Is America Taxed too Much?

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Here in Florida what we do is give millions to companies to move their operations to China and India, provided they keep a business license and get a mailbox somewhere in the state.

 

[sr71plt]

Here in Florida what we do is give millions to companies to move their operations to China and India, provided they keep a business license and get a mailbox somewhere in the state.

I doubt the "give millions" part. The license and mailbox part is required to determine where they pay corporate taxes, right? So, functionally they'd be completely out of your area but paying taxes to support your area. Delaware certainly enjoys that game.

Sort of like when locals where I am complain about senior citizens moving into the area--bringing their own annuities earned elsewhere into the region's economic base and paying school taxes without using the schools.

Welcome to the fuzzy thinkers' club.

 

[Katyusha]

Lower taxes, corporation make more and pay more in taxes. Lower taxes and unemployment will drop as companies hire more people because they don't have such a big tax burden. Lower taxes and now there are more people paying taxes.

First, companies pay taxes on their operating income, not their bottom line. Tax cuts improve the bottom line, not the operating income. They don't pay more taxes if they're not increasing their operating income.

Second, this is assuming that businesses will actually use the extra money to expand and thus, employ more people, and hold their prices steady or even lower them, which would ideally attract more customers. Over a period of a few years, the costs of said expansion have fallen and leveled out, the business is fully established with its expanded customer base, and now is when those tax cuts begin to really make a difference. Now the company can add the tax cut to its bottom line along with all the new revenue.

However, the truth of the matter is that corporations only look ahead about 90 days. They rarely even look ahead to the end of the current fiscal year unless they're in their fourth quarter. They can't use the extra income from the tax cut to do what the the trickle-down theory says they're supposed to do in a single quarter, or even a single year, and continue to increase their bottom line at the same time. So they apply the extra money directly to the bottom line. It keeps their shareholders happy and it keeps the executives in their cushy jobs with their multi-million dollar annual bonuses. And the general population doesn't see much benefit, if any, from those tax cuts. Ever. The nature of modern business is to be very shortsighted and very greedy. It's why so many major corporations have so much trouble these days. They don't think about long-term sustainability. They only think about short-term gain.

The trickle-down theory does not take that shortsightedness and greed into account, which is why it doesn't work in practice. In fact, it fails miserably in practice.

 

[DeeZire]

...Evidence suggests this tax-driven exodus is already underway. Several studies have documented that New Jersey’s tax burden is driving wealth—as well as the jobs, job opportunities, and revenues it creates—from the state.

So what's your point Zeb? That we shouldn't tax rich people? That the redistribution of wealth upwards is a good thing? All your quoted article proves is that rich people care more about their money than their friends, or the community that enables them to become rich. That's not news. You've been spouting the same ideology of "I've-got-mine-so-screw-you" for months now.

The obvious solution would be for all states to tax the rich equally, which they will undoubtedly end up doing when the not-so-rich voters in those states realize how much their taxes would go down if the tax burden was shifted upwards. It's just a matter of simple math - a skill that even the ignorant American public can grasp with a little help.

I think the Republican tactic of blocking financial reform will finally prove to the American public whose side they're really on. When that happens, you can count on your taxes going up. In fact, the mere thought of your taxes going up has just put me in a great mood. Thanks for that, old buddy.

 

[Dragonlipz]

~~~

lower marginal tax rates in conjunction with .... such as Frédéric Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Henry Hazlitt.

1. Reduce government spending,
2. Reduce income and capital gains marginal tax rates,
3. Reduce government regulation of the economy,
4. Control the money supply to reduce inflation.

~~~

Happy now?

Amicus

I'd be happy if you'd find one of the above who was:
1. Alive
2. Recently Dead
3. Wasn't a flaming homosexual - not that I care, but you would
4. Had authored a paper remotely connected with laize-faire capitalism......
5. Was anywhere near relevant to this situation - that's probably asking too much for you in your intellectually challenged stupor brought on by the chemo........or is that just yore natcheral state?

 

[driphoney]

I'm not entirely sure I want to "go there." Let's just say it's possible that Eric Partridge may list multiple definitions.


However, given the context, I will hazard the guess that a "wood huckster" was ( is ) a firewood merchant.

That's no fun.

 

[TE999]

That's no fun.

If a wood huckster's mother assisted him in his occupation would she be a mother huckster?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

First, companies pay taxes on their operating income, not their bottom line. Tax cuts improve the bottom line, not the operating income. They don't pay more taxes if they're not increasing their operating income.

