Obama Offers Lower Taxes Than McCain.

[Brutha]

Obama will use the lower NET tax dedecution to make the gov't larger

If you have lower net tax revenue shouldn't the result be a smaller gov't? Maybe McCain wants to reduce the government more than Obama, but a Net reduction is still a reduction isn't it?

2. You say that an increased sales tax is more complicated that the current system. Really? First of all, are you familiar with all the tax code in the US and how complex it is to file for, get audited for and to enforce collection on?

You didn't suggest to tear the current tax code down. You suggested to add something on top of it and reduce the income tax percentage.

While increasing the income tax from 10 to 12 percent won't increase burocracy going from 0 to 2 percent will and there are currently states in the US without sales tax in which a sales tax would create a burocracy that you need to have a sales tax.
In addition making a definition for "single item retail purchpase" is complicated.

I know that Germans or other nations that you would call socialistic aren't making simply laws either, but I still believe that making simple laws should be a important guidance in lawmaking.
Today when a law gets rewriten (in Germany but probably also in the US), it gets an additional 1/5 of text because politicans make "kaizen" improvements.
Unfortunatly that happens every time every law gets rewriten, people add rules and expections.
As a result you get more and more complicated laws and it gets harder for people to file taxes.

Secondly, I think that the money should be redistributed to the public sector in form of supplemented healthcare through private hospitals and via food, etc. Obama's idea of having the gov't manage it is flawed.

I'm not that deep into the structure of the US healthcare system and Obama's exact approach and don't know whether the goal of universal access to healthcare would be better archieved through supplemented healthcare or some other form.

And free college for all? This is rediculous when we don't even have proper high schools.

You are right that having good high schools should probably be a better focus than making college free at the moment in the US.
Fixing high schools on the other hand requires more than money. Buying high schools computers doesn't really increase the performance of students.
In addition just repelling No Child Left Behind wouldn't cost money but would probably increase high school quality.
Fixing schools would not only require money but also some smart lawmakers.

[Still Growing]

Brutha,
McCain's total tax cut will be 6 times larger than Obama's in total. Did you follow the link that Dan provided at the beginning of this thread?

Obama plans to use the money that he doesn't cut to create a gov't managed healthcare system and free college for all.

What I am saying is that it would be better to implement a larger sales tax at the state level RATHER than creating a larger federal gov't like Obama is suggesting.

[Doku]

Originally Posted by ThoughtAddict

Is the argument against taxing the economically advantaged that there is a higher incentive for businesses to leave? Doesn't this only apply to C-Corp businesses, since S-Corps, LLCs, and partnerships avoid individual income tax rates? I simply cannot make sense of California under this argument. Can someone please help me, because I think I must be missing something?

You have this backwards. S-Corp, and LLC are "pass-through" entities... and we can't "leave money in the company."

If my company (an LLC) makes $1M in profits (after all employee/office/... expenses are paid), then I have to declare $1M in personal income for that year when I file my taxes, and I pay taxes on that $1M.

Do I need that massive income? Yes, I believe that I do. I am planning on the growth of the company. In order to grow, I need more office space, more equipment, more raw materials, and more employees. All of those expenses come out of my pocket, and are paid before I sell the final product, and start to put some money back in.

The more taxes that I have to pay, the less money I can save up for the purchases (remember the concept of saving and buying things outright, instead of having to finance them?). The longer that it takes me to save that money, is just that much longer until I buy the bricks and pay the people to build the building that the future employees will work in, and earn their salary.

The thing that the "poor people" fail to realize about the "rich people" is that many of the rich people risked everything to get to where they are. If I asked you to take out 100k in loans, mortgage your house to the max, drop back down to one car for your family, stop going out to dinner all together, drop cable, etc. and gamble every penny of that, when you got to the other end of that tunnel, would you expect to be making the same income that you started out at? Or would you expect to make more money?

That is the situation that MANY of the rich people are in. They are rich because they gambled absolutely everything that they had in order to get ahead, and won. Sure, there are many that had it handed to them by mommy and daddy, but most "bootstrapped" it, and went into massive debt to get started.

--Doku

[coollikeme]

they layoff the poor, and middle class. Then no one wins. You have to change the whole tax system. The rich benefit from the current tax system no matter what happens!!

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by Doku

You have this backwards. S-Corp, and LLC are "pass-through" entities... and we can't "leave money in the company."

If my company (an LLC) makes $1M in profits (after all employee/office/... expenses are paid), then I have to declare $1M in personal income for that year when I file my taxes, and I pay taxes on that $1M.

Do I need that massive income? Yes, I believe that I do. I am planning on the growth of the company. In order to grow, I need more office space, more equipment, more raw materials, and more employees. All of those expenses come out of my pocket, and are paid before I sell the final product, and start to put some money back in.--Doku

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that LLCs and S-Corps must take pass-through income. Can't LLCs and S-Corps elect to be taxed at the corporate rate rather than as partnerships? Also, if reinvestment is the issue, couldn't any business reinvest income before the tax year is over (in office materials or equipment, though not supplies that would be considered inventory or future fixed costs) thereby reducing their overall income and tax paid? You make it sound like LLCs and S-Corps face a tax disadvantage, when everything I've encountered lauds LLCs and S-Corps for the tax advantages.

Granted, you can't switch back and forth from S-Corp to C-Corp, but you also can't legally avoid paying taxes altogether.

Originally Posted by Doku

The thing that the "poor people" fail to realize about the "rich people" is that many of the rich people risked everything to get to where they are.

It depends. Most of the working rich have risked a great deal. There are many billionaires who inherited, though. I've seen both earned and inherited wealth. I admire the former.

[Doku]

Originally Posted by ThoughtAddict

Also, if reinvestment is the issue, couldn't any business reinvest income before the tax year is over (in office materials or equipment, though not supplies that would be considered inventory or future fixed costs) thereby reducing their overall income and tax paid?

Correct. I can do that. What I can not do is create a "new building fund" and stash cash in it so that I can build my new facilities out of pocket. There is no way that I could currently save up enough cash for that kind of project in a single year. Changing the income tax rate for the "soak the rich" would absolutely have an impact on my business, and my ability to employ more people.