Mission Accomplished: Wealth finally spread around:
QuoteThe bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.
"We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing," said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1
You used Bush's line "mission accomplished" fittingly.
QuoteThe number of households that don't pay federal income taxes increased substantially in 2008, when the poor economy reduced incomes and Congress cut taxes in an attempt to help recovery.
In 2007, about 38 percent of households paid no federal income tax, a figure that jumped to 49 percent in 2008, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center.
In 2008, President George W. Bush signed a law providing most families with rebate checks of $300 to $1,200
So, why, if we've been effectively redistributing our income, has the gap between the rich and the rest of us increased so much? If we've been striving for economic equality by taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor, why has inequality increased?
It's not a matter of equality it's ensuring more enslavement to mediocrity.
On another note, I just learned from my boss my middle-class self will be paying roughly a $1000 tax increase on my company-provided health insurance plan. Sweet.
Quote from: we vs us on April 07, 2010, 03:55:01 PM
So, why, if we've been effectively redistributing our income, has the gap between the rich and the rest of us increased so much? If we've been striving for economic equality by taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor, why has inequality increased?
Here's a thought, why do half of us not pay a freakin dime in federal income taxes. As for redistribution, did you read that quote I cited? Many Americans actually profit from tax policy. So these people do not pay taxes and in fact make money, what else should us taxpayers do? Should the government just start writing checks to these people in order to close the wealth gap.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 07, 2010, 04:00:14 PM
On another note, I just learned from my boss my middle-class self will be paying roughly a $1000 tax increase on my company-provided health insurance plan. Sweet.
You are so lucky. :(
Quote from: guido911 on April 07, 2010, 04:04:06 PM
Here's a thought, why do half of us not pay a freakin dime in federal income taxes. As for redistribution, did you read that quote I cited? Many Americans actually profit from tax policy. So these people do not pay taxes and in fact make money, what else should us taxpayers do? Should the government just start writing checks to these people in order to close the wealth gap.
It was this way long before the current administration. The rate may have risen 12%, especially with the recession, but the concept is the same.
Quote from: guido911 on April 07, 2010, 04:04:06 PM
Here's a thought, why do half of us not pay a freakin dime in federal income taxes.
Because half of us already make so little we're living hand to mouth. And before you get your panties in a bunch, do keep in mind that there are a lot of taxes people pay no matter how small their income. Sales tax, FICA, the list goes on.
Quote from: nathanm on April 07, 2010, 04:12:55 PM
Because half of us already make so little we're living hand to mouth. And before you get your panties in a bunch, do keep in mind that there are a lot of taxes people pay no matter how small their income. Sales tax, FICA, the list goes on.
Any business that is levied a tax that you buy anything from, you are in essence paying that tax as well. It is reflected in the price they have to charge to maintain profitability.
Nobody seems to mind that Tulsa's largest property owner pays no taxes.
Quote from: nathanm on April 07, 2010, 04:12:55 PM
Because half of us already make so little we're living hand to mouth. And before you get your panties in a bunch, do keep in mind that there are a lot of taxes people pay no matter how small their income. Sales tax, FICA, the list goes on.
And that's my fault? He!!, the rich are already responsible for the jobs most have (last I heard the poor ain't hiring). Instead of a "thank you", let's soak them. As for paying FICA, well I am all broken up that people actually have to pay for something, such as their own retirement. I am talking about federal income tax, and nearly half do not pay it. This is just another statistic that just smacks the "rich don't pay their fair share" meme. In fact, it actually supports that millions "don't pay any share" meme.
Quote from: custosnox on April 07, 2010, 04:09:01 PM
It was this way long before the current administration. The rate may have risen 12%, especially with the recession, but the concept is the same.
You know, I frankly do not care whose fault it is. It disgusts me that people can profit from tax policy.
Quote from: guido911 on April 07, 2010, 05:30:19 PM
millions "don't pay any share" meme.
Once again, they do pay a share of the total tax burden, often a higher proportion of their income than you do. Your desire to blame someone else for your problems aside, you're refusing to see the facts as they actually exist.
I think you have the odd idea that poor people live charmed lives on your dime. Why don't you try living like they do for a while? Perhaps then you'd see it's not all roses.
Quote from: guido911 on April 07, 2010, 05:36:51 PM
You know, I frankly do not care whose fault it is. It disgusts me that people can profit from tax policy.
So it disgusts you that I got back more then I put in, so there for I was able to buy my kids some birthday presents this year, or that I was able to get some of my back child support paid from when I wasn't working? It disgusts you that I have ended up at the bottom of the economic structure, and as I fight to get a leg up I get money back on my taxes that can help me on the way? Perhaps it also disgusts you that I am taking advantage of financial aid to get my school paid for so I can have a chance of getting somewhere? While I'm sure that there are plenty who have taken advantage of the system because they just want something for nothing, I would suggest taking a moment to think about the entire emcompassment of a comment.
Quote from: custosnox on April 07, 2010, 05:49:23 PM
So it disgusts you that I got back more then I put in, so there for I was able to buy my kids some birthday presents this year, or that I was able to get some of my back child support paid from when I wasn't working? It disgusts you that I have ended up at the bottom of the economic structure, and as I fight to get a leg up I get money back on my taxes that can help me on the way? Perhaps it also disgusts you that I am taking advantage of financial aid to get my school paid for so I can have a chance of getting somewhere? While I'm sure that there are plenty who have taken advantage of the system because they just want something for nothing, I would suggest taking a moment to think about the entire emcompassment of a comment.
We ARE talking about Guid here. Keep that in mind.
:o
Quote from: custosnox on April 07, 2010, 05:49:23 PM
So it disgusts you that I got back more then I put in, so there for I was able to buy my kids some birthday presents this year, or that I was able to get some of my back child support paid from when I wasn't working? It disgusts you that I have ended up at the bottom of the economic structure, and as I fight to get a leg up I get money back on my taxes that can help me on the way? Perhaps it also disgusts you that I am taking advantage of financial aid to get my school paid for so I can have a chance of getting somewhere? While I'm sure that there are plenty who have taken advantage of the system because they just want something for nothing, I would suggest taking a moment to think about the entire emcompassment of a comment.
Got it. It doesn't bother you one bit that government is forcing others at the threat of arrest and jail to hand over their money to you. Or do you lack the humility and are okay with that. As for buying your kids' birthday presents, assistance with school tuition, and getting some of your child support back; you're welcome.
I have no problem with my comment, as with every large number of losers that take advantage of the system there are the legit hard luck stories. I am simply not wired in such a way wherein I could seriously try to convince someone that taking someone else's property because I am having hard times is justified. Oh, and in case you do not know, no one died and left me a ton of money nor did I open my front door one morning to find a pile of cash. Everything I have I have earned through hard work and sacrifice. But feel free to take the position, which some in this forum refer to in loser speak that "I got mine", to take what I have "gotten".
BTW, I kinda like Drudge's Headline "Rob thy Neighbor"
Quote from: guido911 on April 07, 2010, 06:57:19 PM
Got it. It doesn't bother you one bit that government is forcing others at the threat of arrest and jail to hand over their money to you. Or do you lack the humility and are okay with that. As for buying your kids' birthday presents, assistance with school tuition, and getting some of your child support back; you're welcome.
I have no problem with my comment, as with every large number of losers that take advantage of the system there are the legit hard luck stories. I am simply not wired in such a way wherein I could seriously try to convince someone that taking someone else's property because I am having hard times is justified. Oh, and in case you do not know, no one died and left me a ton of money nor did I open my front door one morning to find a pile of cash. Everything I have I have earned through hard work and sacrifice. But feel free to take the position, which some in this forum refer to in loser speak that "I got mine", to take what I have "gotten".
BTW, I kinda like Drudge's Headline "Rob thy Neighbor"
I'm guessing it also rubs you the wrong way that all those people are retiring on your dime. That damn Social Security thing was all designed to take from your pocket and spread the wealth.
Quote from: guido911 on April 07, 2010, 06:57:19 PM
Everything I have I have earned through hard work and sacrifice.
And not a small amount of help from society, I'm sure. Add a dash of luck, and presto! ;)
Seriously, those four things are absolutely required for business success. Sometimes you can get there with no hard work or sacrifice, but that generally requires a heaping dollop of luck rather than a mere dash.
Wealth, Income, and Powerby G. William Domhoff
September 2005 (updated February 2010)
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
"As of 2007, income inequality in the United States was at an all-time high for the past 95 years, with the top 0.01% -- that's one-hundredth of one percent -- receiving 6% of all U.S. wages, which is double what it was for that tiny slice in 2000; the top 10% received 49.7%, the highest since 1917 (Saez, 2009)."[/i]
(http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_1.gif)
Table 6: Distribution of income in the United States, 1982-2006
Income
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1982 12.8% 39.1% 48.1%
1988 16.6% 38.9% 44.5%
1991 15.7% 40.7% 43.7%
1994 14.4% 40.8% 44.9%
1997 16.6% 39.6% 43.8%
2000 20.0% 38.7% 41.4%
2003 17.0% 40.8% 42.2%
2006 21.3% 40.1% 38.6%
From Wolff (2009).
Is Our Tax System Helping Us Create Wealth?http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/is_our_tax_system_helping_us_create_wealth.pdf
QuoteImagine that all you had to live on was the amount of tax you saved in your best year because of the many tax rate cuts Congress has put into place since 1964, when President Johnson signed into law the Kennedy tax cuts.
For most Americans, living off income tax savings would mean starvation. Their income tax savings have been minor, and when looked at over a long period, say since 1961, increases in payroll taxes have more than offset their slight income tax reductions.
