Of course I get the money from my customers, but where do they get it? From their employer. It just seems like a circular argument.

Todd

Upon further (limited) research, it seems that business expenses would be tax exempt if the federal income tax Wags was referring to is the "fair tax" in Chris' sig line, making my panel saw example irrelevant. Please correct me if I'm wrong. (I don't know about Steve Forbes' flat tax)

I think it is a regressive tax, with the exception of those below the poverty level, however it is encouraging to find that you are all in the top 5% of income earners, maybe someday I'll join you ranks.

Todd

Todd you pay no taxes, you pass this cost onto your customers, who pay ALL your expenses and your profit. Taxing business is merely hiding the real source of where the revenue comes from. Increase property taxes on commercial property and they have to pass that on to their customers in the form of higher prices. When Obama raises payroll taxes, which he wants to do, this raises YOUR cost of doing business. Are you going to take less profit, or are you going to add those additional costs into your product and raise prices. If you want to be in business for long you have no choice but to raise your prices. Same as you would if the cost of a sheet of solid surface, or sand paper or any of the other 1000's of items you purchase goes up.

Business is only the middle man. Which is exactly why we have payroll taxes deducted from employees before they ever get it. Imagine how the American people would feel if they had to write a check out each week, or each month and send their taxes into the government. It's amazing how many people really don't have a handle on how much they pay, they ony look at what they take home, not what they earned.

Sales tax is the most fair tax. It taxes consumption not earnings.  Don't tax food, drugs and perhaps some other categories that are basic, but then tax gourmet foods, wines, etc     I think we would all agree the rich spend more money than the poor, so they would pay more in taxes.  It is tax revenue neutral. It just makes everyone pay their share.  Eliminates the underground economy, hiding money means nothing anymore.   It just makes sense, our present system is too burdensome. No one understands it, not even those that wrote it.

We have a tax in CA that drives me crazy.  It is the unsecured  property tax on business.  Several years ago we purchased our CNC.  Costly machine, paid sales tax (7 3/4%), and every year we have to pay property tax.  This year the tax bill was about $750.00.  That included a 10 year old panel saw. 

They say we pay yearly tax on cars because they use the highways. OK, I will buy that.  How does our CNC cost anyone in this state any money?

We are a tiny company.  Just imagine how much unsecured property tax they collect from business across this state.  Those types of taxes are never discussed and the general public is completely unaware of them.

Thats why they tax business instead of individuals. Most people would be appalled at the amount of taxes that are hidden, yet they pay. I bet our tax load would be 50% to 60% of our income if you included all the hidden taxes. Think people would be grabbing their torches and pitch forks and taking to streets if they realised? I do.

Real problem is spending. Politicians, Like Obama in his speech, try to "buy" votes, by promising "stuff". As I have said many times, when you have 50% of population paying no income taxes, and they realise they can vote themselves "free stuff" were screwed. Were at that point now, and, with open boarders, soon we will be well past that point. All "free stuff" does is keep people down, keep them in poverty and keep the "elites" in power. Think the power establishments want Gov Palin and McCain to come to Washington with the promise of vetoing all pork spending? I think we NEED someone that is REAL, and she seems as real to me as anyone Ive seen on the national scene since Jimmy Steward was in Mr Smith Goes to Washington.

As I understand it, Obama's tax plan would not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 per year. I'm not sure if that means individuals or families, but either way, no-one here makes that kind of money. If you're paying over $125K/year let me send you a resume.

In Washington state we have a sales tax of around 8% (it depends on local taxes), from time to time we get customers that want to pay cash to avoid that, if I split that 8% with the customer it is not worth the potential consequences. If you add another 30% on top of that it would become too tempting for a lot of people.

Todd

I look at it a bit differently.
I see both sides as wanting money and power. The Dems do it by class warfare, the Reps. do it through fees and taxes where the public at large can't see them.

Having said that, Wags is right, the problem is spending. We owe so much money to other lenders it is ridiculous.

This can't end well.

