Clinton: US tax code is 'riddled with scams, loopholes' Democrat Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday that if the U.S. Congress does not act to close tax loopholes that benefit the wealthy and corporations, she will ask the Treasury Department to take up the issue if she is elected president. "Let's make sure that Wall Street, corporations and the super rich pay their fair share of taxes," Clinton said in Raleigh, North Carolina, the state capital. The former U.S. secretary of state used her campaign stop to offer her vision for bolstering the economy after using a speech on the topic on Tuesday to attack presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, predicting a "Trump recession" if he becomes president. "I think it's an understatement to say Americans face a choice in November," Clinton said on Wednesday. "I'm here today to offer an alternative. "When people say the game is rigged, the best evidence is the (U.S.) tax code. It is riddled with scams, loopholes and other special breaks," added Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee... http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/22/clinton-us-tax-code-is-riddled-with-scams-loopholes.html
Nitro, her and her husband helped put those loopholes in there. Kind of ironic isn't it. Just get rid of corp tax all together. Let small businesses compete with large businesses. Here is what I do. Any corporation who hides their revenues oveseas (Apple and Google) pays corp tax. Any corp who sends jobs overseas, pays corp tax. Any corp who domiciles all their income here and all their labor pays no corp income tax. BTW, Al Gore sits on the board of both Apple and Google of course.
I am beginning to believe this solution is correct, but Frederick Foresite (or Ricter not sure) gave me pause when he pointed out that the government would probably implode if this is implemented.
If you look back on this thread, you will see that GE hasn't paid any taxes in something like 30 years. What I mean that "the government would implode", is that if corporations aren't paying taxes, you either: Have to fire a bunch of government employees since there is not enough money to pay them, or You have to raise taxes on the general population At least that is the argument. Republicans and Libertarians say government is too big already so they are all for what you are proposing. I don't know what the right answer is. I do know that one of my most important parts of government is for example the EPA. When they can't even get the water right (in Flint) WTF can they get right? I don't know. I battle with this stuff daily.
Yeah, I couldn't find the article but I finally found it: Wealthy Clintons Use Trusts to Limit Estate Tax They Back http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...tons-use-trusts-to-limit-estate-tax-they-back
Yeah that is nothing new. The rich have been using trusts since Rockefeller to protect their wealth while advocating for higher taxes on the middle class. That's why you can keep raising taxes but the east and west coast just keep getting richer while middle america gets sucked dry and this explains the attraction of Trump. Middle America sees him as bully who will punch that rich trust fund kid in the mouth and break up his trust.
Nitro, from this countries inception to 1915 it completely funded itself with national taxes and rarely was ever in deep deficits. It wasn't until we turned on the income tax spigot that the gov't started acted like a spoiled trust fund child always wanting more. There are several ways you can do this. You can get rid of corp tax altogether and use only a national sales tax along with capital gains taxes. Keep in mind, if the US is the only country in the world without corp taxes, imagine how many companies from all over the world who would want to move here to create jobs. You have the best legal system, the best credit markets, the strongest central bank and the safest place for money. If you eliminate the corp tax we could see an explosion in new job creation. This might sound shocking, but it really does not take that much money to run a gov't. We just have so much fat in our system and the people in the system will never vote to cut their own job or power so we just get bigger and bigger. And the argument that a national sales tax would kill consumption is a farce and the evidence of that is seen in how eager we are to over pay for total and utter crap because we are addicted to spending. Whether it be spending $200 for the new smart phone that simply comes in a new color and one extra button or the guy who is willing to spend $150 to impress his date by taking her to an over priced hip and trendy bar or restaurant. Adding a sales tax will stop people from spending and it brings in the wealthy to start paying taxes.
Yes Maverick, but you can't just say "we didn't even have a national tax until 191x." Well, the US didn't police the world in 191x or ever been in a world war, or in the nation building either. For example: "...In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed a measure enacting an income tax to help pay for the Civil War. It imposed a tax of 3 percent on incomes between $600 and $10,000 and a 5 percent tax on incomes above that level. The levy, which had sunset provisions, expired in 1872. It was not forgotten, however. In 1894, Congress passed a new income tax, but it never went into effect. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional the next year because it was a direct tax that was not apportioned on the basis of each state’s population. At that time, for example, if 5 percent of the U.S. population lived in Virginia, then no more than 5 percent of the total revenue could come from Virginia. That constitutional hurdle was cleared by the 16th Amendment, proposed by President William Howard Taft in 1909 and ratified by the states in 1913. It allowed the tax to be levied without any apportionment among states. Congress adopted a 1 percent tax on net personal income of more than $3,000 with a surtax of 6 percent on incomes of more than $500,000. By 1918, with World War I raging, the top income bracket soared to a 77 percent tax rate..." http://www.politifact.com/virginia/...bb-says-us-didnt-have-income-taxes-until-191/ You also didn't have an aging population, with some sort of need for retirememt with people living almost 70% longer than they did in 1915. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/sr/sr472.pdf I claim that trying to use 1915 statistics on this issue is at best going to get us in trouble. FWIW, the current systems is a disaster, so I do agree that something has to be done.
Yes I agree with your points above. And yes, the global wars, nation building all that cost money. But my greater point is, just the process of running a normal functioning gov't does not require as much money as they make you think. The problem with the income tax is its not fair for the poor or the middle class. They will never be able to afford the lobbyist to go to Washington and defend them. The rich can build moats around their wealth and they will pay whatever it takes to protect it. And as our gov't gets bigger and bigger, the entire burden will fall on the poor and the middle class. A national sales tax would at the very least make things more equitable. And btw, if you are worried about the poor, or lower middle class, basic items are not taxed neither is food or medicine. You can also give them automatic tax credits to compensate them for a typical basket of goods with someone of their income level would ideally purchase. So the tax would hit the upper middle class and the rich and the lobbyists power would be rendered useless.