patrick.net

What Liberals like to forget is that if there were no profit at any specific company then the business would collapse and there would be NO jobs and NO taxes paid of any kind.

Success and profit are not evil as you have been brainwashed to believe. Successful and profitable small business's are the driving force of America's economy. Liberals are doing everything in their power to kill the goose that lay's golden egg.'s...ugh.

The USA has the highest capital gain tax in the world. I guess that shows where the greed really lies, doesn't it?

"The USA has the highest capital gain tax in the world"

wat?

You have the temerity to imply that "Liberals" are reality-challenged?

Look in the mirror, pal.

Denmark
Share dividends and realized capital gains on shares are charged 28% to individuals of gains up to DKK 48,300 (2011-level, adjusted annually), and at 42% of gains above that.

Finland
The capital gains tax in Finland is 28% on realized capital income.

France
For residents, capital gains tax on the sale of financial instruments (shares, bonds, etc..) is a flat 32.3%

The German capital gains tax is 25% plus Solidaritätszuschlag (add-on tax initially introduced to finance the 5 eastern states of Germany - Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Thuringia and Brandenburg - and the cost of the reunification, but later kept in order to finance all kind of public funded projects in whole Germany), plus Kirchensteuer (church tax), resulting in an effective tax rate of about 28%

Hungary
Since 1 September 2006 there is one flat tax rate (20%) on capital income.

Ireland, Republic of
Since 7 April 2009, there is a 25% tax on capital gains

Norway
The individual capital gains tax in Norway is 28%.

Poland
Since 2004 there is one flat tax rate (19%) on capital income.

Spain
For individuals from January 1, 2010 capital tax change in Spain. First EUR 6.000 will be taxed at 19%, on the other hand, gains from EUR 6.000 will be taxed at 21%

Sweden
The capital gains tax in Sweden is 30% on realized capital income.

United Kingdom
Individuals who are resident or ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom (and trustees of various trusts) are subject to a capital gains tax, charged at 18%.
For people paying more than the basic rate of income tax, this increased to 28% from midnight on June 23, 2010.

United States
Main article: Capital gains tax in the United States
In the United States, individuals and corporations pay income tax on the net total of all their capital gains just as they do on other sorts of income, but the tax rate for individuals is lower on "long-term capital gains," which are gains on assets that had been held for over one year before being sold. The tax rate on long-term gains was reduced in 2003 to 15%, or to 5% for individuals in the lowest two income tax brackets

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax

Honest Abe, lying as always.

Honest Abe says

What Liberals like to forget is that if there were no profit at any specific company then the business would collapse and there would be NO jobs and NO taxes paid of any kind.

Unless the tax rate is 100%, there will be profit.

Fallacy of the excluded middle: Either taxes have to be 100% or 0%. They can be 15%, 25%, 33%, or 40% just fine, too.

Profit isn't evil, but taxing unearned income at a rate less than actual, productive labor is truly wealth distribution - from the poor and middle to the rich.

Furthermore, unlike corporate and capital gains taxes which are paid only on profit, workers pay a tax on their wages largely without regard to their 'operating expenses' like rent or transportation to work.

This means that workers are taxed on basically, revenue (with a few writeoffs but the really good ones aren't obtainable by people making under 6 figures).

Of the 50% of the country that does not pay federal income tax, 75% of them make LESS than $20,000 a year. So youw ant to raise taxes on peopel all the way at the bottom while not raising taxes at the top? I have an idea: Let's get rid of the carried interest loophole. Why should John Paulson get away with only paying 15% in federal taxes when everyone else in his income bracket pays 36%?

I stand corrected. There are just five countries in the WHOLE WORLD with a higher capital gain tax than the U.S. (and all of them socialist). Denmark 45%, Sweden 30%, Finland 27%, Norway 26% and France 26%. The effective tax rate of Australia and the UK is lower than the U.S tax rate.

Germany and Switzerland impose NO tax whatsoever on long term capital gains.

Source: Australian Treasury "International Comparison of Australia's Taxes" April 2006, Page 208.

Housing Watcher, a progressive income tax is one of the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto. How can we denounce communism yet practice it at the same time ??? You're not a liberal closet communist, are you?

I am a left wing Socialist. And so are you. And so is every single other person in America. They just don't realize it.

Thunderlips: "Unless the tax rate is 100% there WILL be profit", hahaha.

