the simplest solution is to tax all income equally while still keeping the progressive tax rates. if you make over 250K your rate is 35% (or whatever % we decide) and that applies to earned income and unearned income (capital gains, dividends).

You know what a tutor is, right, slow kid?

60 minutes this past Sunday showed a repeat about corporate tax rates. There are a lot of large corporations who have legally moved their corporate offices to Switzerland where the tax rate is 15%, but they can't bring their billions of dollars back into the U.S. without paying the 30%+ rates. So they stock pile billions over sees.
It was stated by some CEOs that if the U.S. rates were lowered they would bring about $1.2 trillion into our economy.
Everyone keeps saying we should tax corporations more, but we already tax them with the some of the highest rates in the industrialized world and it is forcing them off shore. Either close the loopholes or lower the rates.

You might read up on WB's income as it is out there. He pays little tax because of HOW he takes his income. I think he is doing 35% on income & 15% on the stock options and gains so he take less on the income side at 35% and goes for the lower & deferred things. All legal and done by every tax accountant for their clients if they can.

Loop holes to some are drivers to others. Track out the effect of not allowing second home interest deductions. It blows the hell out of housing, motorhomes, boats, a bunch of other stuff, and a HUGE NUMBER OF JOBS. Did not save the link but a lib foundation ran the stuff and found getting rid of loop holes sounds good but has the potential to set the economy on it's collective ass if done helter skelter.

Oh yeah someplace back on this thread someone said 50% do not pay tax because they do not make enough. What a total load of crap! I am retired and my gross is 50k and AFTER deductions I still pay 10% which is OK with me as long as everybody pays. I saved when I was younger in my IRA on $7 and $8 a hour and worked 6 / 10's a week SO I COULD RETIRE. This bit where you got kids? Pay less tax! Married? The same! Single bend over and prepare yourself. Everybody has their hand out in this country anymore. JFK got his ask not quote a little wrong for most people today.

Riverguy.....as far as I know.....I read the stats and could probably find them again......but then so could you. The figure wasn't exactly 50%, but damn close to it, who don't pay taxes. As in zero....zero. I suspect (without knowing) that that leaves most of the corporations out, as I'm reasonably certain that they pay some....perhaps not enough, but I doubt it is zero.
Somebody needs to hammer it into some thick skulls that a flat tax is a bad deal. Simple.....yes.....and very bad for low and middle income. If you take the amount paid presently by the rich and redistribute it, the lower classes portion will increase.....DRAMATICALLY!

I agree that this country needs to cut spending....I have a rough time believing that anyone thinks it is OK to spend more than you bring in......let alone continue doing it. Raising the debt ceiling...fk sake. Just keep those Obama bucks flowin', right?

uh huh....paying obligations with what?....hope? Just because you got a new credit card didn't make you rich again.....regardless what you believe.
Good to see you're still around sucking up oxygen. (thought I'd leave you a "goodie" to pounce on.....go ahead....you can do it)

Chuck......You read something wrong....I am assuming nothing.....you and I agree....I know we aren't taking in anywhere near what is going out........my remarks are directed at the self proclaimed "everybody is dumb who doesn't parrot me" guy. (BTW, I'm sorry if I lost your smalls. )

KK, I hope that somewhere along the line you figure out how to become your own man. You "furniture" is getting old, doooood.

"It was stated by some CEOs that if the U.S. rates were lowered they would bring about $1.2 trillion into our economy.
Everyone keeps saying we should tax corporations more, but we already tax them with the some of the highest rates in the industrialized world and it is forcing them off shore. Either close the loopholes or lower the rates."

Complete hogwash. The major corps have already announced their long term plans are global and overseas NOT in the US. They see little to no growth here. The majority of that dough including what's earned in the US is going to overseas expansion. No matter what you do for them they are NOT bringing the money or jobs back here. Plus the tax rate could be 90% and the existing loopholes would still have them paying zero or near zero in taxes. Doing FOR corp America doesn't work. We need to DO TO corp America to force them to do our bidding instead of the other way around. You should also remember in your 60 minutes segment the suggestion that we consider their overseas tax dodging as renouncing your citizenship. There's a start.

