General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsScuba
(53,475 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)but we could even afford that if the RICH paid their fair share.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)Federal tax revenues, adjusted for inflation, are about 6x what they were in 1950.
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_chart_1950_2015USp_F0t
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You say it's not a revenue problem, it's a spending problem. If that's so, then I want to know what our nominee - your candidate -plans to cut from the budget to bring it down.
maxsolomon
(33,400 posts)its like telling Netanyahu a painful truth; it's just not done during campaigns.
rah rah Militarism!
Victor_c3
(3,557 posts)Thank you for what you say. I have never read something that I don't agree with or at least brings up a great point.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Just say it.
It's not that hard.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)But do go on.
watoos
(7,142 posts)U.S. population in 1950 - 152 million
U.S. population in 2016 - 319 million
Of course revenue increased because our population doubled.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)It doesn't add up, we need to get spending under control.
watoos
(7,142 posts)We all know that the way we determine unemployment is flawed, the way we determine GDP is worse.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)Indydem
(2,642 posts)These folks think there is just a bottomless well if we tax evil corporations some more.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)http://staging.americansfortaxfairness.org/tax-fairness-briefing-booklet/fact-sheet-corporate-tax-rates/
http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2015/04/fifteen_of_many_reasons_why_we_need_corporate_tax_reform.php#.VyeYpD94OUc
Indydem
(2,642 posts)These elaborate tax avoidance schemes are established to pay less taxes.
Companies move overseas to avoid paying taxes.
Companies engage in inversions to avoid paying taxes.
Why don't we just lower the taxes and eliminate the loopholes?
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)is raising revenue--i.e. actually getting those poor persecuted corporations to pay taxes. And the fact that other countries can't seem to tax corporations and the wealthy either is part of the problem...and no doubt why wealth concentration is an issue worldwide.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)KPN
(15,650 posts)Triana
(22,666 posts)Another issue America has: F*cked-up PRIORITIES.
Corporations get WELFARE in the form of little to NO taxes and huge gov't subsidies, the rest of us get AUSTERITY.
As I said, it's BULLSHIT.
If spending needs adjustment then it needs adjustment in a few particular places. We can start with DEFENSE and the behemoth that is now DHS - NOT by gutting Social Security, for instance to "Fix the Debt".
The $17 Trillion Delusion: The Absurdity of Cutting Social Security to Reduce the Debt: http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/21154-the-17-trillion-delusion-the-absurdity-of-cutting-social-security-to-reduce-the-federal-debt
Hillary and the GOP's favorite Socialist program (DEFENSE/War/Military) has cost the US $8.5 TRILLION (conservative estimate) and is BANKRUPTING America: http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/22/gops-favorite-socialist-program-lost-8-5-trillion-bankrupt-america.html
Is she going to change this? NO - except to likely leave unchanged or INCREASE the amount we're spending on that.
As much as it MAY need to "cut spending", America ALSO needs to exact appropriate tax collection from corporations and the wealthy and stop bullshit like this: http://www.alternet.org/print/media/7-rip-offs-corporations-and-wealthy-dont-want-you-know-about
The US is the richest yet MOST UNEQUAL developed country in the world - a direct consequence of unmitigated GREED: http://www.alternet.org/print/economy/consequences-american-greed
US companies stash TRILLIONS of dollars tax-free overseas. WHEN is our gov't going to DO SOMETHING about that? Hillary certainly will NOT as herself and Bill are themselves doing so and also collect MILLIONS from these same corporations: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/foreign-overseas-tax-inversion-evasion-obama
America's top 10 Corporate Tax Avoiders are ALL big contributors to the Hillary Clinton Campaign and/or to the Clinton Foundation: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/top-10-corporate-tax-avoiders
And then let's talk about the TPP - that hideous so-called "trade" agreement that we ALL know Hillary supports (tho she recently said she does not in order to compete with Sanders): http://www.alternet.org/obscure-government-document-shows-elizabeth-warren-right-about-tpp
TPP will cost the US gov't TONS of revenue AND TONS of jobs - it will be a disaster for Democracy (what little of that may be left in the US) and the US economy: http://www.alternet.org/obscure-government-document-shows-elizabeth-warren-right-about-tpp
There is now NO UPWARD MOBILITY in the US anymore and all of the above is why: http://business.time.com/2012/01/05/the-loss-of-upward-mobility-in-the-u-s/
Noam Chomsky stated clearly that Election 2016 (er, Auction 2016) puts us at risk of utter disaster and that's due to ALL of the above and Hillary Clinton will NOT CHANGE any of it: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35138-noam-chomsky-2016-election-puts-us-at-risk-of-utter-disaster
So you see mydear, this is a SYSTEMIC problem, not just "OMG! WE HAVE TO CUT SPENDING! MORE AUSTERITY FOR THE MASSES!"
