Search results

And the system is unfair. Specifically it's rigged against successful small businesses. They are who has to pay the 35% tax rate. Hence why I think it's time we have serious tax reform where we lower the rates and close loopholes. You say we can't close loopholes, we should raise the rates, and...

Right now poor people don't contribute to anything other than their own social security. With the payroll tax credit they're barely contributing to that as well. How is it fair that they don't have to pay a dime in income tax when people are paying an effective rate that's well over 30% right now?

It's not. That should be on the table as well. I'm a fiscal conservative, but I'm not partisan, and I'm sure as hell not going to defend Bush.

That doesn't talk about the penalty on employers.

Yes and we collect more revenue by lowering the rates and closing loopholes for everybody. We ultimately need to cut spending, particularly healthcare spending.

I am for lowering the rates and closing loopholes.

Is that how it works? You said it was a $2000 penalty. Anyways, businesses shouldn't be paying any penalty. Plenty of businesses will layoff their workers, despite your economic model. Time will tell which one of us is right, but I expect massive underemployment of the poor, who this is intended...

Before WWI nobody paid income tax at all. Why should people be giving half of their income to the government? There comes a point where enough is enough. Considering a significant amount of people pay no income tax it doesn't make sense to be charging anybody 39.6% for a dollar earned.

They can't provide insurance for $1000 a year. Otherwise they would instead of paying the $2000 a year penalty. Clearly a lot of employers either can't get $1000/employee insurance or don't think the way you do or else they would be providing insurance without Obamacare. Walmart is making...

Krugman was chanting this the other day. That would never work today and we didn't take in a lot of revenue back then. Anybody who made that kind of money hid it or found some type of loophole. If we raised the rates to 91% today anybody who makes a lot of money would leave.

No, you said they'll pay a $2,000 penalty per employee. If a server makes $2 an hour, that ends up being like a 50% wage increase.

Yes, I realize that. Hence why I said it would be like a 100% wage increase if they had to pay health insurance. There's a reason why it's $2-$3 an hour. It's a performance based business where servers make their money off of tips. $2-$3 an hour isn't supposed to be a living wage. Hell, the...

I understand the tax system pretty well and think it's ridiculous how unfair it is. The top rate in the late 80's was 28%. Why should anybody have to pay more than that? Get rid of all the loopholes, including the mortgage deduction.

If they choose to do nothing then it's close to a 50% wage increase for servers. Whichever they choose, it shows what a disaster Obamacare is. Hopefully lawmakers will realize how this is crippling the restaurant industry and waive this requirement.

They said it would cost $5000/employee so it's over $2 an hour. So this is like a 100% wage increase for servers.

No, employers will cut employees hours if they can cut overall cost and get the same production. They'll find someone else to work 12 hours a week to avoid the Obamacare cost. In this economy, employees do not have the upper hand in negotiations. Denny's will fire one employee and hire 2 part...

I wonder if that 3.8% investment tax will even cover the lost revenue from employers cutting their employees hours.

You're tired of paying for healthcare? Well someone has to pay one way or another. I'm not against a universal healthcare system so long as we keep public healthcare spending under the 7.9% of GDP it is now. The government shouldn't have to spend more than it already is, in insuring our...

France just instituted a 75% tax on all income above a million euros. It will backfire on them. Rich people are leaving the country in droves.

So the best that can squeak through the legislator cannot cut or at least be neutral with the 7.9% of GDP (and rising) in public healthcare spending?