Perhaps your weakened liberal mind forgot "Expenses" as a cost of doing business. Things like employee salaries, accounting and payroll, seminars, professional fees, insurance expense, dues & subscriptions, leased equipment and maintenance, legal expenses, employee retirement plan, payroll taxes, postage, messenger, printing, rent, repairs and services, maintenance & janitorial, storage fees, telephone, computer & modem lines, utilities and miscellaneous.

"Profit", if any, is that tiny number left over after paying all the bills and everyone else.

Honest Abe says

Thunderlips: "Unless the tax rate is 100% there WILL be profit", hahaha.
Perhaps your weakened liberal mind forgot "Expenses" as a cost of doing business.

Um, yeah, you must have missed something in your business classes.

Profit = income - expenses

Corporations are taxed on PROFIT only, not income. That is the income left over AFTER paying all of their expenses. They get to write off a loss if they are paying more expenses than their income.

Individuals pay taxes on all of their income without any consideration to their expenses (with some small exceptions for the "little people").

Honest Abe says

Thunderlips: "Unless the tax rate is 100% there WILL be profit", hahaha.

Perhaps your weakened liberal mind forgot "Expenses" as a cost of doing business. Things like employee salaries, accounting and payroll, seminars, professional fees, insurance expense, dues & subscriptions, leased equipment and maintenance, legal expenses, employee retirement plan, payroll taxes, postage, messenger, printing, rent, repairs and services, maintenance & janitorial, storage fees, telephone, computer & modem lines, utilities and miscellaneous.

Profits is the surplus AFTER expenses have been paid. As long as taxes aren't 100% of profit, there will be some left over.

thunderlips11 says

Believing in a progressive income tax, according to your reading of the Communist Manifesto, is a NECESSARY component of being a Communist. It is not however SUFFICIENT to call someone a Communist.

But in the minds of talk radio listeners, it is.

1. Abolition of Private Property.
BONK! The bulk of all assets in the USA are owned privately, and not held publicly.

2. Heavy Progressive Income Tax.
BONK! From the Hedge Fund Manager tax exemption to capital gains vs. effective tax rates on earned income to payroll taxes, the US is actually a REGRESSIVE tax state.

3. Abolition of all Inheritance.
BONK! The US is still not a meritocracy, and children are allowed to inherit from relatives up to several million dollars without paying a dime in taxes. Taxes that are levied may be paid out over many years, and are not due upon receipt of the unearned income.

4. Confiscation of property of all emmigrants and rebels.
BONK! The US does not confiscate the property of persons, real or fictional, who move overseas. The government does confiscate the property of drug dealers and accused criminals, but those are hardly rebels. Confiscating the property of actual rebels has been the norm since the first states arose 7000+ years ago.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
BONK! Credit is not wholly centralized in the hands of the state. Trillions of dollars in credit and capital is in the hands of a myriad of financial institutions and available through a variety of private arrangements, from Credit Cards to Promissary Notes to Pay Day Loans to Pawn to Venture Capital to Private Issue Bonds. Even if the Fed is considered a national bank, it is still a BONK as the Fed does not have exclusive monopoly on capital - not even state capital - by a country mile.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
BONK! Travel and Shipping: CSX, Greyhound, Toyota, COSCO, Virgin Airlines, UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc.
BONK! Communication: Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, Comcast, HughesNet, DirectTV, untold smaller ISPs and Phonecards etc. etc.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
BONK! To the contrary, US tax and regulatory policy encourages outsourcing of industry, paving over of the prime coastal farming areas for suburban sprawl, and the destruction of wide swaths of farmland through industrial agriculture.

8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
BONK! The U-6 is 16%. I haven't seen common people snatched off the street and forced into picking grapes in California wearing "State Farm #65" insignia on their red color overalls.

So there you have it folks.

Suburbs and Public Schools make America a Marxist Nation.

There is no progressive income tax in the communist manifesto. In communist regimes, everyone makes the same amount of money so it would not be physically possible to have a progressive income tax.

marcus says

Instead, GWB passes massive tax cuts that went mostly to high income earners

Not entirely true. The top bracket got $80B, the rest got $300B.

Of course, the top bracket is only 2% of the population IIRC.

Troy says

Not entirely true. The top bracket got $80B, the rest got $300B.

Of course, the top bracket is only 2% of the population IIRC.

Yes. According to new figures released by Citizens for Tax Justice:

The richest one percent would receive an average tax cut of $68,079 in 2013.

