000 deportations this fiscal year.

What is their fair share? How much should someone have to pay of their money in taxes?

duckheads
03-27-2012, 11:55 AM
Bueller, Bueller, Bueller?

I have yet to hear a liberal that is spouting "fair share" answer the question. How much would be a "fair share" of their money going to taxes?

Matt McKenzie
03-27-2012, 12:03 PM
What is their fair share? How much should someone have to pay of their money in taxes?

Here's a better way to word that. What percentage of my money should I be allowed by the government to keep? Buzz, how much? How much of your money can you keep? Do you pay extra? If not, why not? If so, why and what percentage?
What percentage of people in this country should have a "fair share" of zero?
What percentage of people in this country should get more in their "tax return" than they pay in?
How much of the total tax burden should the top 10% of earners in this country carry?
Give us some numbers so we can know what "fair share" really means.

Sorry to highjack the deportation thread, but I'm disgusted with that empty phrase.

menmon
03-27-2012, 12:18 PM
Bueller, Bueller, Bueller?

I have yet to hear a liberal that is spouting "fair share" answer the question. How much would be a "fair share" of their money going to taxes?

35% would be a good start;-)

Matt McKenzie
03-27-2012, 12:29 PM
35% would be a good start;-)

For everyone or just for people who make more money than you?

Is that on top of the 15% for FICA?

If so, do you feel it's fair for you to be able to keep 50% of your income and give the rest to the government?

road kill
03-27-2012, 12:33 PM
35% would be a good start;-)

That 35%, is that based on any calculation or formula, or does it just FEEL right????:rolleyes:



RK

M&K's Retrievers
03-27-2012, 12:41 PM
35% would be a good start;-)

Get after it.

mngundog
03-27-2012, 12:59 PM
35% would be a good start;-)
Anything above 13.9% would be a good start. :D

Matt McKenzie
03-27-2012, 02:03 PM
Anything above 13.9% would be a good start. :D

Those evil "rich" people who earn more than $250K pay much more than that in income tax. Those who make their money from capital gains pay 15%. I certainly hope you don't want to increase the capital gains tax. If so, why? Nothing positive could come from it.

mngundog
03-27-2012, 02:33 PM
Those evil "rich" people who earn more than $250K pay much more than that in income tax. Those who make their money from capital gains pay 15%. I certainly hope you don't want to increase the capital gains tax. If so, why? Nothing positive could come from it.
I just get a kick of a bunch of rich people complaining about half the country not paying taxes, while they are given tax breaks that 70% of the county don't have access to. Nothing Evil about them, just annoying listoning to their lame comments about "non-tax paying people" :D

duckheads
03-27-2012, 03:35 PM
I just get a kick of a bunch of rich people complaining about half the country not paying taxes, while they are given tax breaks that 70% of the county don't have access to. Nothing Evil about them, just annoying listoning to their lame comments about "non-tax paying people" :D

Dang Hook now you are a hated 1%er! Does your checkbook tell the same story?

mngundog
03-27-2012, 06:27 PM
Dang Hook now you are a hated 1%er! Does your checkbook tell the same story?

I doubt he falls into that catorgory, I am talking about the politicians and corporate execs that go on $100k "business" trips to resorts or "business" hunting trips, which are all just vacations that should be charged as income, yet are completely untaxed. And yet those same guys that are taking thousands if not millions in "perks" (income) and paying zero in taxes are the same one saying the little guy isn't paying his share. I highly doubt that many guys pulling in millions are being taxed at 35% of true compensation.

huntinman
03-27-2012, 06:41 PM
I doubt he falls into that catorgory, I am talking about the politicians and corporate execs that go on $100k "business" trips to resorts or "business" hunting trips, which are all just vacations that should be charged as income, yet are completely untaxed. And yet those same guys that are taking thousands if not millions in "perks" (income) and paying zero in taxes are the same one saying the little guy isn't paying his share. I highly doubt that many guys pulling in millions are being taxed at 35% of true compensation.


As long as they are legally filing tax returns, why would it be anyones business how they spend and at what rate they are taxed?

zeus3925
03-27-2012, 06:49 PM
"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes..."--Leona Helmsley

mngundog
03-27-2012, 06:52 PM
As long as they are legally filing tax returns, why would it be anyones business how they spend and at what rate they are taxed?

It seems to me that taxes or tax codes are everyones business. What I pay in taxes are related to what other people pay or do not pay in taxes. Thats the way I see it.

Matt McKenzie
03-27-2012, 06:53 PM
As long as they are legally filing tax returns, why would it be anyones business how they spend and at what rate they are taxed?

