MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
Saturday, September 20, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 72.0° F  Light Rain
Collapse Photo Bar

Billionaires pay no state tax

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.

Re: Billionaires pay no state tax

Postby Bert Ernie » Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:41 am

bdog wrote:So that's the rub - how are you going to actually raise taxes and not have the rich run off to some other environ that has a different playing field?


I've reflected on that very issue. I believe any vacuum created by people trying to avoid investing in the idea of community -- those who would rather bolt and dodge -- would quickly be filled by others. I can't get behind the "do what we say, or we'll pick up and move our businesses elsewhere" bullying.

Regarding Meade's logic and "reasonable" point: if two aspirin are good for a headache, then the whole bottle apparently is REALLY good. I don't believe that he even believes much of what he posts here, but rather simply enjoys the debate. He adds little to the discourse through such ridiculous prodding.
Bert Ernie
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:59 pm

Re: Billionaires pay no state tax

Postby bdog » Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:13 am

Bert I think there are ways to do it but they need to be creative. The ideal solution would feed off the billionaires propensity to be greedy. And they are greedy else they would not have become billionaires.

Added: I don't even think bullying comes into play. It's more a straight forward "this is what I want" and if you can't get it to me I'll go elsewhere. It's not personal, it's strictly business. There are exceptions of course, like Edgewater, where there is not an elsewhere to go.

Re: Meade. TDPF Meade only exists as a reaction to the Henrys of the forum. Meade responds "in kind". I am starting to do that as well. If Henry wants to act like a troll then I will respond in kind.

If he wants to discuss rather than advocate then I will treat him with respect.
bdog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3247
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

Re: Billionaires pay no state tax

Postby wack wack » Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:19 am

bdog wrote:Re: Meade. TDPF Meade only exists as a reaction to the Henrys of the forum.


Bullshit.

bdog wrote:Meade responds "in kind". I am starting to do that as well. If Henry wants to act like a troll then I will respond in kind.


Bullshit.

bdog wrote:If he wants to discuss rather than advocate then I will treat him with respect.


And bullshit.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3148
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: Billionaires pay no state tax

Postby Henry Vilas » Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:35 am

Cornbread wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote:Don't be coy. Discuss them.


Always interesting that the more someone is pushed to actually defend their worldview, the shorter their sentences get.

Good job lefist democrat--five words, two sentences.
Try and condense that further, so you can actually con people. "hope and change" is a great, meaningless three word bumpersticker, but that's already taken.

The guy how constantly says he wants an adult conversion refuses to discuss what he says bears discussing. How typical of you.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19881
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: Billionaires pay no state tax

Postby DCB » Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:42 am

Bert Ernie wrote:
bdog wrote:So that's the rub - how are you going to actually raise taxes and not have the rich run off to some other environ that has a different playing field?


I've reflected on that very issue. I believe any vacuum created by people trying to avoid investing in the idea of community -- those who would rather bolt and dodge -- would quickly be filled by others. I can't get behind the "do what we say, or we'll pick up and move our businesses elsewhere" bullying.

First of all, lets recognize that the issue isn't just the 'tax rate'. Its the overall tax policy. The tax policy allows for all kinds of exemptions, which is why the 2 billionaires in question pay income tax some years and not others. A tax rate of 90% doesn't capture any revenue if we allow enough loopholes.

Some of those loopholes are probably a good idea, if it promotes investment that improves the economy. But its reasonable to question that policy if a billionaire pays $0.

In another post, we learned that that the state legislature required a cost comparison for outsourcing. Which was good, because we learned that consultants cost more than in-house staff. But then decided to ignore the conclusions, and keep the over-priced consultants. Can we fix that?

So lets do a similar analysis of our state tax policy. Which 'loopholes' are really just giveaways, and which ones are useful? And then demand that we act on that analysis.

We know that at the federal level, we've had a strong economy at 90% rates and a shitty economy at today's record low rates. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that raising rates is automatically good. But we can conclude that raising the top rate isn't necessarily going to destroy the economy or send all 'job creators' running off to Monaco.