But for the very few who have gained the most from living in the United States, the story is quite different. Their tax savings alone from a single year, invested to earn just 5% annually, would be enough to provide a lifetime income at nearly twice the income threshold for being in the top tenth of one percent.
We haven't been taking from the wealthy to give to the poor.
Since 2001 we have been taking from the poor and giving to the rich.
And even such notables as Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and John Bogle have talked about that for years. (But then, how can you trust a billionaire like Gates whose company has been in and convicted in courts all around the world...)
Here's a thought; How would you like to trade places with any of those bottom 40%?? You wouldn't have to pay any taxes!!
But then you wouldn't enjoy those Bush/Cheney tax cuts, either. Sadness ensues.
Quote from: we vs us on April 07, 2010, 03:55:01 PM
So, why, if we've been effectively redistributing our income, has the gap between the rich and the rest of us increased so much? If we've been striving for economic equality by taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor, why has inequality increased?
We obviously haven't taken enough from the rich. We need to bring them down to the middle class level. Then we can lower the middle class to the lower economic levels. One step at a time. You can't hurry it. Don't be so impatient.
Quote from: custosnox on April 07, 2010, 07:11:08 PM
I'm guessing it also rubs you the wrong way that all those people are retiring on your dime. That damn Social Security thing was all designed to take from your pocket and spread the wealth.
If you must know, I wish social security never became what it is today, a substitute for pensions and retirement. I would prefer the government allow me to invest my money as I see fit. I also wish the government had allowed you to do the same. In any case, from what I am hearing, there's not going to be anything left when we reach social security retirement age (what will it be in 30 years, 90?). Seriously, what exactly do you find meritorious about taking and using other people's money. I know you are hurting, and others I have respect for in here are hurting, but my gosh the flippant, even arrogant, mentality that you are entitled to look at someone who has given their sweat and personal/family sacrifice (and maybe lived on rice and beans to achieve) and say "gimme yours" is something I just cannot get my arms around conceptually.
Quote from: custosnox on April 07, 2010, 05:49:23 PM
So it disgusts you that I got back more then I put in, so there for I was able to buy my kids some birthday presents this year, or that I was able to get some of my back child support paid from when I wasn't working? It disgusts you that I have ended up at the bottom of the economic structure, and as I fight to get a leg up I get money back on my taxes that can help me on the way? Perhaps it also disgusts you that I am taking advantage of financial aid to get my school paid for so I can have a chance of getting somewhere? While I'm sure that there are plenty who have taken advantage of the system because they just want something for nothing, I would suggest taking a moment to think about the entire emcompassment of a comment.
Evidently a judge somewhere felt you were rich enough to afford the payments for your kids. How's it feel to be (formerly) rich?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 07, 2010, 08:21:56 PM
We haven't been taking from the wealthy to give to the poor.
Since 2001 we have been taking from the poor and giving to the rich.
And even such notables as Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and John Bogle have talked about that for years. (But then, how can you trust a billionaire like Gates whose company has been in and convicted in courts all around the world...)
Here's a thought; How would you like to trade places with any of those bottom 40%?? You wouldn't have to pay any taxes!!
First, tell me, how are the poor bailing out the rich if 47% are not paying taxes? As for trading places, there was a time where I was earning just over minimum wage at a full time job while I went to college full time. I've been dirt poor, but the government always managed to take money from me in taxes.
Quote from: nathanm on April 07, 2010, 07:14:13 PM
And not a small amount of help from society, I'm sure. Add a dash of luck, and presto! ;)
We have fought on several occasions on many issues, but do not insult what I went through to get to where I am with that bs.
Quote from: guido911 on April 07, 2010, 08:37:36 PM
If you must know, I wish social security never became what it is today, a substitute for pensions and retirement. I would prefer the government allow me to invest my money as I see fit. I also wish the government had allowed you to do the same. In any case, from what I am hearing, there's not going to be anything left when we reach social security retirement age (what will it be in 30 years, 90?). Seriously, what exactly do you find meritorious about taking and using other people's money. I know you are hurting, and others I have respect for in here are hurting, but my gosh the flippant, even arrogant, mentality that you are entitled to look at someone who has given their sweat and personal/family sacrifice (and maybe lived on rice and beans to achieve) and say "gimme yours" is something I just cannot get my arms around conceptually.
What exactly do you find meritorious about all but calling someone a theif because they use governmental credits put in place to help those who are down in order to become a more more productive member of society?
It was your good buddy Reagan that advocated and signed changes to pension law that allowed companies to get out of them by substituting company stock for real money contributions. REAL pensions were good for employees AND the companies. It was a win-win.
Now there is the 401k, IRA's, etc.
So we have taken the investment and planning out of the hands of the professional pension managers and put it into YOUR hands. And the catastrophe that is in the works WILL be what causes the financial collapse.
There are big, dark clouds on the horizon that are just very recently being reported on about the total failure of the whole "self retirement" thing. The average 401k plan balance is about $65,000 (Fidelity news). That is the reality of retirement in this country. You have had smoke blown up your backside about "how to" save so much at 10% for so many years and you too can be a millionaire.
Except at the same time, the currency is being inflated at about 6% average. So you are making about what a savings account would nominally pay...if it paid anything at all.
If you are around 30, you may actually have a chance, but that's counting on the big bust not happening before end of century. Older? You are screwed.
Just another reason to grow more marijuana to make all the ethanol we need to fuel and oil our cars, planes, and trains so we can keep our cash here in this country instead of shipping it to Saudi and Russia.
I was making a "salary" 4 1/2 years ago that worked out to the equivalent of about $4.25 per hour. Same as I made in 1974. And then got a better job at $10 - part time. Same as 1979. Then got a better one than that where now I have to pay taxes.
And someone has been listening to the Cheney/Rove/Murdoch AM radio lies about poor people not paying taxes. I will refer you to Warren Buffet for the in depth analysis, but suffice it to say that those same poor people who "don't pay taxes" actually pay a much bigger percentage of their pay in taxes than you likely do. And if you are one of those blessed who make over $250,000 per year, then you get the biggest break of all. Want the details?
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 07, 2010, 08:41:44 PM
Evidently a judge somewhere felt you were rich enough to afford the payments for your kids. How's it feel to be (formerly) rich?
I have never been rich. I was able to raise an entire family, lazy unworking wife included, on less then half of what I have to earn now to pay child support and have enough to make it by on. I'm still trying to figure out how these national standards on child support got established in the first place.
Quote from: custosnox on April 07, 2010, 09:03:11 PM
I have never been rich. I was able to raise an entire family, lazy unworking wife included, on less then half of what I have to earn now to pay child support and have enough to make it by on. I'm still trying to figure out how these national standards on child support got established in the first place.
Rich is relative. I won't argue with the inequity of the divorce and child support laws. According to the law, some judge decided you could afford it. By some legal standard, you were rich compared to your ex and "taxed" accordingly.
The problem isn't that the rich aren't taxed enough. The problem is how government money is spent. Wealth is redistributed, but the lions share is redistributed upward, not downward. The amount of welfare and handouts to the poor that exist today cause outrage, while the amount of money being awarded corporations that have lobbyists and bought-off congressmen doesn't cause nearly the same amount of hatred.
Look at various components of government spending and tell me how a majority of it was a redistribution DOWNWARD and not Upward or just pure waste.
Social Security:
Social security isn't a handout, it is a pyramid scheme that had its surpluses raided in the past Bernie Madoff style, and is now about to go bankrupt - but the people who are now receiving benefits DID pay into it, so it is hard to flatly call it a "handout". The possibility looms that full payment of benefits previously promised will not occur, which means poor and middle class Americans actually had wealth taken away, not given to them - especially considering the interest or investment potential of what was paid in to the system over past decades.
Defense Spending:
At over $1 trillion per year, defense spending is the largest chunk of spending we currently have. It does not go to the poor unless you count poor folks who join the military because there is no opportunity for them in the economy.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
Military Personnel $154.2 billion
Total Spending $1.003–$1.223 trillion
That means about 1/8th of defense spending goes to the people in the service (redistribution to the lower and middle class), and the other 7/8ths are being spent in lucrative contracts that lobbyists earn their special interests (redistribution to the super wealthy).
Debt Service
When we accumulate national debt, we have to pay interest to the parties who fronted us the dough.
Look at this real quick: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
All of that money is going to private banks, foreign governments, or individuals who had enough spare cash to make the investment. Redistribution: Upward
If you look at the debt service over the years you may notice it goes up and down from year to year even though our debt is always increasing. That is because interest rates are ridiculously low right now. That means if the Fed has to raise interest rates to curb inflation, we'll just pay astronomically more in debt service on our huge deficits. Either way the poor and middle class are going to be fleeced.
Medical spending (Medicare/ Medicaid)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget
$453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare
$290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid
This is more of an economic theory of mine, since the federal government has been so ensconced in the health care sector for decades, it is hard to even have a means for comparison in modernized medicine, however, my theory is this:
When the federal government throws 3/4ths of a Trillion into the medical system, it gobbles that up as a subsidy. Less benefit is reaching the people, more dollars following the same services, higher prices and profits for the upper crust. Government spending in a nutshell.
Discretionary Spending
About $700 billion when you take away the Dept. of Defense and throw it into a separate category. Basically all of the "Department of ..."'s in the federal government are this category. Most of these "departments" are an ominous overseer of things which should really be handled on a local community level. Education is a good thing, no one will disagree. Sending $700 billion to the federal government to handle community concerns creates a huge layer of waste. Once that layer of waste sucks away billions of dollars, the lobbyists get to decide how the remainder is spent, rather than the community itself, which is more down to earth and accountable. In this category of federal government spending, some of the money is actually used to help the lower and middle class. So while not a complete failure in helping the little guy, the "Departments" provide less help than the same dollar would buy if it just stayed in the community the whole time.