One HUGE part of this systemic problem is REVENUE - and the fact that we are collecting MUCH LESS OF IT than we used to from corporations and the wealthy.
And Hillary?
SHE and her wealthy owners are PART. OF. THE. PROBLEM.
She isn't going to fix a damn thing about it.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)I'm not sure why you need to toss in a few slams of the Democratic nominee...but oh well. You seem smart, you'll come around eventually.
FoxNewsSucks
(10,435 posts)The contrast with the republicon "cut spending" talking points is clear.
I'd like to know what the DEMOCRATIC nominee whose followers think liberals need to "come around" will do about it. Tax them? Or just expect working Americans to do without and be thankful that our austerity puts more money in the pockets of the super-rich.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)There's no slack anywhere else. Well, maybe in foreign aid.
CrispyQ
(36,509 posts)Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)In 1950 there was one worker per household, now there are 2 just to keep pace.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Fixed it for ya.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Elmergantry
(884 posts)in the 1950s, the typical middle class household had one phone, one TV, one car, one bathroom, food was cooked at home, no central air, no cable/internet bill, McDonalds was "eating out" etc, etc. Much easier to make it on one income with that standard of living. Nowadays your considered poor if you live like that.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)Also, what is the population difference between 1950 and now? I'll make a guess that it's a whole lot bigger, and therefore the amount of money both earned and taxed is a whole lot higher, plus the amount of money spent on things that keep the country running is a whole lot higher. Your statement fails to take any of that into account.
Lets get right to the point: if you think the country has a spending problem, what do you want to cut?
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)And I don't mean deprive our soldiers either. There is a ton of wasteful spending there.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)but don't produce anything useful. We don't need more tanks. Of F35s.
LiberalArkie
(15,728 posts)building multi million dollar bombers that can't fly, giving tremendous amount of money to Israel for their military. 1n 1950 we did not spend over 50% of the budget on the military.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)Well there's your problem!
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)except that we don't spent over 50% of the budget on the military now, either.
We spend too much, but not nearly 50% of the budget.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)Spending 2x then than we are now.
[link:|
LiberalArkie
(15,728 posts)which is not really part of it as those are self funded. But I guess having to have a check cut for it means that it came out of regular taxes.
Like this one showing how Medicare and Social Security needs to be cut because defense is getting such a small part of the money.
CrispyQ
(36,509 posts)How money spent on highways & hospitals give huge return value to the community, but bombs & bullets & aircraft that gets shot down, not so much.
Every institution in our country is corrupt to the core by the everything-for-profit model. We are ruining our planet so a few people can make a lot of money. As a species, I think we are insane.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)Population is 2x what it was, tax revenues are 6x what they were. We have a spending problem. I think it makes sense to reign in defense spending as a place to start.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)What do you propose to fix this inequity? Tariffs? A VAT? A tax on wealth?
Please let us know how you will fix the situation.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)"Corps are not paying their fair share." - that statement on its own is a meaningless phrase upon which sound public policy can not be crafted. It's the kind of nonsense that should never be uttered outside of a Bernie rally. If extraterrestrial taxes were the answer, other major nations would be doing it. Very few if any do.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)However, if you are truly interested in good tax code, I suggest using New Zealand as a benchmark. Switzerland, Sweden, and Estonia also have good approaches to policy that balance the needs of the public good with a fertile environment for business.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)You assume that these folks want such a thing.