We have to get away from labeling every exemption as a 'giveaway' and every tax hike as 'socialist'. Drop all the idealogical trash talk, and look at things pragmatically.
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: Billionaires pay no state tax

Postby Bert Ernie » Wed Jun 27, 2012 9:00 am

bdog wrote:Bert I think there are ways to do it but they need to be creative. The ideal solution would feed off the billionaires propensity to be greedy. And they are greedy else they would not have become billionaires.


I want to make sure I understand your position here. So are we in agreement that a higher tax on our most wealthy would not, necessarily, be a BAD thing if we could appropriately close loopholes and get policy in place where it became do-able?

bdog wrote:Added: I don't even think bullying comes into play. It's more a straight forward "this is what I want" and if you can't get it to me I'll go elsewhere. It's not personal, it's strictly business.


I understand that position, but I don't agree with it. It's a threat -- "I'll pick up my ball and go home." To me, this type of threat = bullying. Moreover, it's not very "community minded." It's hard to argue you give a rip about those around you while working behind the scenes best you can to ensure you contribute as little as possible to that common welfare. It's my opinion -- and I think history supports this -- is that it's NOT about what's in the best interest of community or common welfare for many Tea Party conservatives. It's about ensuring they hang on to what they believe is "theirs" and then to utilize that wealth and power to ensure they do. And, over the last 30 years, I believe we've seen just that. And we've seen how that chasm between the have's and have nots has grown. That's not what I want the world or my community to look like. I respect that your view may be different.

bdog wrote:Re: Meade. TDPF Meade only exists as a reaction to the Henrys of the forum. Meade responds "in kind". I am starting to do that as well. If Henry wants to act like a troll then I will respond in kind.
If he wants to discuss rather than advocate then I will treat him with respect.


Again, that seems pretty junior high to me. If he doesn't have anything of substance to add to the forum -- and is merely responding "in kind" to what he envisions as disrespect -- over time he loses credibility. His posts lose any influence. Put me down as one of those guys who simply ignores or blocks those posters. And Meade is likely the next on that list. Why wouldn't I block these people? They are adding nothing to the discourse in terms of resolution and I'm not missing anything by doing so.
Bert Ernie
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:59 pm

Re: Billionaires pay no state tax

Postby Peanutbutter » Wed Jun 27, 2012 9:59 am

you don't think rich people should be able to deduct investment losses from what they owe in income tax? Fair enough.

Just the billionaires? Down to the millionaires? Anyone making over $100,000?

What if their losing investments went to things like green energy? Still no deduction for losses?


Bumped.

Will Henry ever address these questions?
Peanutbutter
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:54 am

Re: Billionaires pay no state tax

Postby pjbogart » Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:17 am

Peanutbutter wrote:
you don't think rich people should be able to deduct investment losses from what they owe in income tax? Fair enough.

Just the billionaires? Down to the millionaires? Anyone making over $100,000?

What if their losing investments went to things like green energy? Still no deduction for losses?


Bumped.

Will Henry ever address these questions?


Yeah, except Henry never said that he thought you shouldn't be able to deduct investment losses from your income. It was a strawman argument and didn't deserve a response at the time and doesn't deserve a response now.

Come up with a question that doesn't include false allegations.
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6154
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: Billionaires pay no state tax

Postby Peanutbutter » Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:27 am

pjbogart wrote:Come up with a question that doesn't include false allegations.


The title of this thread is a totally false allegation, yet people are still responding to it. The questions that were asked is directly related to why some people may not have taxable income in certain years, and thus they are applicable to the topic of why some people may not pay income taxes in some years.

It is obvious that Henry started this thread just to be a troll, and that he has no desire to actually discuss anything or answer any questions. Like most Madison liberals, he is still bitter about having his ass handed to him in the last couple elections and is trying to stir up some good old fashioned "class envy" in an attempt to win the next one.
Peanutbutter
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:54 am

Re: Billionaires pay no state tax

Postby pjbogart » Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:51 am

Two billionaires didn't pay any state income taxes. Was that an unusual year where they had losses to deduct of or a lot of deductible expenditures? Maybe. But isn't it somewhat strange that Republicans crow about lowering taxes on the wealthy if some of them are paying no taxes as it is?

