171–180 of 391 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean just like everybody else but excluding big corporations and wealthy individuals?
Are you claiming that a majority of large corporations don't pay income taxes? Is it even 5%?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>One thing that increases the stress on the farmers is the way they avoid income taxes at all costs so they rarely save any of the profits from good years to help them float during the bad years. I'm from Iowa and a family member does lots of farm bankruptcies here. This is definitely a thing. Farmers buy new pickup trucks in lieu of showing a profit. Pair that in with land purchases at 7k+/acre and the saying "the n…
> 7k+/acre Assuming this is pure farm land (no premium for possible annexation or commercial development), is that not an absolutely batshit insane price? I'm no expert but that seems at least 4x what is reasonable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you that such a strategy is not optimal but it is not quite how you describe it to be. In the mind of the farmer: * $150,000 tractor: something that has value (not easy to calculate, but a $150k tractor has a value above zero, even if not brand new) and utility. * $30,000 to the IRS: money that I will never see again. Literally thrown away money. Option number 1 is very tempting.
I wonder how they see taxes as thrown away? Yes, government is inefficient. And corrupt. But you do need roads. And bridges. And law enforcement. And even military protection, even if it seems far away and remote from your farm.
Not in the US, which is mostly the offender, and no country will ever attempt to attack it (domestically), even if US kept just 1/10 the military resources it has, unless provoked purposefully for months on end into doing so (e.g. Pearl Harbor).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've always thought of "trickle down economics" as an overly-rosy way of saying that we'll "grow our way out of the hole". Nevermind the 'conservatives' will never stop digging, will never cut spending, even occasionally spinning up another entitlement of their own, and only occasionally toss their people a bone by slowing existing programs' growth rate. I don't think Reagan thought of government size as being a prob…
But Hillary wasn't a liberal. Liberals actually hated her. We are now in the world perception of Democrat = Liberal and Republican = Conservative and its just wrong. I grew up being a Republican and I don't think I have changed much in my political stances but everyone else has moved far to the Libertarian doctrine. Case in point: Increase the wages and benefits = less government funding. Never going to get backing f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder how they see taxes as thrown away? Yes, government is inefficient. And corrupt. But you do need roads. And bridges. And law enforcement. And even military protection, even if it seems far away and remote from your farm.
Aside from military protection, that is a list of things largely irrelevant to people who live in rural areas. It's money to be confiscated from them and used to prop up societies to which they have little to no connection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder how they see taxes as thrown away? Yes, government is inefficient. And corrupt. But you do need roads. And bridges. And law enforcement. And even military protection, even if it seems far away and remote from your farm.
Aside from military protection, that is a list of things largely irrelevant to people who live in rural areas. It's money to be confiscated from them and used to prop up societies to which they have little to no connection.
Roads alone are very expensive, over a million bucks per mile in rural areas. Wyoming has 33,000 miles of road serving a population of 550k. That works out to at least $60k per person in just to build the roads, never mind maintaining them. And not having these roads means higher transportation costs, which translate to more money spent on goods and more profit being lost to transporting sales.
There are plenty of countries in the world without individual taxes, they just also happen to be places most people don't want to live.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aside from military protection, that is a list of things largely irrelevant to people who live in rural areas. It's money to be confiscated from them and used to prop up societies to which they have little to no connection.
Yeah, that's kind of bullshit. They send their kids to public schools and maybe public universities later, drive on public roads, use water, electricity, etc. They also have a place where they buy seed, animals, neighbors they attend church with, etc. Not to mention the markets they need to sell to. There is some level of self-sustainment but it's a myth how 'independent' people really are. They might be detached fro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder how they see taxes as thrown away? Yes, government is inefficient. And corrupt. But you do need roads. And bridges. And law enforcement. And even military protection, even if it seems far away and remote from your farm.
Many rural areas in the US are heavily neglected; There are roads that haven't seen any upkeep in a decade and have police response times that are over an hour long. A lot of farmers feel that they pay into the system but get only a minuscule fraction back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you claiming that a majority of large corporations don't pay income taxes? Is it even 5%?
I think the claim might be something similar , but not quite that extreme. I don't think it strains credulity to think that the majority of large corporations take advantage of loopholes to drastically reduce their taxes.
Of course they do. They are using legal means to reduce their taxes. Why wouldn't they.
Would you decline your mortgage interest deduction, your solar energy or EV deduction, etc. so you could claim you are paying your "fair" share? Go ahead -- nothing is stopping you.