Todd, one thing that Obama calls "not raising "taxes is allowing the "Bush" tax cuts to end. This would raise taxes on anyone making over about $40,000. Only in Washington is that called NOT a tax increase. Also for him to impliment his plan he would have to raise $1.2 trillion in his first term... taxing at 100% of anyone earning over $250,000 doesn't get us there. Hidden taxes, fee's, taxes on business (which is passed onto everyone) but those aren't "Taxes" on the middle class. Guess unless you get a bill directly from the gov, they don't consider it a tax.

I say send MS Smith to washington (reference to an old Jimmy Stewart Movie" Mr Smit goes to Washington. This is what Gov Palin reminds me of.

Senator Obama would permanently extend certain provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts primarily affecting taxpayers with incomes under $250,000; http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411693_CandidateTaxPlans.pdf

“McCain and the Republicans keep mischaracterizing my plan,” said Obama, seeking to clarify his own proposals. “If you are a family making less than $250,000 a year, my plan will not raise your taxes. Period. Not income tax, not payroll tax, not capital gains tax, not any of your taxes. And chances are you will get a tax cut.” http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/13/nation/na-campaign13

 Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans
Here

Wags,
"you have 50% of population paying no income taxes"
I haven't come across that anywhere, does that include school children, the elderly, retired people, college students, stay-at-home moms/dads, disabled people, prison inmates,...?

Todd

Here is a site http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

This site, National Taxpayers Union, shows for 2006 that
top 1% of (adjusted Gross Income) paid 39.89 % of all income taxes
top 5% paid 60.14% of all income taxes
Top 10% paid 70.79% of all income taxes
Top 25% paid 86.27% of all income taxes
Top 50% paid 97.01% of all income taxes
Bottom 50% paid 2.99% of all taxes.


Here is a link on the Fair Tax (National Sales Tax) and how it would work.

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=93

Wags,

While 2.99% is more than zero, I will concede the point that 50% of taxpayers pay considerably less than the rest, however if you look at the distribution of wealth throughout the country the two sets of data track pretty well.

top 1%           32.7%
top 5%           57.7%
top 10%         69.8%
top 50%         97.2%
bottom 50%   2.8%

This data comes from the federal reserve board, see here, scroll down to table 5

This data is from 2001, I couldn't copy and paste the table so I reformatted the bottom line and made the numbers cumulative to resemble your data for easier comparison.

Todd

The point is, Obama says he wants a "fairer" tax schedule. He wants the "rich" to pay "there fair share". Seems to me it's lopsided as is. I would bet, the areas of a city with lower income use far more resources than richer areas. So those that use the most pay the least. Go back to how I started this thread. The Dems want class warfare, its the only way they can gain power. They are not unlike Jessie Jackson and Al Sparpton and others, that, in reality would be without any power base the folks they assert they "work for" ever became middle class. The only way Dems can stay in power is to make sure we have a large poor class, and wage them against the "rich". I believe Jessie Jackson could care less about raising the blacks to middle class. It's in his best interest to keep em down, keep em "needing' him to "protect" them.

I hope the owner of the company I work for makes millions... it's the only way I can be assured of job. If the incentive for him to invest and to keep investing is taken away throught high taxes, why would he want the aggravation? He could put his money in T Bills and live very comfortibly.
Why would anyone on FabNet want to invest and take the risks they do, if not in the hope of something more than earning a wage? If I were to go to lunch with Bill Gates, why would I assume he would pay for mine, any more than he should assume I would pay for his ? Because he has more than me? What does that have to do with it. Why do we want to punish those that are sucessful, and reward those that never try? Why do we have a system that keeps people in poverty if not for the benefit of those in power? Do you really think those working in the welfare system want to get people off welfare? If no one were collecting it, they would be without a job. Our system is what keeps people down, a system put and kept in place mostly by Dems, but by politicians on both sides. The republican party today is the party of roosevelt and kennedy. The dems is the party of elitist. Liberals have the opinion that "they know better" than the uneducated working class. Only they know how to spend MY money, only they know what I Need.. Of course they are above the laws the rest of us have to live under. After all, they are the "Elite".