The poorest 60 percent of taxpayers would receive an average tax cut of just $487 in 2013.

http://www.ctj.org/taxjusticedigest/archive/2011/06/the_bush_tax_cuts_after_ten_ye.php

http://www.ctj.org/fed_pub_news/bush_tax_policy.php

Also from the same site:

"CTJ and others have noted that the cost of the Bush tax cuts from 2001 through 2010 was about two and a half trillion dollars. The recent “compromise” that extended them for another two years, through the end of 2012, cost $571.5 billion. But this is only the beginning. If Congress makes permanent the Bush tax cuts or extends them for another decade, the cost will be $5.4 trillion."

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says

Rich people eat babies on buttered toast for breakfast - and you know what that costs?
BUCKS! Like 35K+ per baby, otherwise you're eating crap like caviar.

And they can afford real butter and the expensive bread. I'm willing to bet that babies taste the same whether they're the cheaper ones or the super expensive test tube type.

AF, you crack me up.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says

Why the fuck does America want to starve its achievers to death?

Well, in a pinch they could always eat their fingers like they're just another meal. That would be ambitious, I think.

terriDeaner says

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says

Why the fuck does America want to starve its achievers to death?

Well, in a pinch they could always eat their fingers like they're just another meal. That would be ambitious, I think.

If they develop an iron deficiency they could always eat part of their livers. It'll grow back...

It's sad how so many liberals show up and start defending government spending and socialism. It's like they have not noticed that our nation is broke and in debt. Because we keep on spending more per citizen than we make.

But they want their welfare checks, union thug payout, and government officials bribes rolling in, they don't care for consequences outside of that. As long as they get their checks they don't care who pays for it.

I too agree that govt. spending is bad EMan. WHich is why I have personally wrote a letter to Obama telliing him to stop sending all Social Security checks to your parents and not to send a single one to you when your 65.

Chris, yes there is waste in government, but no your union thug bs shows you know absolutely nothing about unions. Here's a taste of reality, and what's really sad is that you refuse to consider it.

Obama yesterday:

“Our problem is we cut taxes without paying for them for the last decade. We ended up instituting programs like the prescription drug program for seniors that was not paid for. We fought two wars, we didn’t pay for them. We had a bad recession that required a recovery act and stimulus spending and helping states. All that accumulated and there’s interest on top of that.
“To unwind that, what’s required is to roll back those tax cuts on the wealthiest individuals.”

He is only asking for minor tax increases to complement the huge spending cuts he will agree to.

What's really sad, is that I fear he won't hold out enough, because he feels he needs his tax argument next year.

marcus i'm already paying nearly half my income into taxes.

This government has a huge spending problem. Every politician that comes in right away starts handing money out in every direction like it's hot potatoes because it is not his money. They want to pay for all that, than they should cut their frivolous spending.

simchaland says

terriDeaner says

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says

Why the fuck does America want to starve its achievers to death?

Well, in a pinch they could always eat their fingers like they're just another meal. That would be ambitious, I think.

If they develop an iron deficiency they could always eat part of their livers. It'll grow back...

This begs the question of which wine to go with the meal choice; I found this online.

The question was "Is Chianti a good wine to go with liver?"

Jade Orchid says

What I find interesting is that they chose Chianti for that line in the movie. Chianti is a horrible choice to go with liver as it's too fruity to be a serious match, especially to a connoisseur, like Hannibal. He would have more likely chosen a fine dark red like a Côtes du Rhône to bring out the flavor of the liver and to enhance the dish. I mean why kill someone and cook them when you plan on pairing it with the wrong wine, right? :)

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100309141953AARyxxH

BTW, I was impressed at how California Companies Fleeing the Golden State becomes a liberal/conservative issue immediately. ;)

EMan says

t's sad how so many liberals show up and start defending government spending and socialism.

I defend it because what you call "socialism" -- high tax & high services -- works very well in Norway, Sweden, Canada, Australia, Denmark.

Economically, what I think is happening with this high tax level is the state is taking up the natural rents in the system and redistributing them evenly to all.

(All honest economists will say that taxing rents is the least worst tax)

Our system with very very low taxation is allowing the rents to collect in the top 1-5%. The rich get richer by plowing their income into more income-producing assets. These are largely not wealth-creating assets (that increase employment) but wealth itself -- land and natural resources (that are parasitical takings from the community).

It's like they have not noticed that our nation is broke and in debt.

