No one is proposing to steal money from anyone and give to anyone else. It's a stupid characterization for making the rich pay their fair share of taxes to pay for the entire nation's expenses. :insane:
Very highly doubtful. The odds of someone who is truly wealthy not paying taxes when they make money is miniscule. You just can't get to zero even with deductions, loopholes, etc.
what about corporations, but that is as republicans would call it, punishing success..... Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes | Reuters
The rich already pay the highest effective rate. http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/effective_rates.pdf They also shoulder a larger percentage of the tax burden http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/tax_liability_shares.pdf than they receive in income. http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/pre-tax_income_shares.pdf So according to the CBO the highest quintile recieves 52% of the income and pays 69% of the taxes. The top 1% pays 28% of the taxes and recieves 18% of the income. On what rational logical basis are those dudes not paying their fair share?
These numbers are skewed by the wealth gap. These numbers would only be relevant if there were an equal number of people making the same amount of money in each category.
It's not just republicans that call it that, it's non-liberals (yes, there are more than one kind). I think this paragraph speaks volumes: If it's because of losses, then I see no issue with that. Why should anyone pay tax on money they lost? As far as the tax credits, they will always exist; it's incentive for companies to do business here instead of other countries. The last statement I find interesting.. Now just why would they want to shift income to low-tax countries? Perhaps it's because our corporate tax rate is among the highest in the world? Na, that couldn't be.. It must be because they're evil. If you make the cost of something overly expensive, people (companies) are going to go somewhere else to do business, or they are going to find their way out of it. We're losing out on revenue because our rates are so high. Look at it this way.. If you own a rent house and charge too much for rent, then more times than not, if there's a choice people will find something cheaper to live in. In other words, you're pricing yourself out of the market. So instead of lowering the rent or offering incentives to renters to fill the vacancy, you think you should just increase rent on your other properties to make up the difference? Your tenants aren't going to like that. You'll likely lose a few, resulting in a loss of revenue, and you still won't be able to rent out that vacant house. Ya get me?