Again I say, when 50% of the citizens pay no taxes, and learn that they can vote themselves "free stuff" then that system is on its way to failure. Being an American citizen only assures you an OPPORTUNITY to succeed.. OR fail. The government should not be your partner.

Flat tax on consumption is the only fair tax. Eliminate all the loopholes, make it an even playing field.

Wags,

If your boss makes a million dollars and is only taxed when he spends it, why wouldn't he just put it in the bank, then move out of the country when he retires? If it's taxed as income he has incentive to re-invest because he won't pay tax on business expenses.

Todd

Back to your original story.

What the bartender didn't tell these guys is the beer actually costs $120, he's only charging $80 today because he's got credit cards in their kids' names and they can pay the rest later, with interest.

Todd

Your correct Todd, spending is the big problem in Washington. Obama has promised over 363 BILLION in NEW spending yearly and it keep growing as he keeps promising new programs. For comparison McCain has promised 68 billion in new spending. This is typical Democratic ploys. Promise "free Stuff" to buy votes. Since he also, as you stated, promises no tax increase on those earning less than $250,000 (your figure) how can he pay for them? There is no way to tax enough to pay for these "Promises". Add it to the deficit and let our great grand kids pay for it.

Can we afford to have Obama as president, with a democratic controlled congress? Sorta like giving the key to the liquor cabinet to an alcholic isn't it. WE, the people, need to take back our Government. This is why I like Sarah Palin, least she has not been part of the problem in the past, and we can hope, she won't be in the future. She has cut waste in Ak, we can only hope she can do that in the future. McCain has a long history of fighting "Pork", and he has promised to veto every spending bill that contains Pork. Its the better of two bad choices I guess.

The US budget for Iraq in FY 2007 came to $4,988/Iraqi. This is triple Iraq's per-person GDP. It's like spending $121,000 per person ($484,000 per family of 4) in the US. Why not just bribe the whole country? (I'm saying how it must seem to Iraqis. Think how it would be if some other planet invaded the U.S. and spent $121,000 per American per year to straighten out our country. We'd say—Just give us the money and we'll do it ourselves.") See spreadsheet for details.
ZFacts.com Can we afford more of the same!

Wags:

How can you make a statement like that after the indisputable job of spending and wasting money the Republicans have done?

I'm no Obama fan, but trying to scare people into voting Republican because of the potential spending habits of Democrats is ludicrous.

Hey, at least try to get them excited over civil rights. Obama and the Democrats are gun-grabbers. Now you've got something.

Joe

Joe I have said the same things about the Repub and how they have been spending like a drunkin summin. Bush has been a huge disappointment when it has come to fiscal responsibility. But, McCain has a history of fighting Pork spending. I would much rather have McCain/Palin in the white house with a Dem congress, than Obama/Biden with a Dem Congress. All you have to do is look at what they say they are going to do, Obama/Biden have promised to spend spend spend.

Obama has fought for total gun control his whole life. Obama is a socialist, that's very clear. Interesting how he pushed his "we are our brothers keeper" yet his half brother lives on $1 a month, while he made over $4 million last year. Do what I say, not what I do should be his motto.

 Joe,

I'm not sure you can count on the republicans to protect your second amendment rights, look at what they've done with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

I haven't heard of troops being quartered in private homes, which they could as this wouldn't be considered peacetime, but the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, ninth and tenth amendments are in serious trouble.

"I don't give a redacted," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."
 
"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
 
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a redacted piece of paper!"

To see the naughty words google :  "just a piece of paper"

Todd

If it looks like McCain is going to lose, watch for an orange alert and suspension of the twenty second.

Thank God the supreme court ruled on the right to bear arms, and thank God Bush appointed whom he did, if Gore or Keary would of been elected I have no doubt we would of had a totally different ruling. This is what is scarey about Obama and a dem controlled congress. Not only the taxes and spending, but also the judges they can appoint, most of which openly want to make laws, not interprete laws.