My conclusion is the less federal spending the better. The little guy seldom benefits from massive federal spending programs, no matter if they are sold as doing such or not. They have managed to create a huge backlash against the poor as the receivers of "wealth redistribution" while the exact opposite is precisely what happens with big government spending.
Cut the spending, then the debt, THEN taxes.
Quote from: custosnox on April 07, 2010, 07:11:08 PM
I'm guessing it also rubs you the wrong way that all those people are retiring on your dime. That damn Social Security thing was all designed to take from your pocket and spread the wealth.
My employer and I are paying in now for the right to have your children support me, just like I am now supporting my mom and possibly your parents or some older relatives. I plan to live a long time so some of you young folks better have some more children or each one of them will have a difficult time supporting me and my generation.
Quote from: nathanm on April 07, 2010, 07:14:13 PM
And not a small amount of help from society, I'm sure. Add a dash of luck, and presto! ;)
Seriously, those four things are absolutely required for business success. Sometimes you can get there with no hard work or sacrifice, but that generally requires a heaping dollop of luck rather than a mere dash.
Every business has some help from society. If there were no society, there wouldn't be anyone to trade your goods or services with. Some people need/deserve/get more help than others. Some people think they deserve more than they need.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 07, 2010, 09:23:51 PM
My employer and I are paying in now for the right to have your children support me, just like I am now supporting my mom and possibly your parents or some older relatives. I plan to live a long time so some of you young folks better have some more children or each one of them will have a difficult time supporting me and my generation.
Actually the way I look at it, with nearly $13 trillion in national debt, you and your employer are paying for the services the government was providing approximately 10 years ago, which for me would mean I'm paying for my own high school right now :D I wonder if anyone has done a reverse version of the debt clock based on how much actual revenue the federal government has taken in to see what day & year we are actually paying for with taxes we pay in the present. That would be a neat statistic to have.
Quote from: guido911 on April 07, 2010, 08:48:05 PM
We have fought on several occasions on many issues, but do not insult what I went through to get to where I am with that bs.
Funny how you parse words like an attorney when it suits you, but ignore half a post when you're trying to play the victim.
I'll restate, in case I was unclear the first time: Hard work and sacrifice are usually prerequisites to success. I congratulate you for having the fortitude to get where you want to be in life. However, without society, your hard work would most likely be for naught, as you would lack roads to drive on, and be too busy raising crops to eat to go to law school.
Without society, you wouldn't have (probably, I'm speculating here) had your schooling paid for by the government in exchange for your service in the armed forces. (Thank you!) Without society, there would be no Court in which to practice.
I could continue enumerating, but there's no purpose in that.
Without luck, your hard work could also be for naught. Pick the wrong time to get into a business and you're not going to be successful no matter what. You were lucky enough to be born here in the US where society provides a great infrastructure to build upon and prolific opportunity for success. Luck of birth aside, there are plenty of people equally as smart and driven as you who are not as successful, through no fault of their own.
I'm not belittling your hard work. Unless you were a trust fund baby, it was an essential ingredient in your success.
Quote from: YoungTulsan on April 07, 2010, 09:30:30 PM
Actually the way I look at it, with nearly $13 trillion in national debt, you and your employer are paying for the services the government was providing approximately 10 years ago, which for me would mean I'm paying for my own high school right now :D I wonder if anyone has done a reverse version of the debt clock based on how much actual revenue the federal government has taken in to see what day & year we are actually paying for with taxes we pay in the present. That would be a neat statistic to have.
We could indeed be paying for 10 years ago. You youngins better have a bunch of kids quick. I only have a few more years to pay for their education so they can support me in a manner to which I would like to become accustomed in my retirement. You will need to forego the new TV, car, ipod etc for a few years to raise them.
The debt monster requires exponential growth to continue into infinity. On the other side, the greenies are calling people irresponsible for having kids, much less living life to the fullest.
Instead of telling people how to live their lives, taxing carbon, and other such anti-liberty ideas, the best way to slow down over consumption is to kill the debt monster dead. When you look at the national debt you'd think we are spending money on purpose just so the banks reap ever increasing debt service payments. We are enticed to consume crap we don't need so that we continue to borrow and be slaves to the banks. /Tyler Durden
Well okay.
If our biggest problem is the federal debt, I guess we should be behaving more like Russia and Libya and less like Japan and Canada.....
(http://28.media.tumblr.com/kDJraD8nwoijw1keOzbxrW3Io1_500.gif)
Just sayin'
Quote from: JeffM on April 07, 2010, 10:06:12 PM
Well okay.
If our biggest problem is the federal debt, I guess we should be behaving more like Russia and Libya and less like Japan and Canada.....
Just sayin'
Debt is good because Libya isn't in debt? Strong logic.
Quote from: nathanm on April 07, 2010, 09:32:08 PM
Funny how you parse words like an attorney when it suits you, but ignore half a post when you're trying to play the victim.
Play a victim? Where have I played a victim? I just don't want someone who has no clue about the hard work both I and my wife went through to get to where we are by excusing it as luck. You know, we didn't feel lucky passing up having a family while we went to graduate school (oh, while I worked as well) or that we lived as paupers for years in undergrad or that I commuted over 210 miles per day to work to make money for the family.
If your point is that society helped me get to where we are, then I guess those 47% are just darned unlucky, and not underachievers or failures or just ran into hard times. Luck is BS. Here's a thought, get off your tangential "neighbors got you where you are" riff and talk about real issues. If not, tell me why I should thank you and others with similar positions for my lot in life
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 07, 2010, 08:26:45 PM
We obviously haven't taken enough from the rich. We need to bring them down to the middle class level. Then we can lower the middle class to the lower economic levels. One step at a time. You can't hurry it. Don't be so impatient.
Worked well for the Soviets, eh Komrade?
Quote from: YoungTulsan on April 07, 2010, 10:10:10 PM
Debt is good because Libya isn't in debt? Strong logic.
Actually it IS strong logic. ;D
I remember hearing the same national debt hand-wringing and fear-mongering decades ago.
And I get tired of it being used as a political football... especially when it's used to intimidate the younger generation....
I've always felt reducing the debt is a major issue.
But not at the expense of everything else.
Reaganomics should be sentenced to the dustbin of history.
(http://girldujour.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/national_debt_increase_hlarge.jpg)
Just a little perspective.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 07, 2010, 09:02:41 PM
It was your good buddy Reagan that advocated and signed changes to pension law that allowed companies to get out of them by substituting company stock for real money contributions. REAL pensions were good for employees AND the companies. It was a win-win.
Now there is the 401k, IRA's, etc.
401ks, IRAs are the result of a demand for portability. As the workforce became more mobile and moved among several employers during a career, a method was needed to allow your retirement to follow the employee. Kind of like the desire to make health care less dependent on employers now.
Quote
So we have taken the investment and planning out of the hands of the professional pension managers and put it into YOUR hands. And the catastrophe that is in the works WILL be what causes the financial collapse.
There are big, dark clouds on the horizon that are just very recently being reported on about the total failure of the whole "self retirement" thing. The average 401k plan balance is about $65,000 (Fidelity news). That is the reality of retirement in this country. You have had smoke blown up your backside about "how to" save so much at 10% for so many years and you too can be a millionaire.
The smoke was in the expectation that interest income could be maintained at 10%. Otherwise the financial formulas are correct. Inflation that accompanied the 10% rates on CDs etc ate up that "income" as you note below. Even as I hoped to become a millionaire when I started my career in the early 80s, I knew a loaf of bread would be $100.00 when I retired. Not saving was "not an option" as has been said.
Quote
Except at the same time, the currency is being inflated at about 6% average. So you are making about what a savings account would nominally pay...if it paid anything at all.
If you are around 30, you may actually have a chance, but that's counting on the big bust not happening before end of century. Older? You are screwed.
And someone has been listening to the Cheney/Rove/Murdoch AM radio lies about poor people not paying taxes. I will refer you to Warren Buffet for the in depth analysis, but suffice it to say that those same poor people who "don't pay taxes" actually pay a much bigger percentage of their pay in taxes than you likely do. And if you are one of those blessed who make over $250,000 per year, then you get the biggest break of all. Want the details?
I have a difficult time with the concept that so many people have no responsibility to the society that supports them. The French Revolution (should have) taught us that we cannot let those people starve in the cold and rain ... but ... if you want more than the bare necessities, you need to offer something (not necessarily just money) to society more than the bare minimum. One of the rewards of having more to offer, whether it be a skill, more hours worked to get ahead, etc, is the ability to have some money left over for goodies. Some generations have used that money to make life easier for their descendants. I fall into the easier but still have to get an education/work for a living group. Thank you Grandpop (deceased long ago now) for getting an education and a skilled job in your adopted country. I know that not everyone on this forum believes in that principle.
Quote from: JeffM on April 07, 2010, 10:22:59 PM
Actually it IS strong logic. ;D
I remember hearing the same national debt hand-wringing and fear-mongering decades ago.
And I get tired of it being used as a political football... especially when it's used to intimidate the younger generation....
I've always felt reducing the debt is a major issue.
But not at the expense of everything else.
Reaganomics should be sentenced to the dustbin of history.
(http://girldujour.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/national_debt_increase_hlarge.jpg)
Just a little perspective.
