SeaWorld Parks doesn't pay any corporate income taxes after record year

The "flat tax" sounds nice in theory, but in practice it would absolutely crush the middle and lower classes in this country while saving the richest a boatload of money.

Eliminating some of the code complexity needn't mean going to a flat/regressive tax system. You could still include progressive marginal rates.

CP Chris said:
...distribution of wealth...

I hate this term. It's the right term to use in the literal sense, but it implies that some unseen nefarious force has determined who gets money and who doesn't.

I'm not sure why it's suggested we shouldn't be angry with the players in this tax game. After all, they are the ones writing the rules. The voters haven't mattered in a long time, and with things like Citizens United, will continue to matter even less. Go ahead and vote out your corrupt senator, another equally corrupt one will just be bought out to take their place. Until the money and lobbyists are both entirely removed from government AND political campaigns, nothing will ever change.

This is such a cop-out. Our voter participation, especially for non-presidential elections, is awful. Voter apathy + Springerfication = the democratic disaster we have now.

I'd suggest that even a flat tax would be more functionally progressive than what we have now. Our code LOOKS progressive from 8 miles high (or however far you have to go to reach orbit)....but in reality, once all the deductions/incentives/subsidies are taken into account, it really doesn't function that way. I'm told that the current system WAS fairly clean to begin with (after the last major re-write), but then the lobbying started taking effect and loopholes were soon available for anyone with the means to afford an army of tax attorneys.

As far as Citizens United is concerned...the Supreme Court wants to have another swack at that ruling. Apparently, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow exposed some rather shady yet COMPLETELY legitimate underpinnings. Thanks to T-Potts and S. Colbert for "fleshing out" exactly how that ruling had the power to, and effect of, fundamentally changing our Democratic principles....

rollergator said:
I'd suggest that even a flat tax would be more functionally progressive than what we have now. Our code LOOKS progressive from 8 miles high (or however far you have to go to reach orbit)....but in reality, once all the deductions/incentives/subsidies are taken into account, it really doesn't function that way.

What evidence do you have of this?

Here's a slice, but it comes from the NY Times, so... ;)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html?_r=1&hp

Important notes: 1) Federal taxes are the most progressive of all, with state and local steering more towards the falt/regressive end of the spectrum. 2) Payroll taxes cut off at just over 100K in income. 3) Wealth is considerably (infinitely?) more concentrated than income, so looking at the tax situation through the income prism yields a MUCH different picture than if you view it from the POV of "wealth". 4) Other high-performing OECD countries do considerably more to ensure that the lowest end of the SES spectrum have "equality of opportunity", esp. through education and health care.

Your statement was that our tax code looks progressive but it really doesn't function that way. When asked for support, you link an article which states that there is no question that the wealthy pay a higher overall tax rate than any other group. Sounds progressive in function to me.

The article also states that state and local taxes MAY actually be regressive. Then it indicates that state and local income and property taxes are less progressive than federal taxes (yet still progressive, right?). It does note that sales taxes are regressive. And, per the article, the typical family pays almost half as much in state and local income and property taxes (which are progressive) and sales taxes (which are regressive) than they do in federal taxes (which are regressive). I fail to see how any of that is evidence that our tax system only appears to be progressive but is actually not in operation. And that is putting aside the issue that the article is mixing state, local and federal taxes when the discussion that is most typically in the media, in politics, etc. is about federal taxes. The President and Congress have no ability to change state and local tax policies.

Your first point after the link has already be addressed above.

Even with the payroll tax cutoff, the wealthy as a group still pay a higher percentage of their income in federal taxes. In 2007, top 1% paid effective total federal tax rate of 29.5%, top 5% paid 27.9%, top 10% paid 26.7% and the top 20% paid 25.1%. Average total federal effective tax rate for everyone was 20.4%. No group under the top 20% paid in excess of the average with the 4th quintile paying 17.4% and all other quintiles paying lower total effective tax rates. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

Are you saying you want to tax wealth or is that just an excuse to make our tax system more progressive than it is now?

Your 4th point doesn't directly deal with the progressive nature (in appearance or operation).

If my quality of life (livelihood) were directly related to government receipts (salary, pension, benefits, welfare, etc.), my greatest hope would be that the masses spend their time and efforts endlessly debating collection versus the much more relevant SPENDING. As long as the SPENDING remains unchanged or ever-growing, my standard of living will do likewise. I would hate to be subject to the same ups and downs that a private citizen endures.

How nice it is to have a straw man as popular as Shamu to keep the citizenry focused on that which is relatively insignificant when faced with 40-50 trillion in unfunded future obligations. ;)

I'd write more, but my basement is flooded. I need to go clean my windows.

Jeff said:

CP Chris said:
...distribution of wealth...

I hate this term. It's the right term to use in the literal sense, but it implies that some unseen nefarious force has determined who gets money and who doesn't.

