The reason why taxes are so is because big business is not paying any and someone needs to make uo the difference. Unemployment is chump change comparing to billions that go to corporations. (GM, AIG to name a few)

 

OMG! You have NO clue what you are saying. It is obvious you are merely reiterating what you've heard on TV with no thought of your own put into the mix.

"Big business" has been manipulated into the same thing as "Evil business". Where exactly this link was made eludes me. If a "big" business employs thousands of people, produces products that YOU and me consume to live a happier life, contributes its fair share of taxes per the letter of the internal revenue code, what is "evil" about that? Sure some - not businesses in general, because a corporation is just a few documents filed in a filing cabinet - individuals are greedy and make decisions in their best interest that hurt the collective good. Not much different than sucking unemployment for YOUR benefit when you don't have to - just a smaller scale.

Just because these businesses make more than you and I do not make them evil.

Furthermore, large businesses exist to earn income to be distributed to individuals. The fact that "big" businesses do not pay the majority share of taxes is not unexpected because much of the raw income (revenue) is deducted by the corporation and paid in the form of compensation to the individual to be taxed. An S corp pays no taxes anyway, and it is the duty of any corporate controller to minimize C corp taxes in every way possible to prevent double taxation (taxes corporately AND individually). Why pay twice? Ideally, a corporation would distribute all its income in the form of compensation and dividends and pay very few taxes, with the majority being paid by the individual recipient. The ideal is that all income (not to be confused with revenue as some often do) be taxed a single time. The side effect of this is that corporate effective income tax rates are substantially lower than the tables and are lower than that of individuals in most cases.

Its tough to listen to folks like you who just regurgitate nonsense in the face of NO understanding.

 

I just wanted to add that I'm not currently unemployed (As of 4:27pm 12/18/09 that is). But unemployment definitely decreases the need/drive to find a job. The trouble is, is getting rid of the benefit worth it? How many would lose their house/apt/car with a job loss?

 

Do not accuse me of cutting and pasting what I read on CNN or FOX. You have your point of view and I have mine. I lived in 4 different countries you have not. Your perspective is built from one point of view and mine is not. What you are doing, is regurgitating information that you got from your precious CPA courses. All you know is the "american way" and I have a little more than that. I love America mainly for its people that value diversity and freedom but you seem to get steamed up because I do not seem think exactly the way you do.

Where did I say that people that make money are evil? I just think that we should tax people that can afford to pay taxes and not the people that are the backbone of this country. When I lived in the States I worked for a guy that was/is worth billions and I can assure you that percentage of income wise he paid less in taxes than I did. I live in Sweden now and things a little different. The owner of IKEA pays 90% of income in taxes but yet his company is very successful. Two different approaches to taxation... .

I am guessing that only reason why you getting so offended is because you naively think that someday you will be a part of that top 2%. Maybe instead attacking you should defending the people in your income class. Good luck bro.

 

Maybe the problem is that unemployment insurance is a living wage to someone who is use to the regional wages? If pilots were paid better living on unemployment would be a disaster instead of a government sponsored year long vacation.

Skyhigh

 

Good point. However, according to some people on this forum, pilots should not complain about their low pay but rather defend the wealthy management that causes the problem in the first place...

 

Its funny, I tell the CAs I fly with this all the time. I tell them I hope they fire me or furlough me so I can finally get that dream job of running a hot dog cart.

How could I ever replace 24K/year with an education and military background!

 

There is never going to be a perfectly fair way to tax. Someone will always complain. Hell, a seniority list cannot even be merged without a similar response.

However, taxing someone more heavily as they succeed serves to dampen the motivation to succeed in the first place. As the progressive scale gets bigger, these same folks are able to maneuver within the system to end up with a lesser effective percentage, effectively flattening out the progressive nature of the tables.

The system you advocate is one in which the higher earners pay the heaviest taxes and those who are the "backbone" (as if the large businesses aren't part of that) as you say shouldn't have to pay as much. Honestly, that is about the way it is in reality - nearly 50% of lower ended wage earners pay nothing in federal taxes.

Your viewpoint is akin to communism which holds dear the mantra of "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need". So far, communism is batting zero.

It might sound great if you are the little guy, but merely serves to stifle will to succeed on the macro scale.

I am not going to swing back on your having lived in other countries. So be it. However, you obviously have some major misunderstandings about how businesses work (in this country anyways), what motivates people to succeed, and the inherent balance in the current system. The system is a tool that can be played in many ways. Some choose not to play and will merely complain about it and others will see huge opportunities and go out and create the next Google, Apple, or Microsoft. The lowest common denominator could be construed to be the degree of motivation one has to use the system to succeed. This is what the whole idea of "The American Dream" is all about. Its not "The American Guarantee". Some paths don't lead to victory - so choose wisely in a flawed system that is still the best one on the face of the planet today.

You are entitled to your viewpoint, though. We all are.

 

Bryris hits the nail on the head!

 

I belong to the "lower ended wage earner" bracket. I pay nearly 30% of my income in federal tax.

I think we can all agree that business today differs greatly from business of the past. There are some exceptions of course, but when you look at big business, it seems many of the executive fat cats don't earn an honest living. For example, who said "with shared sacrifice, comes shared reward"? 9,000 (correct me if I'm wrong) people are still sacrificing, while one person is reaping the reward. What happened to honest good business where the consumer feels like he's gotten his monies worth. Today, it's how can business take advantage of the consumer, and the consumer not have recourse.

If a wealthy person can make an honest living, let them enjoy their success. If they make a living by pinning misfortunes on others, they should have to pay 100% of their income in taxes and go to federal pound them in the dumper prison.