It has worked for us during times of unfettered growth. I fail to see how the debt is sustainable if any sort of plateau is reached in population or economic production.
Quote from: YoungTulsan on April 07, 2010, 09:17:08 PM
The problem isn't that the rich aren't taxed enough. The problem is how government money is spent. Wealth is redistributed, but the lions share is redistributed upward, not downward. The amount of welfare and handouts to the poor that exist today cause outrage, while the amount of money being awarded corporations that have lobbyists and bought-off congressmen doesn't cause nearly the same amount of hatred.
Look at various components of government spending and tell me how a majority of it was a redistribution DOWNWARD and not Upward or just pure waste.
Social Security:
Social security isn't a handout, it is a pyramid scheme that had its surpluses raided in the past Bernie Madoff style, and is now about to go bankrupt - but the people who are now receiving benefits DID pay into it, so it is hard to flatly call it a "handout". The possibility looms that full payment of benefits previously promised will not occur, which means poor and middle class Americans actually had wealth taken away, not given to them - especially considering the interest or investment potential of what was paid in to the system over past decades.
I occasionally hear of the prospect of means testing (are you too rich to receive benefits) for SS distributions. This would be a case of upper and most likely middle class Americans having wealth taken from them for the benefit of the poor. The concept of SS being a safety net and supplement to one's own retirement savings is long gone.
Quote
Defense Spending:
At over $1 trillion per year, defense spending is the largest chunk of spending we currently have. It does not go to the poor unless you count poor folks who join the military because there is no opportunity for them in the economy.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
Military Personnel $154.2 billion
Total Spending $1.003–$1.223 trillion
That means about 1/8th of defense spending goes to the people in the service (redistribution to the lower and middle class), and the other 7/8ths are being spent in lucrative contracts that lobbyists earn their special interests (redistribution to the super wealthy).
I'm sure that the thousands of civilian defense workers are donating their time for the good of the country. A good chunk of that 7/8ths goes to workers salaries and other supporting industries. It keeps a lot of people from being poor while providing one of the few things actually required of the Federal Government. The amount of $ is always a topic for disagreement.
Quote
Debt Service
When we accumulate national debt, we have to pay interest to the parties who fronted us the dough.
Look at this real quick: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
All of that money is going to private banks, foreign governments, or individuals who had enough spare cash to make the investment. Redistribution: Upward
You expect those groups to lend the money for free? These groups have offered the use of an asset (their money) much the same as a laborer offers his/her muscles or a skilled person offers the use of their skills and all three expect a return in exchange.
Quote from: guido911 on April 07, 2010, 10:12:44 PM
Play a victim? Where have I played a victim? I just don't want someone who has no clue about the hard work both I and my wife went through to get to where we are by excusing it as luck. You know, we didn't feel lucky passing up having a family while we went to graduate school (oh, while I worked as well) or that we lived as paupers for years in undergrad or that I commuted over 210 miles per day to work to make money for the family.
If your point is that society helped me get to where we are, then I guess those 47% are just darned unlucky, and not underachievers or failures or just ran into hard times. Luck is BS. Here's a thought, get off your tangential "neighbors got you where you are" riff and talk about real issues. If not, tell me why I should thank you and others with similar positions for my lot in life
There you go again, acting as if I'm somehow insulting your labor by pointing out that there are things beyond our personal control that shape our lives. I'm not excusing your hard work as luck, I'm saying there was an element of luck involved in your eventual success. There was also a lot of hard work. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Quote from: YoungTulsan on April 07, 2010, 10:33:36 PM
It has worked for us during times of unfettered growth. I fail to see how the debt is sustainable if any sort of plateau is reached in population or economic production.
Some more perspective......
The debate on the National Debt......
I have a question. Why do people get to claim children for tax breaks? Children cost a lot of taxpayer money. Since having children is a personal choice, shouldn't those who choose to have them pay higher taxes than those who choose not to?
A big part of the reason over 40% of Americans don't pay income tax is the claiming of dependants and available tax credits for having children.
I am a single male, head of household, no dependants. I pay an extremely high percentage of income tax. Doesn't seem fair to me.
I am all for a flat tax system. It seems to be the most fair for the largest amount of people- not to mention the substantial amount of Government resources that could be done away with.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on April 09, 2010, 06:15:13 PM
I am a single male, head of household, no dependants. I pay an extremely high percentage of income tax. Doesn't seem fair to me.
Fairness in tax policy will go nowhere in this forum. Do yourself a favor and read some of the posts in this thread, in particular cust pointing out that this country's tax policy is necessary so he can offset child support payments and buy his children birthday presents.
You are right, though. It isn't fair how your decision warrants punishment. You are being forced to pay for the education, safety, medical care, housing, and every other service for the children of those 47% that pay no federal income tax. Don't expect a "thank you" however.
Quote from: guido911 on April 09, 2010, 07:46:02 PM
You are right, though. It isn't fair how your decision warrants punishment. You are being forced to pay for the education, safety, medical care, housing, and every other service for the children of those 47% that pay no federal income tax. Don't expect a "thank you" however.
Hence the reason a flat tax would work well. No deductions, no credits, exemptions, etc. Everyone pays the same proportionately.
I don't mind paying a fair share of education, safety, etc. but I do have a problem paying a disproportionate share, especially when people are being rewarded by the current tax system by having
more children.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on April 09, 2010, 08:40:10 PM
Hence the reason a flat tax would work well. No deductions, no credits, exemptions, etc. Everyone pays the same proportionately.
Very libertarian of you. Kudos. However, your suggestion will go over like a turd in a birthday cake. Prepare for the cries of "regressive taxation", "the rich ain't paying their fair share", and "working families (again, whatever that is) get screwed again". I agree with you on the the notion of flat tax, although I am more of a fair tax guy.
Quote from: guido911 on April 09, 2010, 08:50:18 PM
Very libertarian of you. Kudos. However, your suggestion will go over like a turd in a birthday cake. Prepare for the cries of "regressive taxation", "the rich ain't paying their fair share", and "working families (again, whatever that is) get screwed again". I agree with you on the the notion of flat tax, although I am more of a fair tax guy.
Don't expect to see me at any tea parties anytime soon ;)
Quote from: azbadpuppy on April 09, 2010, 09:14:02 PM
Don't expect to see me at any tea parties anytime soon ;)
Understood. At least we agree on tax policy?
Quote from: guido911 on April 09, 2010, 09:18:10 PM
Understood. At least we agree on tax policy?
It appears that way. Funny, huh. We probably agree on more than we think. Ok, I wont push it lol.
Quote from: guido911 on April 09, 2010, 07:46:02 PM
Fairness in tax policy will go nowhere in this forum. Do yourself a favor and read some of the posts in this thread, in particular cust pointing out that this country's tax policy is necessary so he can offset child support payments and buy his children birthday presents.
You are right, though. It isn't fair how your decision warrants punishment. You are being forced to pay for the education, safety, medical care, housing, and every other service for the children of those 47% that pay no federal income tax. Don't expect a "thank you" however.
Just love how you try to demonize me because I do what I have to in order to provide for my kids. I also love how you claim to have made it to where you are today with absolutely no help from anyone else. You are so full of it it's not even funny. And as far as the tax system "offsetting" my child support, tell ya what, why don't you try giving up %50 of your net income and see if you don't look for some kind of help. While your out of it, go ahead and take out %50 of the remaining net to pay for health insurance. As far as the whole birthday present thing, until you have to look into your own son's eyes and tell him he isn't going to get anything for his birthday this year because your flat broke, you can kiss my a$$ on the whole issue.
I personally would have no problem with everyone paying a straight percentage tax on their income. No matter how much you make, you have to pay %x in taxes. No tax brakets. As far as claiming children as dependents, if you ever tired raising kids you owuld understand how much they cost. And since children are our futurr, they are an investment of the community as a whole.
Quote from: custosnox on April 09, 2010, 09:47:27 PM
Jus As far as claiming children as dependents, if you ever tired raising kids you owuld understand how much they cost. And since children are our futurr, they are an investment of the community as a whole.
Having kids is a personal choice, as is getting married, or divorced. The costs of these decisions
should have no bearing on how much someone pays in income taxes. I don't think it is right that people are rewarded by the tax system by having children, and those who choose not to have them are, essentially penalized.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on April 10, 2010, 10:13:58 AM
Having kids is a personal choice, as is getting married, or divorced. The costs of these decisions should have no bearing on how much someone pays in income taxes. I don't think it is right that people are rewarded by the tax system by having children, and those who choose not to have them are, essentially penalized.
As I said, children are our future. Without them our society will fail. The purpose of the tax rewards is not to reward someone for having children, but to ease the burden of childcare. Think of it this way, you have most likely benifited from these tax reliefs because your parents claimed you as a dependent, which meant more money in the household to provide for you as a child.
Quote from: custosnox on April 10, 2010, 11:54:38 AM
As I said, children are our future. Without them our society will fail. The purpose of the tax rewards is not to reward someone for having children, but to ease the burden of childcare. Think of it this way, you have most likely benifited from these tax reliefs because your parents claimed you as a dependent, which meant more money in the household to provide for you as a child.
At your neighbor's expense, man you are shallow!!! Taxes are not supposed to be a form of freakin charity. As for looking into a child's eyes and telling them bad news, you don't ever want to go there with me. As for paying child support, I managed to stay married to my very loving wife so I will not have to pay any support.
Quote from: we vs us on April 10, 2010, 12:43:18 PM
Azbad: the tax code has to balance fairness with its other purpose, which is to encourage behavior that our society values. Just like buying hybrid cards, or homeownership, our society values child-rearing. I don't own a home or a hybrid, but see why encouraging both might be good.