And perhaps the best question to ask: If lower taxes on the wealthy creates jobs and we've been steadily lowering taxes on the wealthy for 30 years, why hasn't it created more jobs? In America, that is. Our State has one of the worst, if not the worst job creation in the nation yet these two billionaires didn't pay any State income taxes. Now, perhaps they created a bunch of jobs last year, I'm not sure if that's the case or not. But if they didn't, doesn't that suggest that maybe trickle down economics isn't an efficient way of growing our economy?
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6154
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: Billionaires pay no state tax

Postby DCB » Wed Jun 27, 2012 12:23 pm

pjbogart wrote: Now, perhaps they created a bunch of jobs last year, I'm not sure if that's the case or not.

Well, they probably kept a few tax accountants employed. So there's that.
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: Billionaires pay no state tax

Postby rabble » Wed Jun 27, 2012 1:00 pm

pjbogart wrote: If lower taxes on the wealthy creates jobs and we've been steadily lowering taxes on the wealthy for 30 years, why hasn't it created more jobs? In America, that is.

It's interesting to watch that one get trotted out and then slowly fade away.

I can't recall ever hearing or seeing a direct answer but if I understand the implications in all the speechifyin' the problem is that we haven't lowered taxes enough for enough rich people, and they're afraid that if they create jobs, their taxes will go up.

So we have to lower the taxes more, for more job creators, and then convince them that we won't raise them. Ever.

THEN boy howdy, will you see some jobs come flyin' in. Unless the devious socialist nazi america-hating leftists fuck it up. Which they often do.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6157
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: Billionaires pay no state tax

Postby bdog » Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:10 pm

DCB wrote:
Bert Ernie wrote:
bdog wrote:So that's the rub - how are you going to actually raise taxes and not have the rich run off to some other environ that has a different playing field?


I've reflected on that very issue. I believe any vacuum created by people trying to avoid investing in the idea of community -- those who would rather bolt and dodge -- would quickly be filled by others. I can't get behind the "do what we say, or we'll pick up and move our businesses elsewhere" bullying.

First of all, lets recognize that the issue isn't just the 'tax rate'. Its the overall tax policy. The tax policy allows for all kinds of exemptions, which is why the 2 billionaires in question pay income tax some years and not others. A tax rate of 90% doesn't capture any revenue if we allow enough loopholes.

Some of those loopholes are probably a good idea, if it promotes investment that improves the economy. But its reasonable to question that policy if a billionaire pays $0.

In another post, we learned that that the state legislature required a cost comparison for outsourcing. Which was good, because we learned that consultants cost more than in-house staff. But then decided to ignore the conclusions, and keep the over-priced consultants. Can we fix that?

So lets do a similar analysis of our state tax policy. Which 'loopholes' are really just giveaways, and which ones are useful? And then demand that we act on that analysis.

We know that at the federal level, we've had a strong economy at 90% rates and a shitty economy at today's record low rates. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that raising rates is automatically good. But we can conclude that raising the top rate isn't necessarily going to destroy the economy or send all 'job creators' running off to Monaco.

We have to get away from labeling every exemption as a 'giveaway' and every tax hike as 'socialist'. Drop all the idealogical trash talk, and look at things pragmatically.

I agree with most of you wrote here. Great post DCB!
bdog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3247
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

Re: Billionaires pay no state tax

Postby bdog » Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:13 pm

Peanutbutter wrote:
you don't think rich people should be able to deduct investment losses from what they owe in income tax? Fair enough.

Just the billionaires? Down to the millionaires? Anyone making over $100,000?

What if their losing investments went to things like green energy? Still no deduction for losses?


Bumped.

Will Henry ever address these questions?

No, he won't.
bdog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3247
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

Re: Billionaires pay no state tax

Postby Henry Vilas » Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:30 pm

bdog, is your memory that short? My post from two days ago:
Henry Vilas wrote:bgod, your question is a dollar limit on who pays a little more. How profound. Let's start with those in the top marginal tax bracket, if you know what that means.

You might not like my answer but I did so, no matter how much you protest.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19881
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

PreviousNext

Return to Local Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar