Speakeasy forum: A Conservative is a Conservative is a Conservative?

how Canada's tax structure is built or how the people are actually taxed, I admit to being skeptical about polls that only count 2000 heads, just like I'm skeptical about USA polls that do the same thing. I hardly think that 2000 people reflect a 'majority'. Polls have been proved/proven to be easily manipulated by just HOW a question is asked in order to get the results you want.

That said.....has a poll been taken and asked the question of "HOW" the taxes would be taken from the people....actual income taken directly from a paycheck or actual income in a savings account, cd, offshore account, IRA or actual gold/silver ownership or from the sale of their home or another asset or gross income from a business before writing off new equipment purchases or a new sales tax when purchasing that equipment or a flat sales tax on everything purchased across the entire population? The list of ways to get more taxes is endless.....I wonder which ones would be considered to be options by the Canadian government and acceptable to the people paying it.

Also....considering that, at least here in the USA, most small businesses that actually earn more than $250,000 are filed on a personal income tax form rather than on a business form, would have a heavier tax burden than a large corporation like GE (which paid zero taxes last year with the head of the company serving as BO's right hand man giving him jobs advice) so the equality and fair share is non-existant, and until our USA tax code is completely overhauled and rewritten, 'taxing the rich' will always be a joke. Also, the numbers are a joke, although liberals don't want to hear them even from their own advisors....it's just that it sounds so good during a campaign to go after the greedy corporate pigs.

Raising the taxes on the 'millionairs and billionairs' would bring in an additional $47 billion over a ten year period of time......which is what we pay in interest on the National Debt in ONE DAY. That isn't being told during the BO campaign because it would make BO look like a bigger idiot than he already is.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/buffett-millionaires-tax-raises-47-133040544.html

As for paying for Obamacare, how many people realize that one of the ways the plan brings in revenue to pay for it is to tax every home owner a 3.8% tax when they sell their property or home and that's on top of the mandate. If the mandate goes down in flames by the Supreme Court, all bets are off regarding how to pay for the program.....that home sale tax will easily be doubled in addition to finding other ways to pay for it, including gutting Medicare even more than the $500B he's already taking. Democrats have ads and speeches going that blame the Republicans for killing Medicare 'as we know it', and yet Obamacare does exactly that and nobody is calling them on the carpet for what Obamacare plans to do to Medicare.

that's how it works......the 'lesser' income people are always supportive of taking from the 'higher' income since it won't affect themselves personally. So it only goes to prove again that 'sharing the wealth' should only include the higher income sharing with those who have no ambition or desire to succeed themselves. They are all in favor of the 'Robin Hood' theory when nothing comes out of their own pockets.

without the other guy....but did 'they' provide a service or a product that 'the other guy' needed or wanted? If so, then everybody has already benefited and there isn't any reason for the 'theys' to give more than what they have already given. If the 'other guy' wants more in their lives, then they should find a way to be innovative enough to do the same things the 'theys' did by taking risks and coming up with a product or service that 'the other guys' want or need. Punishing the successful by taking more from them is just 'entitlement' greed in my opinion.

I've said repeatedly that companies should not be allowed to move their profits into offshore accounts in order to avoid paying taxes on them. It's bad enough they move whole companies overseas to avoid labor costs here.....but that's also the fault of the unions by upping their bargaining to a level that stops allowing companies to be competitive. There should be caps on what union bargaining can do to a company. I've also said that if an administration, no matter which party is in the Oval Office, is determined to cut out 'subsidies' (which are actually tax credits) to oil companies, then they should cut out those tax credits to all companies so that massive companies like GE with an entire suite of tax attorneys at their disposal to find every loophole available so they have zero obligation are finally paying what they should have been paying for a long time already. And all 'subsidies' for green companies and agriculture for ethanol when we need the corn for food, etc. should be eliminated as well. Let the private sector determine who wins and loses and have the Federal Government get out of the business of business.

to increasing the tax liability that the 'theys' currently pay.....however, by passing a law that says they can no longer put their money into offshore accounts, that money would now be taxable at the current rate, not at an increased rate. By only increasing the tax liability on what stays within the country and allowing them to hide money offshore, they will only ship more of their money offshore and the increased tax liability will mean nothing. By using current tax percentages on what they would have to bring back to the country, the revenue is increased a hell of a lot more than trying to increase the tax liability on what they have to report today. Companies like GE would then finally be paying 'their fair share' to the Treasury and all rates could be reduced or held to the current level.

from the BO link you provided:

>>>The Obama White House says the initiatives announced Monday will generate a much-needed $210 billion in income over 10 years for the badly depleted U.S. Treasury. Obama said his effort will close tax loopholes, change deferral rules and crack down on global financial institutions that may be hiding taxable U.S. income. He also plans to hire 800 new Internal Revenue Service agents who will hunt for tax cheats.


"The way to make American businesses competitive is not to let some individuals and businesses dodge their responsibilities and let ordinary Americans pick up the slack," Obama said.
>>>>>

Considering that this was also part of his campaign crap from 2008, and although he had total control in both Houses of Congress during his first two years, he did nothing about it. I suspect that it's another campaign promise that looks good now and never goes anywhere later because too many of his buddies, like Imelt, would howl like werewolves, but the Republicans would be conveniently blamed again for stopping it. It also gives him a way to hire on another 800 IRS agents......good grief. I hope before he hires them that he waits to see if any of the over 2000 IRS agents already hired to take control of policing the penalties/taxes that Obamacare needs are actually needed come June when the Supreme Court decides if it's going to be struck down. Then he can just transfer 800 of them to this new program and lay off the rest.

As for Romney....that isn't corporation or company money that he's got hidden away in order to avoid paying taxes on it. He pays the same rate on that money/income as any capital gains taxpayer does (Buffett). The headline of the link you gave is deceptive and false.....and the video says "private" and won't play so I don't know what that person has to say.

Romney hasn't avoided taxes like the headline says.....and BO is using this distraction as a campaign pledge just like he did in 2008 and did nothing about when he had the control to do it. He couldn't rock his benefactor's boats then and he won't do it now....case in point, Imelt.