They pay taxes on their profit. They sell a product, their profit margin is 10% on each item they sell. The sell twice as many they pay twice as much in taxes. Just like they make twice as much which everyone, heaven forbid, thinks is outrageous.

Operating income is bookkeeping...paying taxes is not.

 

[Jagged]

I've heard good arguments for a flat tax everyone pays...and I've heard a proposal to due away with the IRS and simply go with a national sales tax.

No simple solutions here, but I think the government should be scaled back a bit. The bottom line for me is I think is that money is very mismanaged by government on all levels, and unlike the private sector there seems to be little fall out. Civil servants are there to serve and should find ways to save money and be rewarded, not receive bonuses just because, and discretionary funds need to go. You can't tell me it is okay for a politician to be given their own private slush fund. There is a long list of things that can be done.

 

[amicus]

Nanny State Entitlement...Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid consume, if memory serves, about 60% of the national budget.

Each day and every day for the next ten years, 10,000 'baby'boomers', the majority of the population of the AH, will reach retirement age and begin to require more and more medical care.

There will be no reduction in the size of government or the amount of taxes paid until all those programs are privatized.

If you think the current financial scams, bail-outs and failures are of some importance, they pale when compared to the utter waste of Social Security taxes withheld from each paycheck, allegedly for pension benefits, that have been spent in the General Fund and never invested, thus never returning an investment, which is why the entire program is on the verge of collapse as the Ponzi idea that less is being paid in than is being paid out.

It's a mess.

Amicus

 

[Jagged]

It's a mess.

Amicus[/QUOTE]



Agreed....where to start, and there will always be people hurt. You couldn't get rid of the programs that pay people not to farm, and they've done that in other countries and farmers have flourished.

To quote the Simpons:

"Grandpa didn't wonder why you were getting check for doing nothing?"

"I just figured the Democrats were back in office."




The other party has nothing to be proud of, and like I said if they managed all the money better they'd probably be plenty for most of the government's programs.

 

[TE999]

It's a mess.

Amicus

Agreed....where to start, and there will always be people hurt. You couldn't get rid of the programs that pay people not to farm, and they've done that in other countries and farmers have flourished.

To quote the Simpons:

"Grandpa didn't wonder why you were getting check for doing nothing?"

"I just figured the Democrats were back in office."




The other party has nothing to be proud of, and like I said if they managed all the money better they'd probably be plenty for most of the government's programs.

In actuality, politicians have relatively little to do with the federal bureaucracy except to throw money at it in response to squawks from constituents and appoint department heads upon a change in administrations. There are the usual sweetheart deals between chairpersons of committees and department heads which is a form of political patronage.

The federal bureaucracy's a rock in the rushing river of politics and three times as lodged in place...career 'civil servants' are motivated by status, pay and promotions. A common goal is to spend every dime of what's allocated to them each fiscal year and lack of results are explained away as not having enough money to do the job right and they need an increase in budget. Cost savings are not part of the equation.

Federal jobs are jealously guarded by the employees unions which can assemble voting blocs to support whoever promises to expand their numbers and raise their pay.

A fish rots from the head so the saying goes, but the federal rot progressed to the body long ago.

 

[amicus]

I find it reassuring that you both comprehend the nature of the problem, I only wish I saw a way out of it that doesn't include civil disorder.

I appears to me that it will continue as it is until it begins to collapse upon itself and violence breaks out; or that intervening action is taken that challenges the authorities in control, which will also bring about civil disorder.

It really is not a matter of choice in terms of something happening; it will either collapse from inside or be forced to change from outside.

Any other solutions?

Amicus

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

I observe two things happening: Tax revenues are collapsing and public employees are being deputized to discover civil violators and fine them.

I expect government to become aggressive about collecting revenue, however it can; and I expect citizens to become devious about avoiding revenue collections.

 

[DeeZire]

...No simple solutions here, but I think the government should be scaled back a bit. The bottom line for me is I think is that money is very mismanaged by government on all levels, and unlike the private sector there seems to be little fall out. Civil servants are there to serve and should find ways to save money and be rewarded, not receive bonuses just because, and discretionary funds need to go. You can't tell me it is okay for a politician to be given their own private slush fund. There is a long list of things that can be done.

You're right. We should adopt private sector techniques to enhance productivity - like paying CEO's multi-million dollar bonuses for running their company into the ground...

But wait, if we do that we'll have to send GWB at least a 100 million for running America into the ground. (Cheney gets a billion, but GWB doesn't know that.)

 

[LaRocha]

28% of estimated tax revenues this year will go to defense.

What are we really going to get out of the F-35 joint strike fighter? The Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle?

