Kid Rock endorses Mitt Romney

[Singleshotsam]

found on http://news.yahoo.com/kid-rock-endorses-mitt-romney-video-182531049.html
 
Which asks the age old question:  "If Kidd Rock endorses Mitt Romney, does anyone care?"

[lakota]

Just people that want a really huge taxbreak and offshore accounts.....I'd put Kid in that group...
.
.TM7
.

So you are saying that elitist liberal democrats are endorsing Romney too?

[ironglow]

Just people that want a really huge taxbreak and offshore accounts.....I'd put Kid in that group...
.
.TM7
.

So you are saying that elitist liberal democrats are endorsing Romney too?

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
 
                

[Singleshotsam]

All the responses cracked me up lol.

[ironglow]

  Avoid those loopholes...insist on a flat tax or sales tax...

[SwampThing762]

TM7,

Examine the IRS tax tables with your 1040.....the higher your taxable income, the higher your taxes.  That is called progressive taxation.    Another hint.....the welfare parasites pay zero taxes; the top 10% of earners pay 90% of the taxes.   There are 47% of American households who pay no income taxes.   

ST762

[flmason]

Don't want to get into a shouting match here, just want to figure it out.

One says tax rate is progressive, look at the tax tables. OK that's easy to do.

Other says, real tax rate is regressive. How to find out if that's a fact?

[flmason]

Don't want to get into a shouting match here, just want to figure it out.

One says tax rate is progressive, look at the tax tables. OK that's easy to do.

Other says, real tax rate is regressive. How to find out if that's a fact?

.
Okay have a look here...Far right column..Notice the real taxes payed are as flat as a pancake and have been since before Bush Jr. Also, if you need to see data, Corp taxes are the lowest % of total tax revenue ever, and still declining. In fact, Corp taxes in the USA as % of GDP are the lowest in the world.  Payed Tax real data:

.
.
When we consider the total tax burden, which are all taxes together, state, local, federal, payroll, sales, excize, property tax, etc...the tax system is incrediblely regressive....Just for fun, lookup real estate taxes in your area; compare a 250k property with a 2.5mil property,,,you will notice not even flat but incredibley regressive rates. There's alot of mythology about taxes, and my opinion coming from allegedly conservative sources.
 
 
.TM7

Am I reading the far right wrongly? Looks to me like total tax as a *percentage* is progressive, right? The other comparison that would be interesting would be a total dollars breakout, i.e. not a percentage.

[SwampThing762]

TM7,

Corporate tax rates are not relevant to this discussion.    Furthermore, I do not know where you got your data, but it does prove the reality of our taxes as progressive.  Also, sales taxes and other excise taxes are based on consumption -- the more money you have, the more you consume, more sales tax you pay.  A welfare parasite pays nowhere near the amount of taxes, by percentage or otherwise, as a top 1% millionaire.   

The Constitutional Conservative breaks it down by percentage:

Taxes paid by highest incomes

• The top 1% pay 22.7% of taxes.
• The top 10% pay 50% of taxes.
• The top 20% pay 65.3% of taxes.
• The top 40% pay 84.3% of taxes.

Taxes paid by lowest incomes

• The bottom 20% pay 1.1% of taxes.
• The bottom 40% pay 6.1% of taxes.

The bottom 40% pay about 6% of taxes, while the top 40% pay about 85% of taxes — or about 14 times more than their counterparts in the lower brackets.

Also, if you click the link below it will provide the 2012 IRS federal income tax brackets showing the progressive nature of our taxation system.

http://www.fivecentnickel.com/2011/09/28/2012-federal-income-tax-brackets-irs-tax-rates/

ST762


 

[lakota]

Just people that want a really huge taxbreak and offshore accounts.....I'd put Kid in that group...
.
.TM7
.

So you are saying that elitist liberal democrats are endorsing Romney too?

.
Nope, I think that is your assumption....I don't know if Kid is an 'elitist liberal democrat' as you say, or a Ted Nugent radical nutter...don't know; I just figure he's worth a few dozen million and likes tax loopholes, and according to his 'managers' he needs tax loopholes...that means identifying with tax loophole kings like Romney....very very practical for the Kid.  Hey, don't know...maybe Romney got rights to play one of Kid's tunes at the Big Convention...
.
....TM7

And I sure rich democrats dont utilize tax loopholes. What a joke. Nice defelction.

[Doublebass73]

I'm glad to see that Kid Rock endorsed the gun grabber who signed Socialist healthcare into law. I wonder which gun grabber that signed Socialist healthcare into law he'll support in the general election?

[lakota]

Rich people and tax loopholes-its not a partisan problem.

[Cuts Crooked]

TM7,

Corporate tax rates are not relevant to this discussion.  ST762

I donno......who ultimately PAYS the corporate taxes......YOU  do!