Custonox: keep your chin up, brother. Things will get better.
Guido: The fact that your ideology is internally consistent doesn't make it any less despicable. I frankly can't believe no one has told you how morally repugnant your behavior has been in this thread.
Well, let me be the first. It's disgusting.
How so? You mean, because I believe taxes are supposed to be used to raise capital to run our government and not as a means for people to make money? If that's "morally repugnant" and "disgusting" to you, you are too far gone for a rational discussion. What's more, it's morally repugnant to me that people can with a straight face actually justify taking other people's more for their own use.
Quote from: guido911 on April 10, 2010, 04:01:30 PM
How so? You mean, because I believe taxes are supposed to be used to raise capital to run our government and not as a means for people to make money? If that's "morally repugnant" and "disgusting" to you, you are too far gone for a rational discussion. What's more, it's morally repugnant to me that people can with a straight face actually justify taking other people's more for their own use.
I doubt anybody "makes money" from taxes. You seem to forget that there are a lot more taxes than just the income tax.
Quote from: nathanm on April 10, 2010, 04:03:01 PM
I doubt anybody "makes money" from taxes. You seem to forget that there are a lot more taxes than just the income tax.
Go back and read the original article:
QuoteThe bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.
And again, we are talking about federal income tax.
Quote from: guido911 on April 10, 2010, 04:10:53 PM
Go back and read the original article:
And again, we are talking about federal income tax.
Crickets. Here is an article from an evil conservative which essentially, and by the way succinctly, sums up my position:
http://article.nationalreview.com/430938/tax-season/mark-steyn
Just finished up my taxes about an hour ago.
Got to come up with an additional $788 to send to federal and $219 to the state.
Oh well I'd rather send them additional tax rather than get a refund. I just hate the government to use my money interest free.
Quote from: guido911 on April 10, 2010, 04:10:53 PM
And again, we are talking about federal income tax.
Talking about income tax and excluding the rest of the tax burden is like budgeting for your gas bill and excluding the fuel charge.
And don't worry, we unmarrieds always get to pay.
Right now, there are probably more folks than usual not paying income tax thanks to both job loss reducing incomes and the myriad tax credits for buying a house, a car, green appliances, and on and on. Given that none of them are permanent, I don't think it's really fair to use this year's (or last year's) numbers in a vacuum.
Quote from: JeffM on April 07, 2010, 11:42:23 PM
Some more perspective......
The debate on the National Debt......
Damn, growth was a little over 3% in those days and people were predicting a recession. We all know what happened to Mondull in that election.
So. Deficits are bad. Are the "failed economic policies" of the Reagan administration justification for the Obama Administration racking up record deficits? That's what I keep hearing.
President Reagan certainly never envisioned the country being $12 to $13 trill. in debt.
Quote from: nathanm on April 11, 2010, 03:52:19 PM
Talking about income tax and excluding the rest of the tax burden is like budgeting for your gas bill and excluding the fuel charge.
And don't worry, we unmarrieds always get to pay.
Right now, there are probably more folks than usual not paying income tax thanks to both job loss reducing incomes and the myriad tax credits for buying a house, a car, green appliances, and on and on. Given that none of them are permanent, I don't think it's really fair to use this year's (or last year's) numbers in a vacuum.
The original point was about Federal income tax in the first place. Not overall tax burden. Though if you want to argue overall tax burden, lower income people and retirees can also apply for an income tax rebate.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 12, 2010, 09:18:06 AM
The original point was about Federal income tax in the first place. Not overall tax burden. Though if you want to argue overall tax burden, lower income people and retirees can also apply for an income tax rebate.
Why debate the issue when you can simply change the subject?
Quote from: guido911 on April 12, 2010, 10:02:11 AM
Why debate the issue when you can simply change the subject?
Mickelson had a great finish yesterday, didn't he?
I'm too lazy to read the whole thread :D
I am assuming that somebody pointed out the fact that "The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005."
I am sure that there are quite a few businesses that aren't actually active though. Only 25% of the "largest" paid taxes. Doesn't say how many they considered the largest.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1249465620080812 (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1249465620080812)
Quote from: Conan71 on April 12, 2010, 10:36:03 AM
Mickelson had a great finish yesterday, didn't he?
That shot on 13 from the pine straw...maybe one of the best Master's shots ever!
;D
Quote from: Trogdor on April 12, 2010, 01:28:39 PM
I'm too lazy to read the whole thread :D
I am assuming that somebody pointed out the fact that "The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005."
I am sure that there are quite a few businesses that aren't actually active though. Only 25% of the "largest" paid taxes. Doesn't say how many they considered the largest.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1249465620080812 (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1249465620080812)
I'm assuming that people actually understand that businesses are only liable for income taxes on INCOME. If your income is lower than your expenses and deductions you pay no income tax.
So basically if an above company had a poor year, out of the 7 years aforementioned, than they paid no income tax.
SO WHAT!
Quote from: Trogdor on April 12, 2010, 01:28:39 PM
I'm too lazy to read the whole thread :D
I am assuming that somebody pointed out the fact that "The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005."
I am sure that there are quite a few businesses that aren't actually active though. Only 25% of the "largest" paid taxes. Doesn't say how many they considered the largest.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1249465620080812 (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1249465620080812)
I love Christmas time.
Quote from: unreliablesource on April 11, 2010, 03:44:11 PM
Just finished up my taxes about an hour ago.
I recently finished my taxes. Perhaps that is why I am on a bit of a tear.
Quote from: guido911 on April 12, 2010, 02:25:12 PM
I recently finished my taxes. Perhaps that is why I am on a bit of a tear.
I'm waiting to see the painful truth, then it's off to Ranch Acres...
Quote from: Conan71 on April 12, 2010, 02:35:27 PM
I'm waiting to see the painful truth, then it's off to Ranch Acres...
If I were you, I would do what you are planning in reverse.
Quote from: guido911 on April 12, 2010, 02:54:36 PM
If I were you, I would do what you are planning in reverse.
I may have to give up Marshall's and start drinking Hamm's or Schlitz again... damn vultures!
Quote from: Gaspar on April 12, 2010, 01:56:44 PM
I'm assuming that people actually understand that businesses are only liable for income taxes on INCOME. If your income is lower than your expenses and deductions you pay no income tax.
So basically if an above company had a poor year, out of the 7 years aforementioned, than they paid no income tax.
SO WHAT!
I read it in reverse that they paid no income for not 1 of the 7 years.
Quote from: guido911 on April 12, 2010, 10:02:11 AM
Why debate the issue when you can simply change the subject?
You missed my point. The discussion is meaningless without considering the total tax burden.
Quote from: nathanm on April 12, 2010, 03:29:01 PM
You missed my point. The discussion is meaningless without considering the total tax burden.
Well to you it may be meaningless. But when I read that millions of people actually profit from the FEDERAL income tax structure, it sure as sh!t means a lot to me.
Quote from: nathanm on April 12, 2010, 03:29:01 PM
You missed my point. The discussion is meaningless without considering the total tax burden.
Start your own thread on total tax burdens then...
I have no problem with that, as I've got plenty to add about close to, if not over 1/2 of my income is going to taxes: sales tax, property tax, hidden taxes in the products I buy, franchise taxes, utility taxes, etc.
Quote from: guido911 on April 12, 2010, 03:38:21 PM
Well to you it may be meaningless. But when I read that millions of people actually profit from the FEDERAL income tax structure, it sure as sh!t means a lot to me.
It is a lot easier to rant when you refuse to consider the impact of other taxes on the people you're so annoyed with.
Quote from: nathanm on April 12, 2010, 03:43:03 PM
It is a lot easier to rant when you refuse to consider the impact of other taxes on the people you're so annoyed with.
Whatever. And what Conan said.
Quote from: nathanm on April 12, 2010, 03:43:03 PM
It is a lot easier to rant when you refuse to consider the impact of other taxes on the people you're so annoyed with.
+1
Typical republican faux-libertarian arrogance.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 12, 2010, 09:15:39 AM
Damn, growth was a little over 3% in those days and people were predicting a recession. We all know what happened to Mondull in that election.
So. Deficits are bad. Are the "failed economic policies" of the Reagan administration justification for the Obama Administration racking up record deficits? That's what I keep hearing.
President Reagan certainly never envisioned the country being $12 to $13 trill. in debt.
No, dummy. Deficits are only bad when the Dems are in office.
I learned that from the "liberal" media over the course of three decades....
Last time I checked, the stock market was over 11,000.... maybe you could give somebody a little credit....
Your political messiah's policies have been out of date for well over a decade.... the dogma and legacy of Art Laffer-style Reaganomics was the biggest redistribution of wealth from poor to rich in the history of this country.
Here's some more quotes from crazy liberals for all y'all......
"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."- Adam Smith
"I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective: a graduated inheritance tax increasing rapidly with the size of the estate."- Theodore Roosevelt
"An unwise tax cutter, my fellow citizens, is no real friend of the taxpayer."- Dwight D. Eisenhower
"It's the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress."-- Ronald Reagan, in 1986 after signing legislation greatly increasing the earned income tax credit
Reagan set the ball rolling. His smallest deficit was about $150 billion. (Jimmies largest was about half that). And then, by the time it was over, we were about $3.5 trillion in debt. (As compared to the approx $800+\- billion when he took office.) And then George took over and it skyrocketed again. And that was even with the tax hikes that were instituted in those 12 years.
Hey, here's a thought; instead of being so stupid about tax cuts, big government, and blah, blah, blah, like the tea baggers are...why not worry about cutting spending?? Oh, yeah...that would put a crimp in the Republican plan, huh?