The reason America is taxed so much is because we feel like we have to spend nine times more than the next guy on defense because we've got little peckers.

 

[xssve]

66% Say America Is Overtaxed

Lower income voters are more likely than others to believe the nation is overtaxed.

This is probably why.

 

[xssve]

Just incase you don't realize that that graph doesn't mean that the top quintile pays more taxes than they earn - percentage of income represents percentage of total national income, while percentage of taxes is percentage of total taxes, a smaller number.

Here's the heritage foundations best attempt to explain away the income gap.

Even "correcting" for population has little impact, all it does is inflate the population of the top 1% seeming to lower average income by spreading it out, and reducing the population in the bottom quintile, making it seem like their average incomes are higher than they are, typical Heritage statistical acrobatics.

The same chart looks very different when dollar amounts are used instead of percentages, because you are comparing two different baselines.

The CBO's figures look a little more realistic: THE TYRANNY OF THE INCOME TAX.

 

[xssve]

Currently, the best I can find on the two baselines is:


Total Income: 41.2 Billion Dollars

Total Revenues: 4.598 Billion Dollars.

Meaning the figure for total taxes collected (federal revenues) are roughly between 10 and 11% of total income.

So, in the original chart, the percentage of income is being compared to the percentage of number equivalent to 10% of that baseline.

i.e., 20% of 41.2 Billion, compared to about 21% of 4.6 Billion.

I really don't know who makes charts like that, aren't charts supposed to make things easier to understand?

 

[xssve]

The stat that's not really being illustrated here is the shift in the tax burden to the lower quintiles, particularly the HENRY's, even as the total taxes paid by the wealthiest 1% rises.

That is illustrated here.

Even using income is misleading, as net worth gives you a more accurate picture of how wealth is distributed in this country.

The percentage of net worths ranging from $500,000 to one million doubled while the percentage of millionaires tripled.[1] From 1995-2004, there was tremendous growth among household wealth, as it nearly doubled from $21.9 trillion to $43.6 trillion, but the wealthiest quartile of the economic distribution made up 89% of this growth.[3] During this time frame, wealth became increasingly unequal, and the wealthiest 25% became even wealthier.

Wikiedia: Wealth in the United States.

Wealth disparity is much greater than income disparity - above a certain level, you can convert taxable income into non-taxable assets.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

This is probably why.

http://motherjones.com/files/images/the-only-tax-graph-that-matters_0.preview.jpg

Fair? Looks to me like the top 40% pay more in taxes than they make? Say what? (oops...didn't read you second post until after I posted this. But, there is still a big disparity as that top 40% pays 80% of the taxes. )

It is also true that the first 20% of tax payers receive back not only what was withheld as income taxes but whatever they qualify for under the low income calculations. So not only do they not pay any income taxes, they get a bonus for doing so...and that comes out of my pocket. And yours.

 

[Liar]

If a wood huckster's mother assisted him in his occupation would she be a mother huckster?

That sounds more like someone pimping out their mom.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Something thats rarely discussed are the tax credits the rich that arent available to average people.

For example, lets say youre a home builder. Lets say you build a house and live it in for a year. The furniture in the house is a business expense, the utilities are a business expense, the interest on the construction loan is a business expense, the car parked in the garage is a business expense.

 

[DeeZire]

....So not only do they not pay any income taxes, they get a bonus for doing so...and that comes out of my pocket. And yours.

Not everyone is as selfish as you are, Zeb. Some people feel an obligation to support the society in which they live, others prefer to take advantage of the society in which they live, much like a little child who has no concept of where food comes from or who picks up the garbage at the curb and takes it to the dump. If you prefer to look at life through the eyes of a selfish child, that's your choice, but it does call into question your maturity and cognitive skills.

ETA: To illustrate my point, imagine the society in which you live, but remove anyone who makes less than $100K per year. Now remove all the items in your life that were manufactured by people who make less than $100K per year. Do you have anything left? What about clothes? Are you good at sewing? Now, explain to me where you're going to get your food. In fact, explain to me where you're going to live, since most of the people who built the house you're living in were in the $20K to $60K income range.

 

[Jagged]

You're right. We should adopt private sector techniques to enhance productivity - like paying CEO's multi-million dollar bonuses for running their company into the ground...

But wait, if we do that we'll have to send GWB at least a 100 million for running America into the ground. (Cheney gets a billion, but GWB doesn't know that.)

Here I was thinking you had something intelligent to say and than you go back to blaming President Bush. President Obama is making a mess of things, but I'm already looking beyond him and how we can fix this country. The government needs to be scaled down on all levels, and the entrenched civil servants have to be held accountable.