In my mind, that's rightfully so. However, ignoring whether or not there's a justified reason for it, I was pointing out that the fact it exists at all makes it almost impossible to implement a "simple" flat tax code. Lately conservatives like to yell about how the top x% pays almost all the taxes, but neglect to notice that they make almost all of the money too.

rollergator said:

As far as Citizens United is concerned...the Supreme Court wants to have another swack at that ruling. Apparently, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow exposed some rather shady yet COMPLETELY legitimate underpinnings. Thanks to T-Potts and S. Colbert for "fleshing out" exactly how that ruling had the power to, and effect of, fundamentally changing our Democratic principles....

Their coverage/exposure of this sham was completely awesome. I'm happy to hear it might be making some people actually wake up and reconsider things.

When did making money become immoral? You aren't outright saying it, but you're implying that it is.

CP Chris said:
Lately conservatives like to yell about how the top x% pays almost all the taxes, but neglect to notice that they make almost all of the money too.

This is possibly what irritates me most about the liberal mindset: the idea that success should be penalized. The "it's not fair" mentality.

Liberals like to yell about how the top x% should pay "their fair share" (a term I hate more than "distribution of wealth") but ignore the proverbial hypothetical that even if the federal government were to tax 100% of the top 1%'s AGI, those additional taxes would cover less than 1 tenth of 1 percent of the national debt.

I like the idea of a simple flat tax. The problem is it will never work unless government spending is drastically reduced, which I don't see happening in my lifetime.

I don't think success should be penalized, and I don't think we should all get equal shares of anyone's success. I do think it's reasonable to expect that the "small business owner" whose industry benefits from the electricity and water and roads supplied by the nebulous Government or Society should pay a share commensurate with their derived benefits...

Spending needs to be curbed, revenues need to be collected....the debt came about through increased spending (esp. financing war and tax cuts) - getting out of war and ending the unsustainable revenue cuts are going to HELP (not solve the problem alone or overnight). Economic growth is necessary to help get us out of debt, as is "discretionary spending".

There is NO tax system that can make up our debt. Tax it all if you want. That is the point. Arguing tax systems or demonizing companies is so minor in the big picture as it is not worth an ounce of effort and concern.

It is election season and our president, who in FOUR years has not created a budget, forced his party to create a budget, nor publicly endorsed ANY specific significant spending cut...is out on the trail talking about a meaningless "millionaire's tax."

Romney will be no better on THIS issue. He will not publicly level with the American people and explain we simply CANNOT continue our spending habits. He will not dare tell us what he is cutting and how much. You can't win elections being honest. You win elections maintaining and increasing SPENDING across the board.

Question: At every level of government, how much money is needed to efficiently operate?

Answer: MORE

We get the government we elect. Apparently the people are more concerned with making sure Shamu gets his coming than worry about our impending Roman decline.

While our media and public anxiously await a supreme court decision on Obamacare...very few seem to realize that the point is moot. We CANNOT AFFORD IT! The fact that this multiple trillion dollar (and it will be multiple if this is ever allowed full implementation) was shoved down the public's throat in a time where we could already ill afford status quo, is the single most expensive government boondoggle in the history of man.

And this guy looks like he will get reelected...

What does this tell you about our electorate?

rollergator said:
I do think it's reasonable to expect that the "small business owner" whose industry benefits from the electricity and water and roads supplied by the nebulous Government or Society should pay a share commensurate with their derived benefits...

Are you lobbying for some type of progressive water and electricity rates based on the use of water and electricity? You should pay more for a gallon of water or kilowatt of electricity than I do because I use them in my house and you use it to make a product that you sell at a profit? And how does electricty and water (paid for with fees based on usage) relate to taxes?

Jeff said:
When did making money become immoral? You aren't outright saying it, but you're implying that it is.

Vater said:
This is possibly what irritates me most about the liberal mindset: the idea that success should be penalized. The "it's not fair" mentality.

Liberals like to yell about how the top x% should pay "their fair share" (a term I hate more than "distribution of wealth")

Yay! :)

The real debate around the "Buffet Rule" isn't really about marginal rates on earned income. Instead, it's the treatment of dividend/long term capital gains vs. earned income and, more importantly, what qualifies as "earned".

For example, a fraternity brother of mine is a hedge fund manager. (Seriously.) He earns his living by charging his investors a fee based on the total amount of money they have invested in the fund. He actively manages a fund to try to deliver superior returns. Better returns=more money in the fund=better payday for him.

But, the money he gets from this activity is called "carried interest". Because of the way that his fund is managed, most of this ends up being taxed as long-term capital gains and/or dividend income, not earned income.

The top tax bracket on earned income in 2012 is 35% (on income over about $390K in 2012). The tax on dividend/long term capital gains earnings for middle-income households and above is 15%.

I can assure you that this man is doing much better than "middle income". I've seen pictures of the new backyard pool complex he is building. I could fit my (reasonably nice) house inside it. Should his Federal tax rate really be 15% vs. the 35% someone who "earns" money has to pay?

