Your Taxes could be reduced by 44% if corpo loopholes closed....

[TM7]

so says IRS.....fyi TM7
.
.
.IRS Ombudsman: Could Lower Tax Rates by 44% with Tax Reform;
  WashPost Buries Story on A13

. By Ken  Shepherd | January 10, 2013 | 16:45 62 35Reddit1 35[/t]A   A    . "Congress could lower individual rates across the board by 44 percent and  come up with the same amount of revenue if it eliminated all tax breaks"  Washington Post reporter Josh Hicks noted in a January 10. Given the ongoing  battles over taxes, spending, and the national debt in Congress, you'd think  this would be worthy of front-page placement in the Post. Editors apparently  disagreed, placing it on the bottom of page A13, today's edition of The Fed  Page.    "Congress should simplify the tax code to ease the burden on filers, as well  as take a hard look at the myriad tax breaks that cost nearly as much revenue as  the government generates from individual income taxes," Hicks noted in his lead  paragraph, referring to National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson's annual  report to Congress. "[T]he existing code of 4 million words imposes a  'significant, even unconscionable' burden of compliance on taxpayers," Hicks  noted, quoting Olson.    What's more, taxpayers spend some "6 billion hours a year trying to conform  to the rules." For its part, the IRS hasn't been much help to taxpayers with the  tax-collecting agency failing "to answer 48 percent of all taxpayer letters  within the agency's established time frame in 2012, representing a significant  increase above the rate of 12 percent in 2004."    The  vast majority of Americans -- regardless of political ideology or political  party -- agree that the tax code is too confusing, too complex, and resultantly  manifestly unfair. Given that fact, and the calls by many on the right and left  for the need for fundamental, comprehensive tax reform, it's absolutely  ludicrous for the Post to have buried this story.About the AuthorKen Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters. Click here Read more:  http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2013/01/10/irs-ombudsman-could-lower-tax-rates-44-tax-reform-washpost-buries-stor#ixzz2JVpNESpT

[Casull]

tm7, I didn't see anything in what you posted that referred to "corpo loopholes".  It refers to "tax breaks".  Those apply to all taxpayers (well, even some non-payers).  And, the reason the gubmit won't get rid of the tax breaks is because it allows them to control our behavior.  They will "give" us some more of our money to keep if we send a kid to college, buy products that can't compete in the market (think green), etc.

[mcwoodduck]

If you close your so called loopholes.  The loophole being legal. On corperate taxes
a few things will happen.
1) your taxes will not go down.  If the government brings in more $ they will spend it.  They will not give it back to you.
2) do you mean loopholes like morgage deductions?  That will raise rents on rental properties.  to make up for the loss.
3) do you understand that as taxes do up, so do prices?  Remember the old chestnut that the left used to cart out about corperations not paying taxes, they are correct they build the taxes into the price of the goods and services they provide.
4) as deductions for hiring certain people will go away and so will those people's jobs.
5) as deductions go aways that are funding some sector of the economy (a favor to some politician) like Solar or wind or widgets of some kind so will those jobs as the people will no longer buy that product to get the deduction.   
As usual liberals only look at the short term of we want more and not at the long term, of what will happen if they take more.  Or maybe they do want fewer jobs, higher prices, and higher rents.  It is easier to get a mob up if they are about to loose everything.  no job, money not worth as much, and someone blaming the rich as to why they do nto have a job, a place to live, and what little $ they have is not worth that much. 

[lakota]

They would never lower our taxes. If your scenario were true, then the government would just find a new hole to piss our tax dollars down into.

[Guy Pike]

As if the 16 trillion dollar hole we already have isn't big enough to piss in!

[scootrd]

They would never lower our taxes. If your scenario were true, then the government would just find a new hole to piss our tax dollars down into.

Yep,  like instead of investing in our childrens future  ensuring all have shoes, a warm meal , a good education, and a warm safe roof over their head , or perhaps putting it back in the SS file drawer and removing a few congressional robber baron IOU's, or investing it in rebuilding our US infrastructure we would pizz it away as subsidies to some debtor nation overseas or to bribe some Pakistani tribal poppy field leader.