That just about sums it up, doesn't it? Beautiful.

As to some of the other posts, I'm certainly not in the top 1% or even close to the top 10% of the earners in this country, but I sure pay taxes and I'm thankful that most of the bill is covered by folks who make a lot more than me and I'm resentful that lots of people pay absolutely nothing or even get back more than they ever paid in and still bitch about the rich paying "their fair share".
The top 10% of earners in this country pay 70.5% of the total tax burden. How much more do need to pay to support the 47% of earners who pay nothing? If they aren't paying their fair share, I don't know what fair means.

huntinman
03-27-2012, 06:54 PM
It seems to me that taxes or tax codes are everyones business. What I pay in taxes are related to what other people pay or do not pay in taxes. Thats the way I see it.

Ok, so how much are you paying this year? Give us the dollar amount. We would like to know.

mngundog
03-27-2012, 07:14 PM
[QUOTE=huntinman;945285]Ok, so how much are you paying this year?
Haved filed yet, how about you?

huntinman
03-27-2012, 07:19 PM
[QUOTE=huntinman;945285]Ok, so how much are you paying this year?
Haved filed yet, how about you?

Appt with my CPA tomorrow.

Unlike most libs, I feel the amount I pay is more than enough (or way damn too much).

My question for those that think the taxes should be higher for some folks is... Have you sent the IRS a voluntary check for more? It's easy to do and they will glady take it...

mngundog
03-27-2012, 07:36 PM
[QUOTE=mngundog;945296]

Appt with my CPA tomorrow.

Unlike most libs, I feel the amount I pay is more than enough (or way damn too much).

My question for those that think the taxes should be higher for some folks is... Have you sent the IRS a voluntary check for more? It's easy to do and they will glady take it...
Is this question for me, because I never said that some folks should pay higher taxes then others?

ppro
03-28-2012, 01:52 AM
Back to Sambo giving the answer 35 percent is a good START. That is the problem, a start. Fair is not a start but a finish an absolute. The problem with fair is that it is final and no one wants to limit the cash drawer. No one will argue and stick to this argument only because it ends all other arguments. Once fair is established all that is left is to collect it.

huntinman
03-28-2012, 09:15 AM
[QUOTE=huntinman;945299]
Is this question for me, because I never said that some folks should pay higher taxes then others?

We already are. Those of us who pay, are paying for those of us who take.

HPL
03-28-2012, 09:49 AM
That just about sums it up, doesn't it? Beautiful.

As to some of the other posts, I'm certainly not in the top 1% or even close to the top 10% of the earners in this country, but I sure pay taxes and I'm thankful that most of the bill is covered by folks who make a lot more than me and I'm resentful that lots of people pay absolutely nothing or even get back more than they ever paid in and still bitch about the rich paying "their fair share".
The top 10% of earners in this country pay 70.5% of the total tax burden. How much more do need to pay to support the 47% of earners who pay nothing? If they aren't paying their fair share, I don't know what fair means.

I kinda hate to ask this question as I'm not for class warfare nor do I think I'm a "soak the rich" guy, but one statistic that I feel might be pertinent here is what percentage of the nation's wealth is held by the top 10%. If they hold 50% then it might be argued that they are over paying their taxes, but if they hold 90%, the opposite argument could possibly be made. I don't know shat that percentage is, but it does seem to me that it might have some bearing on this discussion.

Matt McKenzie
03-28-2012, 10:07 AM
Right or wrong, our country has a progressive income tax, not a "wealth tax". The idea that it's a problem for some people have more net worth than others and that they should be taxed more than others is counter to every principle on which this country was founded.

If you and I make the same income and have the same deductions, it doesn't matter that your net worth is a million dollars and mine is zero because I spend every dollar I make. You control more "wealth" than I do, but we pay the same income tax based on our INCOME.

road kill
03-28-2012, 10:10 AM
[QUOTE=huntinman;945299]
Is this question for me, because I never said that some folks should pay higher taxes then others?

You have advocated TWICE in this thread for others to pay more!


RK

HPL
03-28-2012, 10:20 AM
Right or wrong, our country has a progressive income tax, not a "wealth tax". The idea that it's a problem for some people have more net worth than others and that they should be taxed more than others is counter to every principle on which this country was founded.