I can't understand how ANYONE who isn't a corporate executive, a shareholder, or a member of Congress can honestly believe that tax breaks for large corporations are good for America. They certainly aren't doing anything to help the middle class, of which you are a part if you aren't poor and don't meet any of the above criteria. That is, of course, unless you enjoy being gouged for the gas you buy to drive several miles to your local Walmart, which has systematically eliminated the small businesses that used to be within walking distance of your house, to buy a bunch of Chinese-made crap that will end up in the middle of the Pacific after it breaks within a few months, only to be taxed at a higher rate to make up for the taxes the corporations aren't paying (assuming your job hasn't been outsourced).

Corporations may enjoy lower tax rates by operating overseas, but the much cheaper labor they exploit overseas is at least as big a motivator for taking the manufacturing jobs that were the foundation of the middle class offshore.

The only Americans giant corporations help are the ones being given the tax breaks. For anyone outside that circle to believe otherwise (and vote in kind) is akin to cutting one's own throat and that of 99.9% of the people around him.

tax breaks can be a good thing if they are structured to create a certain behavior. a tax break for hiring american workers in a manufacturing plant would be a good thing. tax policies to increase manufacturing (and therefore the middle class) are a good thing.

of course, we could also impose tariffs on countries like china who impose high tariffs on our exports.

Looks like Obama is gonna' fix this mess by f'cking with those willing to sacrifice so much for this country.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/15/eveningnews/main20092652.shtml

August 15, 2011 6:38 PM
Radical overhaul of military retirement eyed
By Sharyl Attkisson

WASHINGTON - The military retirement system has long been considered untouchable - along with Social Security and Medicare. But in these days of soaring deficits, it seems everything is a potential target for budget cutters. A Pentagon-sponsored study says military pensions are no longer untouchable - they're unaffordable.

CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports high-level, closely-held meetings are taking place at the Pentagon regarding a radical proposal to overhaul retirement for the nation's 1.4 million service members - a bedrock guarantee of military service.

The proposal comes from an influential panel of military advisors called the Defense Business Board. Their plan, laid out in a 24-page presentation "Modernizing the Military Retirement System," would eliminate the familiar system under which anyone who serves 20 years is eligible for retirement at half their salary. Instead, they'd get a 401k-style plan with government contributions.

They'd have to wait until normal retirement age. It would save $250 billion dollars over 20 years.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office says it's very important that the military attack its retirement issues. "We're talking about an underfunding that starts to look like hundreds of billions of dollars in the next 20 years. And if you want to maintain the core mission which is to defend the nation and have the strategic capabilities we need, we can't have all their money tied up in retirement programs."

Advocates say the new system would not only save money -- but would also be fairer. It would give benefits to those who serve less than 20 years. Right now, they walk away with nothing. And it would give more money to those in combat or high risk situations.

The proposal leaves a lot of blanks to be filled in, including whether to exempt current service members so their plans won't change.

CBS News spoke to some active duty troops who agreed costs must be cut - but worry the number of experienced soldiers will dwindle with no incentive to stay enlisted for 20 years.

The proposal is in early stages and would require Congressional approval. But it's clear that military retirement is no longer untouchable. A Pentagon spokesman said the military retirement system "is a fair subject of review" but no changes will be made "without careful consideration."

Nope you got it wrong. The driver on corporate profits was mostly individuals when I was a kid after WW11 but then we advanced pension plans, IRA's, 401k's, many many retirement savings plans. Most folks have them through some one like Vanguard ( my union pension ) or AIG Valic ( my IRA ) and THEY WATCH THE BLOODY RETURN ON INVESTMENT. Low return roll it into someone else's with low or no fees and stable returns. 7% is about the rock bottom one can stomach in a fund but the last 12 months mine did 12% but lost some with the latest fiasco in DC. Bottom line is these funds put huge pressure on corporations for profits in fact it was the main driver behind Weyco going RIT and laying off thousands to make more from lower taxes.