Oh wait we do that now with our tax Payer monies already.

[mcwoodduck]

They would never lower our taxes. If your scenario were true, then the government would just find a new hole to piss our tax dollars down into.

Yep,  like instead of investing in our childrens future  ensuring all have shoes, a warm meal , a good education, and a warm safe roof over their head , or perhaps putting it back in the SS file drawer and removing a few congressional robber baron IOU's, or investing it in rebuilding our US infrastructure we would pizz it away as subsidies to some debtor nation overseas or to bribe some Pakistani tribal poppy field leader.

Oh wait we do that now with our tax Payer monies already.

Isn't it the parents responsibility to make sure the kids have shoes, food and warm clothes for winter?  Isn't it the parents that should make sure the kids have a good education?  Making sure the school is teaching and making sure the kid understands what is being taught?  If the kid needs someting else then they either provide it or find a program that fits the kids learning diaabilities.
The Idea of our republic government is that government provides a way for people to have jobs in the private sector.  Your abilities are waht are going to move you up or out of the company you work for.  Out can be a good thing as you leave for a better job. 

[scootrd]

Isn't it the parents responsibility to make sure the kids have shoes, food and warm clothes for winter?  Isn't it the parents that should make sure the kids have a good education?  Making sure the school is teaching and making sure the kid understands what is being taught?

You assume all parents have the resources to do so. For example, Tell it to all the parents in Appalachia. Because we all know   Its their fault they got laid off working in the mine, It's their fault the house got foreclosed on and they now live out of a car.  It's their fault they can barely afford milk. It's their fault their child's feet grew another size and their is no additional monies for shoes. It's their fault their schools have no computers, or books.

Here is a piece of n idiotic GOP legislation being pushed.

 Republican State Sen. Stacey Campfield of Knoxville proposes to cut welfare benefits to parents whose children don’t make satisfactory academic progress” in school. Campfield’s bill adds a new requirement that the child make “satisfactory academic progress” or suffer a 30 percent penalty of benefits. The maximum benefit for a mother with two children is $185 a month, If you take $60 plus dollars away, you’re just further limiting people who already have extremely few resources.

So lets see , put the burden on the grade school child to ensure assistance is not cut for the family . Especially when the parents themselves may only have a grade school education because they had to drop out when they were young to support their family themselves. Yep this little peice of legislation will help solve everything and break the cycle.

We should definitely keep those loopholes, continue to bailout financial institutions, and provide subsidies to overseas nations and corporations all the while penalizing the down trodden and most vulnerable here in the USA instead of closing the loopholes and really use the monies to provide training programs, assistance , educational resources, outreach programs etc to help families with a hand up not a hand out.

“I’m not concerned about the very poor, we have a safety net there,” - Mitt Romney (unless your the senator above who wants to cut the safety net as well)

"Some people call you the elites; I call you my base. - George Bush

[mechanic]

Scootr, the maximum benefit for a mother with two children, dependent on circumstance could total over $2000.00 per month.
 
There is Tennessee Family First, (welfare)
Tennessee Food Stamp program
Tennessee Head Start and Early Head Start
Tennessee Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Tennessee School Breakfast and Lunch Program
Tennessee WIC
Tennessee Summer Food Program
Tennessee Tenn Care
Medicaid
HUD or section 8 housing assistance
 
Ben

[scootrd]

Scootr, the maximum benefit for a mother with two children, dependent on circumstance could total over $2000.00 per month.
 
There is Tennessee Family First, (welfare)
Tennessee Food Stamp program
Tennessee Head Start and Early Head Start
Tennessee Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Tennessee School Breakfast and Lunch Program
Tennessee WIC
Tennessee Summer Food Program
Tennessee Tenn Care
Medicaid
HUD or section 8 housing assistance
 
Ben

I was using TANF as an example.
Under TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program )to Better Serve Single Mothers. Families First recipients are required to work or participate in work‐related training or other activities for at least 30 hours per week so they can receive $185 in assistance .