[flmason]

TM7,

Corporate tax rates are not relevant to this discussion.  ST762

I donno......who ultimately PAYS the corporate taxes......YOU  do!

No doubt. Some would claim, "The dirty little secret of capitalism is that it's based on cheap labor." Yet communism failed.  So where's the answer to a high quality life for us all?

[flmason]

TM7,

Corporate tax rates are not relevant to this discussion.  ST762

I donno......who ultimately PAYS the corporate taxes......YOU  do!

No doubt. Some would claim, "The dirty little secret of capitalism is that it's based on cheap labor." Yet communism failed.  So where's the answer to a high quality life for us all?

.
This is not really a partisan question as some would frame to sow disunity....this is a We-The-People and preservation of the middle class problem..
 
Cheap labor, everybody like cheap labor, that's why our borders are maintained porous....Its like a huge tax cut!....And Corporations can only pass along taxes insofar as the market will bare...to say that they can just pass along their taxes onto the backs of consumers is to admit failure in competitive capitalism......competiton still rules.  As for failure of socialism that may be myth in part.  Certainly China has emerged as an industrial titan nowadays, and I don't hear any country in the world demanding a HC system just like the Americans....So in some things socialism works OK and other more discretionary products comeptiton works well--there just isn't one hard right or left dogma that suits all situations....People must do what works.
.
As for socialism assigned to Romney and the Kid...yeah,,,as long as it is socially spread costs and privately owned profits...
.
...TM7

LOL!

Well, I'm thinking the Chinese socialists have learned the same thing capitalists have... cheap labor (exploitation of labor, I guess if you want to make it a Marxist thing) is the trick. Apparently somebody has to lose.

Disunity isn't where I'm coming from. I'd like to see everyone devise and agree on a method as to where we could all have maximal freedom and maximal quality of life. To me the debate is simply on how to achieve that. Though I'm quite sure there are many who would argue that, that is not even the goal. As for me, I simply want to live well, with the least aggravation possible.

[Casull]

...to say that they can just pass along their taxes onto the backs of consumers is to admit failure in competitive capitalism......competiton still rules.

 
 
tm7, that is a bit (actually very) disengenuous.  Of course they will pass that cost along to consumers.  Competition doesn't enter into the picture if ALL the providers of that product are taxed on it (you know, as in they all have that same cost).

[Singleshotsam]

Corporate tax rates are not relevant to this discussion.

Since when does any thread stay relevant to a discussion anymore?   

[ironglow]

  So back to somebody named Kid Rock...so he endorses Romney; who cares one way or another ?  Same as Bill Mahr endorsing Obama, who cares...other than Obama being given a cool $ million by Mahr ?

[Casull]

Of course taxes are revelant in competiton as it is one of the elements of cost(s) in bringing a product or service to market....you still need to bring your product to market competively against the competition,,,,,at some point you can not just tack taxes onto your product's selling price....you still have to comepete. Don't be such a pessimist about our capitalist free market...

 
 
Now, that is just dishonest.  Say three companies all sell a product that costs them about $80.  They all sell it for about $90, due to competition.  NOW, say they have a tax increase of $20 per unit, so they all have a cost of about $100 per unit.  Of course the cost to the public is going to go up.  EVEN with competition, the public is probably going to pay about $110 or so.  To argue otherwise is to be dishonest or intentionally blind.

[Cuts Crooked]

Now, that is just dishonest.  Say three companies all sell a product that costs them about $80.  They all sell it for about $90, due to competition.  NOW, say they have a tax increase of $20 per unit, so they all have a cost of about $100 per unit.  Of course the cost to the public is going to go up.  EVEN with competition, the public is probably going to pay about $110 or so.  To argue otherwise is to be dishonest or intentionally blind.

+1!!!!!!!!
When I had my own business I figured the tax factor in every time I bid or quoted a job. So did everyone who had the same kind of business I had! It was just a part of doing business...still is!

[flmason]

Now, that is just dishonest.  Say three companies all sell a product that costs them about $80.  They all sell it for about $90, due to competition.  NOW, say they have a tax increase of $20 per unit, so they all have a cost of about $100 per unit.  Of course the cost to the public is going to go up.  EVEN with competition, the public is probably going to pay about $110 or so.  To argue otherwise is to be dishonest or intentionally blind.

+1!!!!!!!!
When I had my own business I figured the tax factor in every time I bid or quoted a job. So did everyone who had the same kind of business I had! It was just a part of doing business...still is!

"Cost $80, sell for $90", LOL! Try "a keystone". Markups at each level from manufacturer, to distributor, to retailer are like 100% at each hop. End consumer gets *nailed*. Internet was supposed to kill some of that via "disintermediation"... ain't seen it yet. But offshoring has certainly *nailed* the little person from the salary direction as well.