When I opened my first savings account it paid 4% and CD's much more. You can not save cash and protect it with the current Federal Reserve policies so it is stock, commodities or something and most folks do managed funds. It is the Catch 22 as lower corporate profits and dividends less return to the massive retirement funds and want to watch either party get there asses kicked high and wide? Start screwing with the boomers pensions or younger folks IRA's and 401k's growth as they figure Soc Sec is toast for them. Custer had better odds of surviving!

For real Rivrguy?

You actually believe that the driver behind corporate profits is our retirement accounts?

Really?????

I dunno if you've been paying attention or not... but the value of the Boomers' 401k and other retirement accounts have taken some HUGE hits in the last couple of years, while corporate profits are at an all-time high.

How do you 'splain that?

I don't believe President Obama is a member of the Defense Business Board. In fact, the board "is a United States Federal Advisory Committee that supports defense transformation by delivering senior management advice to the Secretary of Defense based on best practices from the private sector." Source. It was created by Rumsfeld in '01. "Only two of seven executives on the task force ever served in the military. Both left before 20 years and without any retirement benefit." Source. Any wonder why they don't seem to respect the sacrifices made by military retirees?

This is simply another attempt at big business and speculators to tap into money from the middle class. Same arguements as privatizing SS: having the military invest in a Thrift Savings Plan is just code for "give your money to Wall Street to use to Wall Street's advantage."

One of the reasons many people that went into the service back in the mid to late 80's got out was because our retirement for twenty years was only going to be 37.5% of our base pay. To get 50% one would have to stay in for 30 years. But many of us in the Navy were stuck in Ratings that were damn near impossible to reach Master Chief (E-9).

I believe the way things were at the time, an 1st Class (E-6) had to retire at 20, a Chief (E-7) had to retire at maybe 24, a Senior Chief (E-8) had to retire at 26?, and a Master Chief could retire at 30 years.

Many of us looked at the personal sacrifices made over a career and asked...Is it worth it? And many got out as a result.

Luckily someone saw that trend in the late 90's and early 2000's and changed the system back to 50% for 20 years, as retention rates dropped, even after the draw down of the early 90's..

I don't think screwing with the retirement system of the people sworn to protect this country is a good thing. You want to make cuts? Cut the retirement a member of congress or President gets. You'll get more bang for your buck, and you'll keep your experienced personnel in the service, and that could potentially save the lives of junior personnel.

pure class warfare. take from the poor and middle class and enrich the top 1%.

privatizing military retirements and SS is just another transfer of wealth from lower incomes to upper incomes.

this is the true class warfare that's being waged in america.... not the attempt to see high income earners pay an extra 3% in income taxes.

RVW posted: "Looks like Obama is gonna' fix this mess by f'cking with those willing to sacrifice so much for this country."

Like GoHarley wrote, there is no indication that this came from Obama. However, the subject is legitimate and germane, although hardly in the same class as closing loopholes or otherwise increasing taxes on the rich or super-rich. Just as the federal civil service retirement was over-hauled in 1984 (does that mean we should blame Reagan?), it's entirely appropriate to review and likely modify DOD retirement. The system has changed significantly. When Aunty M's husband enlisted, military pay was poverty level or thereabouts. Military pay scales changed when the country changed to the all-volunteer force, and the pay scale is much improved, especially for those who achieve time and grade. And just like the rest of the population, military retirees are living longer. As a result, military pensions, like the old civil service pensions and Social Security are less affordable to the nation.

The fact that it's military up for discussion makes the issue more sensitive because of the life and death prospects associated with military service. However, society already deals with that issue in the context of LE and firefighter retirement systems, which are far more generous than standard civil service. Just because it's a touchy subject doesn't mean that the status quo is the right or just outcome, and in the final analysis it does come down to a business analysis that has to make sense for the nation. Practically speaking, if DOD makes the "wrong" modifications, citizens won't join the all-volunteer military as people vote with their checkbooks, so to speak.

Sg

I'm not a billionaire but I want to be coddled. Unfortunately, neither party give a [censored] about me.

Here's two links that can answer a lot of questions about who pays what......

here

and here

WTR if you follow this training clip you could master self deprivation!

http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6477219/remix-e-trade-baby-loses-everything