The overarching point was when did this all get so skewed with our countries priorities.  We are so eager to provide assistance to other nations, corporations, financial institutions, give a pass to top 2 % and the like that shelter $$ overseas for purposes of tax avoidance. We give white collar crime a pass , (I know of no person yet to be indited for yje mortgage financial fiasco), And then just to add sakt to the wound those very same corporations we bailed out actually have the nerve to  try and sue the very taxpayers that save em.

Yet we we go after waitresses for not claiming their tips, or cut assistance programs for our most vulnerable.
As a nation we have lost our way.

[ChungDoQuan]

The "corporations pass their tax burdens on to the consumer" theory only goes so far. Once the amount they try to pass on to the consumer exceeds what the consumer can pay, the corporation has priced itself out of the game. That is exactly what happened to US corporations in electronics, the auto industry, aviation, etc. When their products pass the point the consumer can pay, that company folds (assuming no bailouts) and other, smaller, less top heavy companies form to provide the same things at affordable prices. Too big to fail SHOULD fail--- it's a dinosaur. Look at big oil: without subsidies, gas would be $10 a gallon. Demand would drop, and all of a sudden, alternative energy would be LESS expensive. People would drive very little, mass transportation would become very important, and fuel oil would be replaced with wind and solar power--- electric cars would become a necessity. US companies would have to INVENT and INNOVATE or they would simply fail.

[BUGEYE]

I'm sure glad that liberals DON'T take tax deductions.

[coyotejoe]

I certainly am in favor of simplifying the tax codes, I don't know why some version of the "flat tax" wouldn't work just fine except that congress would never pas it since it would require them to pay taxes as well. I also don't know why it is so hard for some to grasp the fact that corporations do not pay taxes. A corporation has to make a profit over and above any tax or cease to exist. It might be feasible to work with some sort of "excess profits" tax, maybe, but for the most part a tax on corporations is just a way for the lying low life scum of Washington DC to pass on hidden taxes that the consumer ends up paying. It is only the final consumer who pays any taxes at all. I'm sure we've all seen the numbers which show that somewhere around 50% of the average citizen's cost of living is hidden taxes. When I hear some politician rant about how he's going to "tax those big corporations" I say "if you lie to my face why would I trust you behind my back?"

[ironglow]

  Is our memory so short?  In an effort to avoid going "over the cliff",  the Republicans offered a plan to "close all loopholes".  Stupid immediately rejected their plan out of hand..

[ultramag44]

Alright poodles, I'll break this down for you, short & sweet.

The US has the HIGHEST corporate tax in the world. But corporations don't pay raxes per se. They build EVERY so-called (called by the demo-rats) "business tax" into the price of the product.

Yes, if you are willing to live in a cave, w/o a phone, car, electricity, running water etc, you might beat paying so many of those passed-on taxes. I'm betting you won't.

It is NOT the responsibility of government to feed, clothe, provide medical care, Obama phones etc to the huddled, unwashed, low-information-voting-for-a-living-welfare-riding-food-stamp-using inbreds!

But that's what we're doing....

[scotsman]

Regardless of what political party anyone here belongs to or follows, if you don't think the entire tax structure in our country is a big hot mess then you haven't been paying attention or taxes.

[SHOOTALL]

yep corp's will pass on cost to consumers . yep some industry went off shore to countries that do not have unions , EPA and OSHA. Yes Americans make more money also but in reality they produce more per person than most others.
 Bottom line is one way or another Americans pay the taxes period. And if all products are made off shore Americans won't have jobs / income to buy the products  . So no matter your slant on politics if we don't start getting companies up and running we will become a dead economy.

[SHOOTALL]

One other thing who will have the capital to invest ? the bankrupt govt. or the wealthy corp's or the Rich Americans ?

[Casull]

Look at big oil: without subsidies, gas would be $10 a gallon.

 
 
 
That is a pure load of BS!!!!!!!!!!!!   Please provide some factual basis for that pile of nonsense (don't worry, I know you can't).  How do you expect ANYONE to take you seriously when you stretch the truth beyond the bounds of falsehood?     