We cannot "tax cut" our way out of this kind of debt. Reagan and Bush I knew at least that much. It literally is like having an income of 50,000, debt of 250,000 and spending more to "fix" the problem.
From the Washington Times, from 1981 through 2008, the civilian work force remained at about 1.1 million to 1.2 million, with a low of 1.07 million in 1986 and a high of more than 1.2 million in 1993 and in 2008. In 2009, the number jumped to 1.28 million.
The count went down from 1993 until just after 2001, then went up for 'homeland security'. A big surge is occurring this year for census, then is projected to be back at 1.2 next year. These are civilian. Add military and we are about 2.3 million or so.
Question; Does that sound like an inordinate amount of employees for a country this size?
Just curious...
Hmmm, that's an interesting figure, Hier. I had assumed that number would be far higher. Add in UE, SSI recipients, military retirees, & direct contractors (ie independent consultants & the like) and the number of people dependent on the gov for their primary income and I'd bet that number is well up into at least 20% of the population.
Why do people keep harkening back to the Reagan & Bush years when the topic of deficits come up? How do you justify the insane amount of spending right now by clomping back down memory lane by 20-30 years. Apparently the policies of the Nixon & Carter years weren't so great. Reagan increased the deficit to right the economic ship.
Sounds like a great idea now to Obama supporters with the whole stimulus, yet revisionist thinking wants to paint the government spending of '81 to '89 as an abysmal failure.
Quote from: JeffM on April 12, 2010, 05:28:23 PM
Last time I checked, the stock market was over 11,000.... maybe you could give somebody a little credit....
f Congress."
Actually, while GWB was in office the DJIA was -24% when he left. So far Obama is +34%. Now lets see if the 11k is there in a year.
Quote from: Trogdor on April 13, 2010, 12:49:31 AM
Actually, while GWB was in office the DJIA was -24% when he left. So far Obama is +34%. Now lets see if the 11k is there in a year.
I think that is very interesting. Several major industries have failed, but the inside financial sector, AIG, Smith Barney, City and the cash traders like Soros are performing extremely well. Large companies with new government contracts like GE are also performing. Technology giants like Apple are innovating.
. . . and believe it or not, BANKS ARE LOANING HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY.
The big mega-companies have more capital available to them than ever, because banks have rolled back into the safe investment stratagem of only loaning to the big guys. The market is booming and will continue to boom because banks and Wall Street have been married by an unlikely pastor.
While this is good for my investments, it's not going to help unemployment or small business much. The reason all this money is available to big business is because it's not available to individuals and small businesses.
I invest, and I'm making great returns and turning investments quickly in this market, but most small businesses and individuals don't have the time or understanding to take advantage of a corporatist economy through investment.
So basically what I'm saying is that yes the economy has changed under President Obama. It is far more focused on large corporate growth and trading than small business economic growth. The administration has done everything within its power to help the mega-companies, but nothing to grow small business and reverse unemployment trends.
Eventually if this strategy continues we will see the big companies gobble up failing small businesses and take over new market sectors. As this happens unemployment will begin to turn around slowly, however people will be working for an increasing number of massive conglomeration companies that will have increasing control over the economy.
This is not exactly Freshman Economics (101) but it's certainly not graduate level.
I'm happy that the market is up, but I would rather see small business sector growth.
Quote from: Trogdor on April 13, 2010, 12:49:31 AM
Actually, while GWB was in office the DJIA was -24% when he left. So far Obama is +34%. Now lets see if the 11k is there in a year.
...and the Dow was over 14,000 during the BushII admin (I know it was 2007 so that was President Clinton's accomplishment, no wait that was the false economy, no wait that was because Democrats had control of the house, no wait...), and around 6600 last March during the Obama administration (of course, that was Bush's fault).
Anyone note how the Dow grew from around 3700 to nearly 12,000 in eight years during the Clinton admin? Great un-precedented growth, but how sustainable was that rate of growth going to be? Especially since many companies were cooking their books in the process of making themselves look better off than they were (I know, another Bush-era practice), there was a lot of borrowed money in play (which we are now paying the price for), and many worthless companies made their founders and intial investors incredibly wealthy with the IPO fever of the late '90's. Of course, those companies became worthless again in short order.
Hey, I'm not complaining. The 1990's were halcyon days for me. My paycheck was ever increasing, profit sharing was great and my investments did well. I also watched close friends gasp in horror as their 401K's, IRA's, etc. started shrinking in 2000 and they had no idea what to do.
The '00's haven't been bad to me, I've had a few lean years, this year isn't so great, but I'm optimistic that this admin's energy policies will be a benefit to my chosen line of work and industry will bounce back and be needing new equipment, equipment upgrades to keep up with growing capacity, and equipment upgrades to keep in compliance with emission standards.
I've simply always maintained a paradigm that if I think the economy sucks, my personal economy eventually will get to that point. If I keep looking at the lighter edges, I will at worst do the same as the prior year or prosper. There is money to be made in every economy, you just have to keep an open mind to find it.
Conan, it is great if you invest a lot in a brokerage account and don't invest in mutual funds in a 401k. A lot of people don't trade stocks except maybe tweaking their mutual fund. That means when you go from 2000 to 2010 and you don't actively sell or move around your cash in your 401k, you would be happy to break even (Assuming they didn't out or under perform the DOW). So going 10 years with inflation and no growth is kind of a big deal. I remember a president saying we should invest all our social security money and HSA accounts in the stock market. Yes, you can thank Bush for setting up the events to hit 14,000. Then you can thank him for the events that sent it to 6,600.
Quote from: Trogdor on April 13, 2010, 09:14:05 AM
Conan, it is great if you invest a lot in a brokerage account and don't invest in mutual funds in a 401k. A lot of people don't trade stocks except maybe tweaking their mutual fund. That means when you go from 2000 to 2010 and you don't actively sell or move around your cash in your 401k, you would be happy to break even (Assuming they didn't out or under perform the DOW). So going 10 years with inflation and no growth is kind of a big deal. I remember a president saying we should invest all our social security money and HSA accounts in the stock market. Yes, you can thank Bush for setting up the events to hit 14,000. Then you can thank him for the events that sent it to 6,600.
Your assumption only makes the assumption omeone bought all their shares the day before Bush entered office and sold them the day he left.
As long as people moved their funds around, they lost nothing. If you keep standing on the tracks when the train is blowing it's whistle, you deserve to get hit. Unfortunately, too many private "investors" only take a passing interest in their 401K or IRA.
Honestly, to lay all the blame or credit for the markets at the foot of any President is inaccurate. A President can do a lot to inspire or inhibit investment but there's way, way more in play here. I don't think anyone can honestly deny that President Obama and Secretary Geithner took way, way too much time to start talking up the economy. To the contrary, they kept campaigning against it and the failures of the Bush admin for the first six weeks they were in office. Every time Geithner or President Obama spoke about anything related to money, the market would take a dive. I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth here with my complaint, because I did buy a lot of stock the week of 3/6 last year and it's panned out nicely.
I absolutely hope the market keeps growing from here. I also hope the Obama administration brings the most overall prosperity we've ever seen to the United States. If that's their plan, I think they are going about it all wrong, but we shall see in the long run.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 13, 2010, 08:38:21 AM
...and the Dow was over 14,000 during the BushII admin
The market always peaks just before the bubble bursts. If it had been a meaningful accomplishment, we wouldn't have seen the Dow cut in half.
That said, I think it looks like somebody's inflating a bubble again somewhere, I just haven't figured out what it is yet. It can't just be the increased money supply, as inflation is still very low thanks to the previous lighting on fire of trillions of dollars and the fact that banks are still being pretty stingy.
It'll be interesting to see what the housing market does once we stop giving people money to buy houses.
Quote from: nathanm on April 13, 2010, 03:56:18 PM
The market always peaks just before the bubble bursts.
Well, DUH! Thank you Mr. Obvious.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 13, 2010, 03:57:11 PM
Well, DUH! Thank you Mr. Obvious.
You're the one who seemed to think 14,000 was some sort of accomplishment.
Quote from: nathanm on April 13, 2010, 04:18:21 PM
You're the one who seemed to think 14,000 was some sort of accomplishment.
No more than it hitting 11,000 is.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 13, 2010, 04:20:45 PM
No more than it hitting 11,000 is.
That remains to be seen, but as I mentioned earlier, I'm operating under the assumption that there is a bubble being inflated somewhere, probably in even more esoteric and opaque (to us laypeople) derivatives than the MBS-backed CDOs that precipitated the last bubble.
Quote from: nathanm on April 13, 2010, 04:32:11 PM
That remains to be seen, but as I mentioned earlier, I'm operating under the assumption that there is a bubble being inflated somewhere, probably in even more esoteric and opaque (to us laypeople) derivatives than the MBS-backed CDOs that precipitated the last bubble.
Yeah, but this bubble won't be as bad because it's Obama's bubble and not Bush's, right?
Just making sure I've got the facts
as you see them straight.
The only bubble out there is deflation and the only way to pop it is to print more money....
Quote from: Conan71 on April 13, 2010, 04:33:50 PM
Yeah, but this bubble won't be as bad because it's Obama's bubble and not Bush's, right?
At the moment, it's not as bad because it's not inflated as largely. The only blame Bush should get for the previous bubble is his policy of asking the regulators to please go take a nap while the big boys played with our money. Similarly, if Obama's regulatory institutions fail to contain a new bubble, he deserves criticism for that.