[Casull]

"Cost $80, sell for $90", LOL! Try "a keystone". Markups at each level from manufacturer, to distributor, to retailer are like 100% at each hop. End consumer gets *nailed*. Internet was supposed to kill some of that via "disintermediation"... ain't seen it yet. But offshoring has certainly *nailed* the little person from the salary direction as well.

 
 
Yeah.         Find a company making a 50% profit (100% markup) and they could sell stock like nobody's business.  Just ain't happening.

[scootrd]

"Cost $80, sell for $90", LOL! Try "a keystone". Markups at each level from manufacturer, to distributor, to retailer are like 100% at each hop. End consumer gets *nailed*. Internet was supposed to kill some of that via "disintermediation"... ain't seen it yet. But offshoring has certainly *nailed* the little person from the salary direction as well.

 
 
Yeah.         Find a company making a 50% profit (100% markup) and they could sell stock like nobody's business.  Just ain't happening.

Went shopping for some new furniture with the wife.. Markup has got to be 200%.  Ridiculous some of the prices

[scootrd]

Just a quick primer  -

 In 1817, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government.

In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate.

In 1868, Congress again focused its taxation efforts on tobacco and distilled spirits and eliminated the income tax in 1872. It had a short-lived revival in 1894 and 1895. In the latter year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the (Personal ) income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution.

Our founding fathers never intended us to have our personal income taxed  -  only companies/corporations.
Those that made a good product at a good price were to be taxed fairly on that product and if not overpriced would recoup a portion of the levied tax through sales on the open market.


  It wasn't until 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations.

Whats needed is true tax reform and though we can probably no longer revert back to precisely what our founding fathers intended we should try to achieve something a bit more closer. Taxing corps appropriately on good, greater tariffs on imports , and the lower personal income taxes would be a good start instead of trying to balance the sheet on the backs of the 99%.

Hey Congress , news flash , the middle class well is dry.

[flmason]

Just a quick primer  -

 In 1817, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government.

In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate.

In 1868, Congress again focused its taxation efforts on tobacco and distilled spirits and eliminated the income tax in 1872. It had a short-lived revival in 1894 and 1895. In the latter year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the (Personal ) income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution.

Our founding fathers never intended us to have our personal income taxed  -  only companies/corporations.
Those that made a good product at a good price were to be taxed fairly on that product and if not overpriced would recoup a portion of the levied tax through sales on the open market.


  It wasn't until 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations.

Whats needed is true tax reform and though we can probably no longer revert back to precisely what our founding fathers intended we should try to achieve something a bit more closer. Taxing corps appropriately on good, greater tariffs on imports , and the lower personal income taxes would be a good start instead of trying to balance the sheet on the backs of the 99%.

Hey Congress , news flash , the middle class well is dry.

There's no winning for the worker bee. If you tax the corps. they'll just raise price, lower salaries or offshore, or whatever.

In the end the "system", for better or worse, is designed to hoover money upward and concentrate it therein.

Since the central imperative is profit, or more correctly that businesses and business owners profit, those who are not owners have the real target on their backs.

So in the end, the worker bee get the short end of the stick no matter how you slice it. The system is called "capitalism", not "people-ism" or some such. It's by, for and about ownership. Everything else is pretty much a dog and pony show with the final intent of seeing just where the line between max profit and revolt of the peasants is, LOL!

[scootrd]

Okay,,good comments flmason....two things to remember.....Corps can only pass tax costs along to consumers insomuch as the market will bear, and so extreme profit of executive recompense becomes targetable...and tax cost built into product costs are discretionary...i.e. I don't have to buy any corp's product....So when corp taxes are cut, actually shifted to the middle class en masse, we all pay for their breaks- -when corp's are taxed only their customers pay their tax share.....
.
.
....TM7
.

Yep.
Those that made a good product at a good price if taxed fairly on that product and if not overpriced would recoup a portion of the levied tax through sales on the open market. Can't continue have it both ways.

[SHOOTALL]

don't tax corps go to a flat rate tax and don't allow corps to keep but so much capital to invest the rest has to go to owners or stock holders then owners and stock holders pay for the profit they gained.
 
as it is now the tax payers paid for GM and GM won't pay taxes for some time with a 40 billion dollar credit .

[flmason]

Okay,,good comments flmason....two things to remember.....Corps can only pass tax costs along to consumers insomuch as the market will bear, and so extreme profit of executive recompense becomes targetable...and tax cost built into product costs are discretionary...i.e. I don't have to buy any corp's product....So when corp taxes are cut, actually shifted to the middle class en masse, we all pay for their breaks- -when corp's are taxed only their customers pay their tax share.....
.
.
....TM7
.

Well, in a sense an executive is a sort of employee, but they have control, so not sure how targetable they are. I definitely know shareholders who *want* to target them. But, unless you have enough shares to effect control, my understanding is, it's difficult.