[Casull]

The other thing the the Far right can't understand, and believe me I don't know why, is corps pass along taxes ONLY TO THOSE THAT BUY THEIR GOODS AND SERVICES.

 
 
I don't know why you would think such nonsense.  Of course those of us on the right know that corporations can only pass along taxes to those that buy their goods and services.  DUH.  What you seem unable to understand is that as long as people need and/or want those goods and services, they will purchase them.  As for the claim that they can only pass along those costs as long as the market will allow, do you really think that the other players that have to pay the same taxes somehow magically WON'T have to pass those costs along as well?  The only ones that would be able to do that would be foreign companies that don't have to pay the increased taxes.  Soooo, are you saying that American companies should fold because they can't afford to compete with foreign companies due to increased taxation on the American companies?  Or, do you come to the more common sense and logical approach that the US government needs to learn to live within its means (like the rest of us)?

[SHOOTALL]

Look at big oil: without subsidies, gas would be $10 a gallon.

 
 
 
That is a pure load of BS!!!!!!!!!!!!   Please provide some factual basis for that pile of nonsense (don't worry, I know you can't).  How do you expect ANYONE to take you seriously when you stretch the truth beyond the bounds of falsehood?     

it would be interesting to watch if subsidies and drilling restrictions both were lifted . You did notice that the oil co's were restricted then given money so the market could be manipulated ? Bet the price of gas would drop . as supply would equal or supass demand.

[jimster]

Taxes "could" be reduced...if...?
Congress with NEVER reduce my taxes by 44 percent...no matter what else happens. We all know that, but I guess it's nice to know they "could".
I suppose they "could" close the borders too, or they "could" stop spending more than they have, and they "could" stop printing money too. They "could" also forget this silly gun ban thing too.
Does anyone here really think the half of us paying taxes would be reduced at all substantially, let alone a whopping 44 percent? As someone else said, any gains they make in income in the government, will be spent a year or so before it even gets there. Thats a fact.
 

[jimster]

They will not lower our taxes no matter what. You could TAKE everything the top 400 coporations have, and your taxes would not go down one little bit. It would be spent, before it even got there. Then you would be 400 corporations less, and a whole bunch more unemployed to bot with even less money coming in. Cutting taxes is not what our government does, especially the people you have in there now. You could never convince me that this bunch of people in congress and the white house will ever lower my taxes, they have been going up, and must go up to grow government even more, which is the main goal of this bunch right now. They are in the health care business now, thousands of government employees MUST be paid to support this, and it's already running in the red and bankrupt and hasn't even kicked in all the way yet.
 
So it's kind of a mute point to think what if we had all the corporations money things would be so much better...so what if we did...not one lousy thing would change except more people out of work and less money going to government in the long run. Your going to have to starve the beast, or it will grow and eat more. Giving them more money is not the answer right now. They are out of control. Starve them until their house is in order.  Nobody wants to pay more taxes and have them invest it in bankrupt green schemes, run guns across borders, and use it to campaign with...what sense does that make? They would squader the corporations money...who wants that?

[ChungDoQuan]

http://www.progress.org/gasoline.htm
 
I was giving them the benefit of the doubt--- look at gas prices per gallon in countries without subsidies. Of course, the righty press says it wouldn't affect the pump price at all (using righty voodoo math), at which point the logical question is, "So why do you want to continue the subsidies?"

As for the argument that we can't do without the corporation's products or services, that's exactlt WHY they need to be trust busted. US corporatism  is NOT the same as capitalism.

[mechanic]

I sure would like some of that $1.02 per gallon gas Chung!
 
Ben

[Casull]

chungdoquan, now that was funny.  Seriously, that was funny.  I read that tripe and the referenced paper within.  And, I'm really amazed that someone who appears to have comprehension (as you appear) could rely on that as proof of anything.  Thank you.  Very, very humorous.

[ChungDoQuan]

So, in y'all's opinion, why continue oil subsidies?

[SHOOTALL]

which ones ?

[ChungDoQuan]

Any.

[gypsyman]

Bottom line. The ship is sinking. You don't try and bail faster, you plug the hole you friggin' idiot!! gypsyman