If you and I make the same income and have the same deductions, it doesn't matter that your net worth is a million dollars and mine is zero because I spend every dollar I make. You control more "wealth" than I do, but we pay the same income tax based on our INCOME.
I didn't really phrase the question correctly, I suppose. The real question is sort of two part: 1. how does one determine "income"?, and 2. what percentage of the "national income" (for want of a better term) does that top 10% of tax payers make? (I didn't use the word "earn" to avoid getting into a philosophical discussion at to the meaning of that).

menmon
03-28-2012, 02:19 PM
That 35%, is that based on any calculation or formula, or does it just FEEL right????:rolleyes:



RK

If you earn $200,000.....they take $70,000

If you earn $2,000,000 and purchase a capital asset that cost $2,000,000 you pay $0

So the guy earning $2MM pays nothing and the office worker making $200M pays...that are the current rules...is it the law...yes...is it fair...no

Matt McKenzie
03-28-2012, 02:43 PM
If you earn $200,000.....they take $70,000

If you earn $2,000,000 and purchase a capital asset that cost $2,000,000 you pay $0

So the guy earning $2MM pays nothing and the office worker making $200M pays...that are the current rules...is it the law...yes...is it fair...no

What $2M capital asset is immediately expensed? Who exempts capital assets off personal income tax statements? Who purchases a capital asset that is immediately expensed that is claimed on a personal income tax statement that equals the sum total of their annual income?
Seriously?

menmon
03-28-2012, 03:02 PM
What $2M capital asset is immediately expensed? Who exempts capital assets off personal income tax statements? Who purchases a capital asset that is immediately expensed that is claimed on a personal income tax statement that equals the sum total of their annual income?
Seriously?

just about every banking client I have

troy schwab
03-28-2012, 03:22 PM
What $2M capital asset is immediately expensed? Who exempts capital assets off personal income tax statements? Who purchases a capital asset that is immediately expensed that is claimed on a personal income tax statement that equals the sum total of their annual income?
Seriously?



Put on your BIG BOY PANTS......... This is done all the time......

Matt McKenzie
03-28-2012, 03:40 PM
just about every banking client I have

Then give us some examples. Obviously you won't need to name names. Just examples of these capital expenses that completely negate annual income.

troy schwab
03-28-2012, 03:43 PM
I highly doubt that Sambo would consider releasing any info..... I know I wouldnt..... just take a look at private investors that are proud partners in equity firms like Cerberus, or the Carlyle group...... they spend it as fast as they can make it to avoid any substantial taxes....... again, THE REAL MONEY IN THIS COUNTRY.

menmon
03-28-2012, 05:07 PM
Then give us some examples. Obviously you won't need to name names. Just examples of these capital expenses that completely negate annual income.

$17MM net income negated by the purchase of a $24MM helicopter, leased at the carring cost of the loan that equates to a $7MM loss. Very smart business I would say. Doesn't mean it is fair to the tax payers that don't have these options.

huntinman
03-28-2012, 07:22 PM
$17MM net income negated by the purchase of a $24MM helicopter, leased at the carring cost of the loan that equates to a $7MM loss. Very smart business I would say. Doesn't mean it is fair to the tax payers that don't have these options.

Life is not fair... the Congressmen and Senators on both sides of the aisle have made more money off the laws of this country than anyone...

They are the ones we should be after... not each other, the law abiding taxpayers

Matt McKenzie
03-28-2012, 07:54 PM
$17MM net income negated by the purchase of a $24MM helicopter, leased at the carring cost of the loan that equates to a $7MM loss. Very smart business I would say. Doesn't mean it is fair to the tax payers that don't have these options.

So net income is 17 mil. Leased at the carrying cost of the loan for a 7 mil loss. I'll take your word that the 7 mil can be deducted from one year's income tax. By my math, that leaves 10 mil. What other capital assets did this person expense off to get rid of the taxes on the 10 mil? Your example earlier indicated that a significant number of people (at least all of your clients) don't pay tax at all because they expense everything off with capital expenditures. How did this person get from 17 mil to zero? And how can they do it year after year? I'm trying to figure it out because I'm getting ready to write a check to the IRS.

As fair as deductions go, I absolutely believe that we should eliminate them all. For everyone. All deductions do is allow politicians to buy votes and manipulate our behavior. No child deductions, mortgage interest expense, no EIC, nothing. Set a flat rate and let everyone pay their "fair share". Do away with the deductions and let everyone pay in, and 10 or 15 percent will probably do the trick. If that isn't "fair", then start at 7 percent and roll up to 20 for the top earners. That way it's simple, everyone understands it and we don't have to worry about tax returns and all that garbage.
Or we can repeal the 16th Amendment and institute the Fairtax. That's the best plan of all. And on a completely separate note, while we're at it, we can repeal the 17th Amendment, as well.
Now I could be completely wrong about all this. I checked in the closet and couldn't find my "BIG BOY PANTS". I'll try to go shopping this weekend.