What does annoy me significantly about whoever's decision it was to do financial reform after healthcare reform is the relative importance of the two. While I understand the political calculus (get the Republicans out against any regulation just before the midterms), I think the financial reform is far more important to our country's future.
Don't get me wrong, I think HCR was important, just not as important as preventing a second round of financial armageddon.
fotd, I wish I could believe that. I just don't think the fundamentals are there for a Dow at 11,000, what with the deflation and all.
Quote from: nathanm on April 13, 2010, 04:45:00 PM
What does annoy me significantly about whoever's decision it was to do financial reform after healthcare reform is the relative importance of the two. While I understand the political calculus (get the Republicans out against any regulation just before the midterms), I think the financial reform is far more important to our country's future.
Don't get me wrong, I think HCR was important, just not as important as preventing a second round of financial armageddon.
+1
Quote from: nathanm on April 13, 2010, 04:45:00 PM
fotd, I wish I could believe that. I just don't think the fundamentals are there for a Dow at 11,000, what with the deflation and all.
Uh, what else is pushing the market higher? Rates are deflated....fixed assets are deflated....commodities have flat lined....
The stimulus money pushed the market higher...and it's still moving even higher towards 12,000. You people who keep thinking we're breaking the country and that the pouring money into the economy does not work just don't get it....you've been drinking that Reagan kool aid for far too long. Tear down that myth.
Where's an economist when I need one?
One more thing, employment and labor wages are also deflated.
Quote from: fotd on April 13, 2010, 04:53:18 PM
Uh, what else is pushing the market higher? Rates are deflated....fixed assets are deflated....commodities have flat lined....
I'm a firm believer in Keynesian economics. I think the stimulus hasn't even been enough to cover the deflation caused by the meltdown, hence my skepticism about the stock market's fundamentals and expectation that there's a new bubble somewhere.
It's possible that it's merely due to low bond yields and relatively flat commodities prices, but I don't think that's enough to explain it. Oil has been trending higher as of late (although the last few days haven't been particularly good), and gold, while not performing as well as it did last year isn't exactly losing much value at the moment, so where is the money coming from?
I suppose it could be the investment-banks-turned-regular-banks borrowing from the discount window. I don't have enough information to do more than speculate at the moment.
Conan
You know why we go back to the past - those who don't know it are doomed to repeat and all that jazz.
I don't even come close to justifying the spending. Have been railing against it since the '60s. Just a day or two ago I made another impassioned plea to abandon the fantasy world of tax cuts and look to spending cuts. Just really hate to see the true revisionists so hard at work with their lies - you know who they are - Cheney/Rove/Murdoch and their ilk. And I do mean ilk in the ilkiest sense of the word.
The thing that set the economic ship in the path of needing righting had a lot to do with policies that we had in place back into the '20s. Including things like support of kicking the Palestinians out of their homes. Putting our puppets in place of the duly elected and otherwise duly chosen people in places like Iran. Panama. Nicaraqua. Viet Nam. But we were doing it to fight communism.
And since we have no knowledge or sense of history, our entire country is afflicted with a condition similar to Drew Barrymore in the movie "50 First Dates". We awaken every morning and wonder why anyone could possibly be mad with us about anything and are particularly indignant when much of the world doesn't have any interest in falling in line with us.
Nixon was a complete mess from the get-go. As you well know. As far as the economy, well it was Nixon who came up with the idea of wage and price controls in peace time. To do mortal combat with an inflation rate of about 6%. Oh, how I long for those good old days.
Reagan had a couple things in mind. He bought into the idea of "Star Wars", which being heavily into technology, I appreciate a great deal, but knew that it was many years away and very expensive. And second, but much more important, he thought it would be a good idea to "spend" the USSR into oblivion. Well, at least that worked, but with the unwanted side effect of doing same to ourselves. And how is that "getting rid of USSR" working out for ya'?? They did have a few moments of semi-democracy about 20 years ago, with the side effect of empowering, emboldening, and expanding the Russian mafia, which now competes on nearly equal footing with the old style KGB government from the good old days.
As far as stimulus, well '81 to 89 was just about as effective as what we have now. In other words, much less than optimum. Not failure, just not wildly successful.
And if one is going to be indignant about the current stimulus, then why would one not be indignant about unfunded wars - two of them - one of which was actually warranted. Massive "unfunded" tax cuts to only the wealthy. Unfunded bailouts for banks and insurance companies of over a trillion. Unlawful actions of almost elected officials. (How much indignation can one stand?)
Reagan alone did not spend the Russians into oblivion. It took a quarter century. He just happened to be in office when the deal came down. Don't give him so much credit. He had the onset of Alzheimers.
A quarter century of cold war spending left the USSR less capable of withstanding the spending on Star Wars. Reagan caused the straw that broke the USSR but I agree he was not solely responsible for the demise of the USSR.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 13, 2010, 10:17:34 PM
Putting our puppets in place of the duly elected and otherwise duly chosen people in places like Iran. Panama. Nicaraqua. Viet Nam. But we were doing it to fight communism.
According to a PBS special many years ago on the Viet Nam situation, Ho Chi Minh tried to get US help to kick out the remnants of the "foreigners" (French Indo-China) but the US declined. Probably due to our alliance with the French. Then Ho went to the Commies and the rest is pretty well known.
Minh was always a Marxist - since his teens anyway. That isn't really relevant. Let's start with WWII, where MUCH like Afghanistan and Iraq, we supported Minh as did USSR through WWII. When that ended, the French came back and tried to keep the empire together. This eventually brought us into the mess for NO good reason. In fact, the French, USSR, British and US got together to make a solution in 1954. And one of the broken promises was to hold elections. Which Minh would have easily won.
By late '50s the Communists in the north were supporting the NLF (revolutionaries). The factions were taking over the south (today's analogy; Taliban in Afghanistan - we supporting then fighting them.) Then we got into it and the entire time it was in the news through the '60s, we would hear about the atrocities the Viet Cong performed on villagers when our guys weren't around. I suspect there was some of that, just like there were from our side. Men are men and when in a war/combat/fight situation, there is no such thing as "civilized behavior". It's just the way we are.
An interesting thing about our interpretation/reporting of how THEY behaved comes from one of their philosophical doctrines. Many/most of which were taken directly from Chairman Mao's little red book.
When the NLF entered a village they obeyed a strict code of behaviour. All members were issued with a series of 'directives'. These included:" (1) Not to do what is likely to damage the land and crops or spoil the houses and belongings of the people; (2) Not to insist on buying or borrowing what the people are not willing to sell or lend; (3) Never to break our word; (4) Not to do or speak what is likely to make people believe that we hold them in contempt; (5) To help them in their daily work (harvesting, fetching firewood, carrying water, sewing, etc.)."
I suspect those policies changed over time, too.
The Current ReaganBush Debt is:
$11,898,280,275,824.50 which means that in a total of 20 years, these three presidents have led to the creation of 92.71% of the entire national debt in only 8.547% of the 234 years of the existence of the United States of America.
How else can you pay for this with out printing more money?
We don't pay for it. We accelerate the inflation of the currency to gain the illusion of "paying" it.
Still don't hear any talk in this nation by either side about reducing spending. Yeah, I know...we can't do it now. And won't do it "then".
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 14, 2010, 09:31:16 PM
Still don't hear any talk in this nation by either side about reducing spending. Yeah, I know...we can't do it now.
You're right, doing that now would put the economy in the toilet for a while. Hopefully once we withdraw from Iraq and start drawing down the troop levels in Afghanistan, we can save some money by not prosecuting more foreign wars.
I'm not actually really that serious about that part of it. Anytime is a good time to cut government spending, even if only by a token amount. Goes to the propaganda effect of things.
Longer term, if we had the self restraint and will to end our Imperialistic Militarism (or Militaristic Imperialism if one is on the other side of the aisle) and slow the insanity of our chase for each "new thing" in consumerism, ethics, and spiritualism (the entire gamut of religions), we could perhaps be a little bit more sane inside our own heads.
But it won't happen.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 14, 2010, 10:11:50 PM
I'm not actually really that serious about that part of it. Anytime is a good time to cut government spending, even if only by a token amount. Goes to the propaganda effect of things.
Longer term, if we had the self restraint and will to end our Imperialistic Militarism (or Militaristic Imperialism if one is on the other side of the aisle) and slow the insanity of our chase for each "new thing" in consumerism, ethics, and spiritualism (the entire gamut of religions), we could perhaps be a little bit more sane inside our own heads.
But it won't happen.
You know, if you'd drop the Rove/Cheney/Murdoch cabal thing and the Military Imperialism thing, more people would likely engage you in conversation. 100% agreement spending has to be cut prior to taxes being cut. Problem is, no one wants to be the one to wield the axe in the various bureaucracies and agencies, nor legislators who will say no to lobbyists and their pet projects back home so they can get re-elected.
Take away the incentive for legislators (read: massive amounts of payola) to vote against common fiscal sense and it would start happening.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 14, 2010, 10:38:01 PM
Take away the incentive for legislators (read: massive amounts of payola) to vote against common fiscal sense and it would start happening.
So what exactly is it you think should be cut?
Quote from: nathanm on April 14, 2010, 10:46:15 PM
So what exactly is it you think should be cut?
Really shitcan the lobbying industry instead of the token hand slaps they've given, take away contribution slush funds (i.e. PAC's) and further limit monetary and in-kind campaign contributions. Unfortunately SCROTUS dealt a blow to that concept.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 14, 2010, 10:49:54 PM
Really shitcan the lobbying industry instead of the token hand slaps they've given, take away contribution slush funds (i.e. PAC's) and further limit monetary and in-kind campaign contributions. Unfortunately SCROTUS dealt a blow to that concept.