This is because what you say here is not true. 80% of the nation might be broke, but the top 10% has never been richer.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/z1r-5.pdf

shows we have $71.9T of assets against $13.9T in liabilities. That's not broke.

The problem is simply that taxes are way, way too low. Cutting taxes in 2001-2003 was a horrible mistake at a very fundamental level.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=15G

If it wasn't an intentional attempt to destroy government, it was the stupidest thing we've done in my lifetime.

Because we keep on spending more per citizen than we make.

This is yet another one of your "thought-terminating cliches", it is a rare post of yours here that does not have one or several of these bon mots.

Per-household GDP is $130,000. Per-household government spending is $50,000. We are not spending more than we make.

Troy says

I defend it because what you call "socialism" -- high tax & high services -- works very well in Norway, Sweden, Canada, Australia, Denmark.

we are not a tiny little place like norway, sweden, canada or australia. communism works in an african tribe too, it doesnt work in a large economy.

EMan says

we are not a tiny little place like norway, sweden, canada or australia. communism works in an african tribe too, it doesnt work in a large economy.

communism? What the eurosocialists are doing is not communism, and it's not really socialism, either, since communism is fancy word for socialism.

http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/in-norway-start-ups-say-ja-to-socialism.html

What they are doing is simply a mixed economy, putting the state in charge of what it does best and putting free enterprise in charge of the rest.

right wing cranks simply lack the perspective and understanding to successfully parse that last sentence.

As for the point that we have 60X the population of Norway and 10X the population of Canada, point taken. Perhaps we are in fact too large to govern ourselves as well as eg. Norway.

Troy none of those nations lead the world in anything. They are all small, and small scale situations are different. US was founded upon rugged individualism, upon freedom from big brother. It's what made us great and the greatest nation in the world.

EMan says

US was founded upon rugged individualism, upon freedom from big brother. It's what made us great and the greatest nation in the world.

thing is, we also had over three million square miles of mighty fine land available to us -- the Louisiana Purchase alone was 800,000 sq miles, 5 acres per household now, 500 acres per household back then.

The election of 1800 had under 70,000 voters -- total.

The corn-pone history of the Wild West is over now, the good land was all given away by 1920 and what was left for the nation to pursue was internal development in manufacturing and industrial processes (which we did quite well at, 1910-1990).

And as the cities grew in development so did the need for social justice and government regulation of the market. The 1912 Progressive Party platform is indicative of the modernization that was sorely needed by then:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=607

Your cartoon view of history is useful as propaganda but we are no longer a rural country with plenty of opportunity for everyone with the gumption to take an axe and go find land. Quite the opposite, we're an empire in decline that is falling increasingly into a parasitical rich/ fucked poor divide that as it continues will take us out as a world power, and as a place worth living.

We have great economies of scale but we also have millions of people living in poverty or worse. It doesn't have to be this way, but conservatives have zero policy fixes for this. Going back to the 19th century isn't going to be progress.

Troy says

It doesn't have to be this way, but conservatives have zero policy fixes for this. Going back to the 19th century isn't going to be progress.

taking money from people that survive through labor, and giving it to people that willingly make bad choices and do not support themselves, is not a good idea in any era. Is it?

There's a strawman or two in there, bap.

One of the drivers of poverty in this country is the parasitical rent-seeking going on all over the place -- in housing, medicine, energy, everything with inelastic demand, since rents live there.

It is this rife rentierism that is keeping the lower classes down. Individually, anyone with the talent is able to escape this predation by joining it, but not everyone can, nor can most people stuck on the low end of the totem pole.

Poverty goes beyond "bad choices". Bad choices are an element, but the dynamics that induce these bad choices are systemic.

eg. people with money have connections, credit, and the luxury of being able to bounce back from multiple failures (cf Trump). Poor people have little of that.

I don't pretend to have any magic bullets here. But what we really need in this country is much more public investment in housing, education, and healthcare.

Pay peanuts, get monkeys. If we cut our defense budget 50% we'd have $400B to invest in housing and education. That's FOUR MILLION middle-class jobs making a difference in communities that need the investment.

Things can't turn around in a year, we need a generation or 3, but we could de-slum and de-ghetto our cities in 30 years if we decided to.

The poor need jobs. We -- the wealthy -- should pay them to improve their communities.

Bap33 says

taking money from people that survive through labor, and giving it to people that willingly make bad choices and do not support themselves, is not a good idea in any era. Is it?