JDogger
03-28-2012, 09:29 PM
So net income is 17 mil. Leased at the carrying cost of the loan for a 7 mil loss. I'll take your word that the 7 mil can be deducted from one year's income tax. By my math, that leaves 10 mil. What other capital assets did this person expense off to get rid of the taxes on the 10 mil? Your example earlier indicated that a significant number of people (at least all of your clients) don't pay tax at all because they expense everything off with capital expenditures. How did this person get from 17 mil to zero? And how can they do it year after year? I'm trying to figure it out because I'm getting ready to write a check to the IRS.

As fair as deductions go, I absolutely believe that we should eliminate them all. For everyone. All deductions do is allow politicians to buy votes and manipulate our behavior. No child deductions, mortgage interest expense, no EIC, nothing. Set a flat rate and let everyone pay their "fair share". Do away with the deductions and let everyone pay in, and 10 or 15 percent will probably do the trick. If that isn't "fair", then start at 7 percent and roll up to 20 for the top earners. That way it's simple, everyone understands it and we don't have to worry about tax returns and all that garbage.
Or we can repeal the 16th Amendment and institute the Fairtax. That's the best plan of all. And on a completely separate note, while we're at it, we can repeal the 17th Amendment, as well.
Now I could be completely wrong about all this. I checked in the closet and couldn't find my "BIG BOY PANTS". I'll try to go shopping this weekend.

There is a deduction for Exercise Induced Collapse...? I wasn't aware.;)
Well, I guess that changes my HC plans.:rolleyes: JD

luvmylabs23139
03-28-2012, 10:06 PM
If you earn $200,000.....they take $70,000




No they don't. A single person using the standard deduction would pay $47,762 in federal income taxes.
Thats with no itemized deductions at all.
Do you think it is fair the the gooberment takes money from this person and gives someone a negative tax liability???

mngundog
03-29-2012, 04:09 PM
So net income is 17 mil. Leased at the carrying cost of the loan for a 7 mil loss. I'll take your word that the 7 mil can be deducted from one year's income tax. By my math, that leaves 10 mil. What other capital assets did this person expense off to get rid of the taxes on the 10 mil? Your example earlier indicated that a significant number of people (at least all of your clients) don't pay tax at all because they expense everything off with capital expenditures. How did this person get from 17 mil to zero? And how can they do it year after year? I'm trying to figure it out because I'm getting ready to write a check to the IRS.

As fair as deductions go, I absolutely believe that we should eliminate them all. For everyone. All deductions do is allow politicians to buy votes and manipulate our behavior. No child deductions, mortgage interest expense, no EIC, nothing. Set a flat rate and let everyone pay their "fair share". Do away with the deductions and let everyone pay in, and 10 or 15 percent will probably do the trick. If that isn't "fair", then start at 7 percent and roll up to 20 for the top earners. That way it's simple, everyone understands it and we don't have to worry about tax returns and all that garbage.
Or we can repeal the 16th Amendment and institute the Fairtax. That's the best plan of all. And on a completely separate note, while we're at it, we can repeal the 17th Amendment, as well.
Now I could be completely wrong about all this. I checked in the closet and couldn't find my "BIG BOY PANTS". I'll try to go shopping this weekend.
I think you have it wrong, the guy had a $17 mill Net income that he would have had to pay taxes on, he guys buys a heli for $24 mill that through a loophole can be deducted in full in one year. So now the guy has a $24 mill heli and a loss of $7 mill that year.

Matt McKenzie
03-29-2012, 07:11 PM
I think you have it wrong, the guy had a $17 mill Net income that he would have had to pay taxes on, he guys buys a heli for $24 mill that through a loophole can be deducted in full in one year. So now the guy has a $24 mill heli and a loss of $7 mill that year.

Is that GAAP?

Matt McKenzie
04-06-2012, 11:36 AM
Is that GAAP?

Evidently those who know so much about tax deductions don't know what GAAP is.

Matt McKenzie
04-10-2012, 11:32 AM
http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/09/pf/taxes/buffett-rule/index.htm?source=cnn_bin

More on taxes from that extreme right-wing rag, CNN. But facts aren't welcome to the "eat the rich" lefties.

Matt McKenzie
04-11-2012, 10:34 AM
http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/09/pf/taxes/millionaires_income_tax/index.htm?iid=EL

More data on all those millionaires that pay no tax.