I'm in full agreement. When we spend money, I would prefer it to be because it's thought to be a good idea by someone other than the industry (or particular locality, although I have no problem in principle with federal funding for deserving local projects) it will benefit.
Stop talking about the reality of today's world??
Hmmm...novel idea. Then I could be a tea-bagger, too.
It's Militaristic Imperialism.
How do engaging conversations start without an engaging controversy? How do we get control of the Congress? (It has never happened in the history of the country, so would be a novel happening.) I recommend to un-elect incumbents every time. Let's start with Jim Inhofe.
Maybe I should drag Coulter's name into the mix? She is at least as big a liar and as saturated with putrescence. Remember how she went after the Iraq war widows. Purely despicable. Brilliant as a propaganda "big lie", but still despicable. (Did I mention reprehensible? Well, that too.)
And yet ALL these are not just revered, but seem to be elevated to near saint hood by good, hard-working, honest people in this country who are truly frustrated by what is going on today. I am beginning to wonder if the apocalypse adherents are maybe closer to right than I would have imagined. Good people appear to definitely be deceived by what would manifest as the anti-Christ. We haven't seen him, yet. Only minions.
Ok, ok, I don't really believe the Great Deceiver is here. Still skeptical he will appear.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 14, 2010, 11:03:28 PM
Stop talking about the reality of today's world??
Hmmm...novel idea. Then I could be a tea-bagger, too.
It's Militaristic Imperialism.
How do engaging conversations start without an engaging controversy? How do we get control of the Congress? (It has never happened in the history of the country, so would be a novel happening.) I recommend to un-elect incumbents every time. Let's start with Jim Inhofe.
Maybe I should drag Coulter's name into the mix? She is at least as big a liar and as saturated with putrescence. Remember how she went after the Iraq war widows. Purely despicable. Brilliant as a propaganda "big lie", but still despicable. (Did I mention reprehensible? Well, that too.)
And yet ALL these are not just revered, but seem to be elevated to near saint hood by good, hard-working, honest people in this country who are truly frustrated by what is going on today. I am beginning to wonder if the apocalypse adherents are maybe closer to right than I would have imagined. Good people appear to definitely be deceived by what would manifest as the anti-Christ. We haven't seen him, yet. Only minions.
Ok, ok, I don't really believe the Great Deceiver is here. Still skeptical he will appear.
Are you and FOTD sharing?
Must be some good stuff. ;)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 14, 2010, 11:03:28 PM
Stop talking about the reality of today's world??
Hmmm...novel idea. Then I could be a tea-bagger, too.
It's Militaristic Imperialism.
How do engaging conversations start without an engaging controversy? How do we get control of the Congress? (It has never happened in the history of the country, so would be a novel happening.) I recommend to un-elect incumbents every time. Let's start with Jim Inhofe.
Maybe I should drag Coulter's name into the mix? She is at least as big a liar and as saturated with putrescence. Remember how she went after the Iraq war widows. Purely despicable. Brilliant as a propaganda "big lie", but still despicable. (Did I mention reprehensible? Well, that too.)
And yet ALL these are not just revered, but seem to be elevated to near saint hood by good, hard-working, honest people in this country who are truly frustrated by what is going on today. I am beginning to wonder if the apocalypse adherents are maybe closer to right than I would have imagined. Good people appear to definitely be deceived by what would manifest as the anti-Christ. We haven't seen him, yet. Only minions.
Ok, ok, I don't really believe the Great Deceiver is here. Still skeptical he will appear.
Um, Inhofe is last in the rotation, 2012. Looks like you need to start with Sullivan and Coburn assuming you live in District 1.
I can play too: Soros/Olbermann/Maddow/Axlerod/etc ad nauseum.
District 1 it is.
And I happen to like Coburn - at least as well or better than most - as I have mentioned many times.
Sullivan - yeah, he is ok, I guess. Just not real inspiring one way or the other.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 15, 2010, 08:57:52 PM
District 1 it is.
And I happen to like Coburn - at least as well or better than most - as I have mentioned many times.
Sullivan - yeah, he is ok, I guess. Just not real inspiring one way or the other.
Sullivan flip flopped on TARP. He voted No on the first round, and switched to Yes after Goldman Sachs threatened there would be chaos in the streets in 24 hours.
If you want a good explanation of why it is that 47% of us pay no income tax, perhaps this link will enlighten:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Olbermann/Maddow/
Let's put Al Franken in there, too.
This is a group of three that, while very distastefully too far left (wacked out) for me are at least honest - verifiably so. Makes an interesting contrast to the Cheney/Rove/Murdoch/Coulter world that is even more verifiably dishonest.
Good choice.
The choice you apparently present is honesty, integrity and a belief system that is distasteful and somewhat disturbing.
Or dishonesty, no integrity and a belief system that is as despicable as it isn't conservative OR Republican. It is passing itself off to worm its way into the fabric of mainstream America.
(http://i.usatoday.net/news/graphics/2010/0415-editgrf16/editgrf16.jpg)
How about corporations that pay NO TAXES. It is not just the low income earner, how about those big huge multinational corporations that are able to not pay their fair share? All that money they pay their lobbyest does pay off. http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/04/guest-post-after-getting-bailed-out-by-american-taxpayers-general-electric-pays-zero-u-s-taxes-pretending-that-all-of-its-profits-are-overseas.html (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/04/guest-post-after-getting-bailed-out-by-american-taxpayers-general-electric-pays-zero-u-s-taxes-pretending-that-all-of-its-profits-are-overseas.html)
QuoteGeneral Electric got bailed out by American taxpayers.
Specifically, it was given $139 billion in FDIC guarantees and support by the Federal Reserve for it's commercial paper (see this).
So you'd think that GE would return the favor by paying American taxes, right?
Wrong. GE paid no U.S. taxes for 2009.
As CNN points out:
GE had plenty of earnings last year — just not in the United States. For tax purposes, the company's U.S. operations lost $408 million, while its international businesses netted a $10.8 billion profit.
Unfortunately, GE is not alone.
As I wrote in November:
The Washington Post notes:
About two-thirds of corporations operating in the United States did not pay taxes annually from 1998 to 2005, according to a new report scheduled to be made public today from the U.S. Government Accountability Office...
In 2005, about 28 percent of large corporations paid no taxes...
Dorgan and Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) requested the report out of concern that some corporations were using "transfer pricing" to reduce their tax bills. The practice allows multi-national companies to transfer goods and assets between internal divisions so they can record income in a jurisdiction with low tax rates...
[Senator] Levin said: "This report makes clear that too many corporations are using tax trickery to send their profits overseas and avoid paying their fair share in the United States."
Indeed, as Pulitzer prize winning journalist David Cay Johnston documents, American multinationals pay much less in taxes than they should because they use a widespread variety of tax-avoidance scams and schemes, including:
* Selling valuable assets of the American companies to foreign subsidiaries based in tax havens for next to nothing, so that those valuable assets can be taxed at much lower foreign rates
* Pretending that costs were spent in the United States, so that the companies can count them as costs or deductions in the U.S. and pay less taxes to the American government
* Booking profits as if they occurred in the subsidiary's tax haven countries, so that taxes paid on profits are at the much lower safe haven rate
* Working out sweetheart deals with certain foreign governments, so that the companies can pretend they paid more in foreign taxes than they actually did, to obtain higher U.S. tax credits than are warranted
* Pretending they are headquartered in tax havens like Bermuda, the Cayman Islands or Panama, so that they can enjoy all of the benefits of actually being based in America (including the use of American law and the court system, listing on the Dow, etc.), with the tax benefits associated with having a principal address in a sunny tax haven.
* And myriad other scams
As Johnston documents, the American economy is hurt by the massive underpayment of taxes by the huge multinationals.
Joiei, do you want to pay taxes on your losses? GE has legit business inerests around the world and as such is subject to a myriad of taxing authorities. GE still paid billions in payroll taxes and Federal witholding last year. GE shareholders paid taxes on dividends (albeit reduced dividends) and many people paid cap gains selling GE stock they bought bargain basement prices last year. Keep in mind all the GE vendors who did pay corporate taxes last year as well as payroll, etc.
But there again, GE is just another evil corporate entity which screws Americans and doesn't provide any useful goods or services. My bad
Is a value added tax (VAT) seriously being considered by our government?
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F7MUG82&show_article=1
Quote from: guido911 on April 21, 2010, 05:34:10 PM
Is a value added tax (VAT) seriously being considered by our government?
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F7MUG82&show_article=1
Only in the minds of the folks who are trying to whip tea partiers into a frenzy over things that are complete non-starters in both parties.
Quote from: nathanm on April 21, 2010, 05:55:30 PM
Only in the minds of the folks who are trying to whip tea partiers into a frenzy over things that are complete non-starters in both parties.
This is coming from Obama and his administration. Are you seriously suggesting that Obama wants the tea partiers agitated?
Quote from: guido911 on April 21, 2010, 05:59:27 PM
This is coming from Obama and his administration. Are you seriously suggesting that Obama wants the tea partiers agitated?
The only thing, other than denials, that came from the administration on the subject was:
Quote
The former chairman of the Federal Reserve who is an outside adviser to President Barack Obama, said the value-added tax "was not as toxic an idea" as it has been in the past, according to a Reuters report.
As in, "it's still toxic, but people are probably less opposed to this now than in the past" to a question that nobody seems to have transcribed. It would be interesting to know who asked the question that sparked Volcker's comment, but I can't find a way to read support for or serious consideration of a VAT in that.