Is it better to continue to support a massive military complex and projects such as the bridge to nowhere (which, although not built, was funded anyway)? Is it better to fund special interest groups and tributes to dead politicians and useless programs?

We're in a recession - I'd rather be helping the people who are out of work and need assistance than funding other shit.

BTW, the title of this post was that companies are fleeing the state. However, the subject is about libs bad and they're killing the world.

Yawn.

Bap33 says

taking money from people that survive through labor, and giving it to people that willingly make bad choices and do not support themselves, is not a good idea in any era. Is it?

Very true. That's why cutting government jobs (people that survive through labor), to pay for tax cuts for the rich (who make questionable choices w/respect to the productivity of their capital), continues to f*&& over the US, compared to all the more successful first world economies.

Cali is over with, I used to live in the hell hole of SoCal. Why would a company open up operations in Cali when they have to pay staff 50% more to afford a love shack and 80% of the applicants are uneducated gang bangers. In CO you get educated applicants, operating costs are half and houses are almost free. I have lived in both areas and for Cali will soon be Detroit with good weather

@Troy,
I just do not think Gov has the same role in housing or education that it MUST in defense. Housing is a luxury. Public funded education is a luxury. Defense is a need.

But, I agree with you 100% on the rentism deal. 100%. I am all for outlawing two things right now. 1) Renting/used as income/absent owner of SFH zoned R1, and 2) Section 8 or any other welfare support paid to any privatly owned home. If I am going to help a poor person have a place to live I want the assett to be America's, not some rich dude with multiple houses willing to rent to Section 8 since he don't live near by..

@marcus,
I agree.

@Ellie,
I put my response with a quote so as to explain my response since I knew I came late and was off topic. Liberals are ok, it's liberalism/socialism/progressive-ism that is the problem!! lol. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

Bap33 says

Public funded education is a luxury. Defense is a need.

It'll be a great day when schools have all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy bombers.

Our defense budget isn't about protecting our country. It's about spending ridiculous amounts of money on boondoggles and planes that don't work and military bases we don't need and equipment & electronics that don't work - and the lives of our young. The people in charge of the military - politicos - are able to protect their children with cushy positions where they'll never be in harm's way and award huge contracts to their districts. Our military needs an overhaul.

Years ago I remember learning that it would take 1/10 of our military budget to completely wipe out poverty in America (approx 1987). I don't know if that holds true - but I don't doubt it.

I'm surprised that you don't believe that publicly funded education is vital to our future but you believe that 32 planes are worth nearaly 400 billion dollars:

Cost estimates have risen to $382 billion for 2,443 aircraft, at an average of $156 million each. The rising program cost estimates have cast doubt on the actual number to be produced for the U.S. In January 2011, the F-35B variant was placed on "probation" for two years because of development issues. In February 2011, the Pentagon put a price of $207.6 million for each of the 32 aircraft to be acquired in FY2012, rising to $304.15 million ($9,732.8/32) if its share of RDT&E spending is included.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Joint_Strike_Fighter

Don't you need a good public education system to have a strong defense? How can you possibly have one without the other?

HousingWatcher says

Don't you need a good public education system to have a strong defense? How can you possibly have one without the other?

Here's what ya do: you send the uneducated (stupid) ones in first, giving the educated ones time to figure out what to do. ;)

I disagree. The education system is absurd and is only a goldenchild of the left becasue it gave them direct access to the youth to force upon them their leftist anti-God/American/Freedom queer way of thinking.

And no, an education system of any type is not possible without a defense to ensure FREEDOM to learn as you wish, where you wish. The first thing leftist or communist or Arabists do is attack the educational process and who gets educated. Only a strong military gives you the access to education miss, since those crazy arabs' first order of business is to outlaw female education.

also, your connection between uneducated and stupid is not correct in my book.

Bap33 says

I disagree. The education system is absurd and is only a goldenchild of the left becasue it gave them direct access to the youth to force upon them their leftist anti-God/American/Freedom queer way of thinking.

Nominated for stupidest things ever said on Patrick.net

Bap33 says

The first thing leftist or communist or Arabists do is attack the educational process and who gets educated.

So, you believe that publicly funded education is a luxury and that you believe our education system is absurd.

Are you leftist, or communist, or an Arabist? By your own definition, you're one of 'em.

Bap33 says

Only a strong military gives you the access to education miss, since those crazy arabs' first order of business is to outlaw female education.

What is an "education miss?"