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

Vater, no one is gonna listen to you unless you CAPITALIZE some important WORDS. Sheesh.

PLUS one.

Spending is going to continue to increase - we have inflation (albeit low) and a growing population. We can cut the rate of growth in spending, but cuts in an absolute sense would require pain that not many in the US, and even fewer in Congress, are willing to make.

When I look at the "encirclement map of Iran", I see what anyone does - an amazing number of military bases. Those things are crazy-expensive. Is Iran a threat to world peace? Sure. So why are we the only ones paying to contain Iran?

rollergator said:
So why are we the only ones paying to contain Iran?

My guess based on the tax ideas expressed in this thread is because we are among the wealthiest in the world. We have more so we should be paying everyone's bill.

(here's where I'd put the eye roll smiley)

Obama paid a lower tax rate than his secretary, White House confirms

Wow. So now when we talk about the lower income people getting screwed, we're talking about dual-income families where *one* of the two earners brings in $95,000 herself?

Not sure I have a point, but I read the article and thought of this thread.

Is this really the kind of faux sob story everyone is behind?

I'm never going to cry for a family making 100K annually, regardless of who earns the ducats. Minimum wage-earners with multiple jobs and kids to support - I'll save my concern for them instead.

Oh, and as far as the Iran thing - multiple, maybe even many, OECD countries find themselves in better financial position to deal with Iran. I've said it before - our military is more than we can afford - other nations are benefitting from the "free rider" problem, where we're paying for the public good of global security. The easy solution is to charge for our military services, and keep our troops home when no one is willing/able to pay (in general, obviously there are circumstances that could occur in which Americans would be willing to foot the bill).

rollergator said:
I'm never going to cry for a family making 100K annually, regardless of who earns the ducats. Minimum wage-earners with multiple jobs and kids to support - I'll save my concern for them instead.

I'm with you. And those are the folks paying no income tax. Which is why that whole argument sems so disingenuous to me.

Yeah, that's a good point. I never even thought about it that way, but it's the other side of the same question. Just as you can't say how a person makes "enough," you can apparently say when someone doesn't make enough. Weird.

Lord Gonchar said:
The ultimate "fairness" would technically be a flat fee, not a flat percentage. Each person picks up their share based on being a person using the system, not how much they make under (note I didn't say "because of") the system.

Which, if my quick math is correct, would be about $7,700 for each man, woman, and child, to replace the total collected by income tax.

That would put a stop to the Duggars. :)

I give gator credit. At least he is talking about an unpopular spending cut. The rest of us pay lip service to it. We apply a general acknowledgement that SPENDING is the problem, then we debate taxing policy. The devil is in the details. When the only details discussed concern the revenue side...?

Gator is also correct with this analysis...



But just because the populace wants to put their head in the sand and avoid the ONLY course to prevent another "Greek" tragedy, does not mean discussing trivial revenue collection methods is any more pertinent.

In fact, us wasting time focusing on the trivial is the CAUSE of the problem. And now our sitting president is making the cornerstone of his economic reelection strategy a keen focus on a "millionaire's tax." A misdirection that only assures that our SPENDING, which outpaces inflation exponentially by the way, continues to shorten the lifespan of whatever sustainability we have left.

His opponent won't and can't tell the truth because of what gator said above.

We are screwed...

Can we move this discussion over into the new PoliticoBuzz forum? Oh, wait.

Hey Aamilj,

Are you opposed to government spending? I couldn't figure out from your posts. Please clarify your position.

I'm glad I at least agree with everyone that we need both revenue increases and spending cuts if we're ever going to solve this problem. It just seems to be where to raise the revenue and make the cuts that everyone disagrees upon.

To me, it seems obvious that we should stop wasting so much money playing world police. But it's a lot more complicated that just shutting down bases and walking away. Most of our overseas bases are a result of our imperialistic nature after the both of the world wars, and we're locked into those commitments though international treaties. I'm not sure what all the ramifications would be from breaking those, but I'm certain it's a lot harder than just packing up and heading home.

Gemini said:

Which, if my quick math is correct, would be about $7,700 for each man, woman, and child, to replace the total collected by income tax.

Which raises the real flaw with the flat tax theory. You can't just set it at 10% and expect everything to be fine. To make it work, the effective rate would end up being somewhere around 18%. Some people would be keeping a whole lot of money, but most people would be paying out at least 2-3 times more than they currently are.

Vater said:

No one disagrees that spending is out of control, yet everyone seems to be entirely focused on raising taxes on the 1% while at the same time passing the single most expensive entitlement bill in US history.

This isn't necessarily directed at you, but where was all this outrage when Medicare Part D was passed?

Thats a significant part of the problem. There were some complaints but not enough. Seniors (and soon to be seniors) were getting a "free" benefit so they weren't going to complain. Medicare Part D didn't directly impact non-seniors so they didn't complain either. Affordable Care Act does impact everyone.

People complain about Obama bringing us socialism. Reality is we have been on a steady slide towards socialism since FDR. With a few steps on the accelerator in the 60s, 80s and the 2000s. Even if we have enough people who believe that we have a significant deficit/debt issue (and I am not sure that we do at least in terms of people who truly believe that rather than just paying lip service to it), too many people want to solve the issue on the backs of someone else (tax increases on someone else, spending cuts of spending that benefits someone else, etc.). In the end, we just do not have enough people who truly believe in limited government to ever have limited government. Franklin was right when he talked about the people voting the funds of the public treasury.

GoBucks89 said:

Medicare Part D didn't directly impact non-seniors so they didn't complain either. Affordable Care Act does impact everyone.

See, that's what boggles my mind. Part D is projected to add many trillions to our debt, and benefits a limited number of people, who arguably didn't need said benefit. Affordable Care Act (PPACA), while also quite expensive, at least helps (or purports to) pretty much everyone. That's why it's so hard to take vitriol directed at the PPACA seriously - the cost:benefit ratio seems, at worst, equivalent to Part D.

GoBucks89 said:

Reality is we have been on a steady slide towards socialism since FDR.

Remember, it's called "Socialism" when the money is going to someone other than me. When it's coming to me, it's an incentive. ;)

Little of the healthcare act has actually gone into effect at this point. What the actual benefits are to the masses remain to be seen. Same is true of the costs. Though government has a pretty good track record for overpromising on the benefits and underestimating the costs.

The healthcare act is broader reaching. Impact more people and you will find more people who don't like how they are impacted.

Did Part D contain a mandate?

Seems to me that many folks who have problems with how negatively some other folks have reacted to the healthcare act really just like the healtcare act and are willing to look past any problems. Its something of an ends justifies the means.

Well, I know of at least one person who is less than pleased with Medicare Part D...she's on a cheap medication and her costs...combining the cost of the prescription with the cost of the premiums for the Medicare plan...tripled as soon as she went from paying out of pocket to Medicare.

Given that my present health insurance plan is pretty much rendered illegal under the PP&ACA, I expect something similar to happen to my premiums...

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

I'm more annoyed at how few people can tell you what's wrong with the health care act, other than it was signed by a president they don't like. Americans at their best!