ProTip: most people who are very well-to-do earn most of their money by investment, rather than by "working". Do we want to penalize work more than investment? I don't have an answer to that question, but it is worth asking.

Even "regular" well-to-do people who "earn" money (rather than obtain it via investment) aren't particularly dis-incentivized by the current marginal tax rates, and my uninformed opinion is that they could probably go a little bit higher without doing a lot of damage. The most someone in Michigan might pay on a dollar "earned" is a shade under 40%. That means for every dollar you earn, you keep sixty cents. That doesn't mean you don't want to earn more dollars.

^This right here. I'd much rather be the over-taxed rich person than the "fairly" taxed poor person. The priorities of work vs. investment seem messed up. I understand the desire to offer incentives for investing, but people making money from money should not be taxed less than people who actually "work" for their living.

Vater said:

This is possibly what irritates me most about the liberal mindset: the idea that success should be penalized. The "it's not fair" mentality.

It's not even about fairness, it's simple math. If the top whatever percent is making/controlling 80% of the money in this country, how does it not make sense that they should also be paying 80% of the taxes? Do you suggest we should place the highest tax burden on the people who make the least simply because there are more of them?

Jeff said:
When did making money become immoral? You aren't outright saying it, but you're implying that it is.

My complaint mostly lies along the lines of what Brian mentioned above. The people getting absurdly wealthy off of shady investment schemes while paying little to no taxes on it are what bug me, and yes, I believe that it's immoral. You can blame the system for allowing it, but I personally have no respect for the person who gets rich because they figured out how to (or paid someone to) bend the rules in their favor. It really infuriates me that there were virtually no investigations, let alone arrests or prosecutions of the white collar criminals who contributed to the collapse in 2008. You might not blame the players for making the game work in their favor, but I do, and I'd like to at least see them paying a reasonable amount of taxes on their ill-gotten riches.

That's crap. You're making the generalization, again, that anyone making money is doing so by "shady" or immoral means, and that's crap. This isn't about the top one-half of one percent... this is about the next 20% of people making six figures, who are working stiffs like anyone else. They earn their money, whether it's via investment or salary. This asinine mentality that anyone who makes money is a criminal has to stop.

CP Chris said:
It's not even about fairness, it's simple math. If the top whatever percent is making/controlling 80% of the money in this country, how does it not make sense that they should also be paying 80% of the taxes?

That's not math, and it is about fairness. You want to penalize success because you believe success all comes from being a shady douchebag. See above.

wahoo skipper said:
Of course the blame lies with the government. But, that doesn't fit the agenda. Different subject matter entirely but people are so focused on the Sanford PD in Florida that they are nearly blind to the fact that the Florida State Government enacted horrible legislation with regards to Stand Your Ground. Again, that would not fit the agenda in of detractors in this case either.

Skipper for President, 2016!

The legislature here in FL is bought and paid for....ALEC wrote it, our legislature rubber-stamped it. At least there is (finally) going to be SOME measure of jusitce for Trayvon's family.

Brian Noble said:
The tax on dividend/long term capital gains earnings for middle-income households and above is 15%.

(snip)

ProTip: most people who are very well-to-do earn most of their money by investment, rather than by "working". Do we want to penalize work more than investment? I don't have an answer to that question, but it is worth asking.

Seems crazed to me that someone in the mega-millions income bracket pays 15% at maximum simply because their income comes from investments. I'm NOT saying they didn't work for it, but I would say that they'd make the same investments that are profitable regardless of whether their tax rate was 15% or 35% - earnings is earnings.

So...in regards to the second part....I *do* have an answer, and my answer is pretty clear. Those who make the most from their investments (like Buffett, e.g., say they'd invest the same even if they were taxed higher). Since Warren Buffett is obviously "fairly successful" - I'd say most people making their money off of investment income would behave similarly (as rational actors in the economy).

rollergator said:
I would say that they'd make the same investments that are profitable regardless of whether their tax rate was 15% or 35% - earnings is earnings.

Since Warren Buffett is obviously "fairly successful" - I'd say most people making their money off of investment income would behave similarly (as rational actors in the economy).

Generally agreed. Was the lower rate meant to be an incentive to invest at one point? And why? (showing my lack of knowledge here)

But it's a slippery slope concept. What about 50% then? Or 75%?

It gets even shadier when you word it like CP Chris did:

"I'd much rather be the over-taxed rich person than the "fairly" taxed poor person."

Because that starts to imply some sort of judgement or moral call as to how much is 'enough' for someone to have.

I think it absolutely makes sense to take a greater amount from someone with a greater amount. I think it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest taking a greater percentage because they have a greater amount.

I mean, should someone who has more pay more for everyday items/commodities to keep the costs lower for those with less? If we can subsidize the costs of government for the lower brackets with what we take from the higher brackets then why not do that for everything? (I'm being facetious with that last statement)

To me the idea of the have-nots demanding the haves cover their asses is as criminal as the haves using their money to pay less.

Not sure why one angle gets painted as noble and the other as criminal. Different sides of the same coin to me.