Yes, theoretically you don't have to buy any corp's products, but as my thread on trying to "Go Grizzly Adams" elsewhere seems to indicate... unless you have the money to buy the land, you can't really drop out of the system, at least here in the U.S. And even then there property taxes. So ultimately, practically speaking, it's very, very hard to avoid using some corp. products. But agreed, breaks are decided for us, purchases are decided by us.

As for "what the market will bear", that's a little bit more difficult of a Gordian Knot to deal with. Because the whole thing is circular... but that it's carefully engineered to shave a bit off on each go around and deposit it upwards. The vast majority since the early 20th century went from being self sufficient, to being worker bees. I.e you get paid wholesale for your labor, but everything you buy is at retail. The same folks that set wages, set prices for goods....Then toss in the carefully engineered inflation via monetary policies of the Fed and it's closest allies and well... like any house edge in a casino... house always wins in the end.

Heck, I'm in a biz where I'm seeing jobs that were offshored to Brazil... now being sent to China... shazam! The Chinese gov't caps chinese wages... so even the commies have figured out that concentration of wealth is effected by exploiting labor. So, though there are definitely difference, same basic thing plan.

I guess in the end we all sell either goods or services, so we're all essentially either peddler or whores. And well... seems the pimps end up with the majority of the assets, LOL!

[ironglow]

"Cost $80, sell for $90", LOL! Try "a keystone". Markups at each level from manufacturer, to distributor, to retailer are like 100% at each hop. End consumer gets *nailed*. Internet was supposed to kill some of that via "disintermediation"... ain't seen it yet. But offshoring has certainly *nailed* the little person from the salary direction as well.

 
 
Yeah.         Find a company making a 50% profit (100% markup) and they could sell stock like nobody's business.  Just ain't happening.

Went shopping for some new furniture with the wife.. Markup has got to be 200%.  Ridiculous some of the prices

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
 
   This seems to be a common misunderstanding of capitalism which most liberals suffer from.  If some retailer is taking too much of a markup...don't buy from that retailer!  If customers walk away, that retailer has two choices; a) lower prices... or.. b) go out of business.  Nobody has their arm twisted as they enter a retail establishment !
   An exploitative business is certainly guilty of greed, but if you're looking for a place to vent your anger..look to your fellow consumers !  If they were not so gullible or stupid (take your choice) but to buy from an overpriced pigsty..that pigsty would no longer be in business.
  Capitalism is the fairest, most levelling type of economy... until the people elect communists to over tax and destroy the system.

[ironglow]

Don't want to get into a shouting match here, just want to figure it out.

One says tax rate is progressive, look at the tax tables. OK that's easy to do.

Other says, real tax rate is regressive. How to find out if that's a fact?

.
Okay have a look here...Far right column..Notice the real taxes payed are as flat as a pancake and have been since before Bush Jr. Also, if you need to see data, Corp taxes are the lowest % of total tax revenue ever, and still declining. In fact, Corp taxes in the USA as % of GDP are the lowest in the world.  Payed Tax real data:

.
.
When we consider the total tax burden, which are all taxes together, state, local, federal, payroll, sales, excize, property tax, etc...the tax system is incrediblely regressive....Just for fun, lookup real estate taxes in your area; compare a 250k property with a 2.5mil property,,,you will notice not even flat but incredibley regressive rates. There's alot of mythology about taxes, and my opinion coming from allegedly conservative sources.
 
 
.TM7

Am I reading the far right wrongly? Looks to me like total tax as a *percentage* is progressive, right? The other comparison that would be interesting would be a total dollars breakout, i.e. not a percentage.

.
 Looks like that table disappeared..!?  What it showed is that, except for the 2 lowest income qunitiles, that taxes tendered were around 30% of total income averaged out....that's FLAT..Hopefully, that table will come back_ _not appearing on my 'putor.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Swampthing762....No doubt in my mind Kid is incorporated...most of his tax obligations are thru corpo filings...so that discussion is also germain regarding supporting Mitt 'lower Corpo Taxes' Romney, just incidental that tax mythology harps on corpo taxes, but US corpo taxes are 3% GDP the lowest in the world, and share of corpo taxes to total revenue lowest ever in USA...taxes have been shifted to the middle class in reality,,,yet most middle class are arguing to shift more taxes onto themselves... ..go figure..
Also, if you want flat taxes, REALY FLAT TAXES, than taxes should be payed according to income share. Eg, if 1% of earners earn from all incomes 40% of the income...they get to pay 40% of the tax bill and so on down the line.......that's Flat Taxes!
.
.TM7

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
 
  This bit of propaganda is just a bunch of gibberish !  If the tax rate were indeed FLAT..no chart would be needed.. it could be contained in one line..   "You make $20,000..tax 10%...you make $1,000,000...tax 10%."    ...Pretty simple..right ?
 
  That's what God suggests..and if it's good enough for God..why should a government demand more ?