Most of the people you are arguing with on this thread don't like:
1. Businesses
2. Profits
3. Capitalism
4. Free Markets
5. Wealth
Pointing out to them that other nations don't tax businesses at the same level as we do simply makes them lose respect for those nations.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)I'm happy to have the discussions though. In my view, these threads reflect a lack of critical thinking.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)Critical thinking has never been the bedrock of their movement.
How will he get these things done? - He will start a REVOLUTION!
How will he pay for these things? - Higher TAXES on the 1%!
How will he get those taxes past congress? - The REVOLUTION!
He's losing the popular vote and the delegate count, now what? A REVOLUTION IS BEGINNING!
etc....
Phlem
(6,323 posts)I think I've heard something similar to that. Hm..............
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)One can look at the taxes and the expenditures from each era and compare them. It's fairly easy.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)Case in point, most businesses today are taxed via the individual tax code rather than the corporate tax code. That wasn't the case in 1950. The popularity of S-corps and LLCs exploded in the 1980s. This creates the illusion that businesses today are paying less than they really are. They are paying taxes via individual income taxes and not the corporate code like they were in 1950 using C corporations.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)cannabis_flower
(3,765 posts)Is your candidate Donald Trump, Ted Cruz or John Kasich because you sound like a Republican?
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)I don't think Republicans support cuts in Defense spending.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)In 1952, my family bought a house for about $5,000 which is now worth over $100,000.
That's 20 times what we bought that house for in 1952.
And the cost of tuition for college? Many, many, many times what it was when I went to school in the 1960s.
Of course the size of the federal budget has gone up many times.
If we got private contractors out of the business of government, we could save quite a bit of money.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)I agree with your thesis by the way, regarding private contractors.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Try again.
An example of his "work". I understand he's also a climate change denier.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)Do you have a dataset that denies the facts as presented?
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)I don't get "facts" from highly biased and wingnut sources. Chantrill has a blatantly obvious agenda; one that doesn't revolve around cutting defense spending and corporate welfare, but around granny starving and sending the unemployed on an ice floe.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)It's sourced materials.
You are arguing with the facts because the person who compiled them doesn't agree with you.
Find me another dataset, that is sourced, that supports your claim that he's just a right winger twisting the facts to support his case.
Otherwise, you are shouting at the wind.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Do your own homework. I ain't your fucking Google.
I can have a bunch of numbers and skew them any way I please. Doesn't make them any more right than those who say we have a Revenue problem rather than a spending problem. People believed Stephen Moore for years. FactCheck.org never rated any of his "lowering taxes brought more revenue" claims as anything above "half true", yet he remained Heritage.org's chief economist for years.
It has nothing to do with "not agreeing". Have you read his writing? Vitriol suited for Glenn Beck, Red Baiting until the cows come home, ad hominems passing for journalism . . . I mean, if you want to trust a guy with such blatant Libertarian boilerplate masking as articulate thought, have at it.
I question the be-all-end-all term "Clearinghouse" from a Sarah Palin supporter. Sorry, but bias is bias.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)Every single one is an opinion piece.
I agree with most of them.
That doesn't change the fact that the website you are railing against (not the compiler) is sourced:
Spending data is from official government sources.
Federal spending data since 1962 comes from the presidents budget.
All other spending data comes from the US Census Bureau.
Gross Domestic Product data comes from US Bureau of Economic Analysis and measuringworth.com.
Detailed table of spending data sources here.
Federal spending data begins in 1792.
State and local spending data begins in 1890.
State and local spending data for individual states begins in 1957.
I understand you don't like the author, or his positions. That is fine. You are disregarding factual presentation for no reason other than the person who compiled it is of a differing political opinion.
This, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with this country.
"I don't believe his factual presentation because he supports another candidate. I have nothing to counter his presentation but my own anger and bias."
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Hollows out our economy and rigs the system to fail over and over to make a huge profit cleaning up their own mess. And the politicians let them keep doing it, year after year.
And nothing changed after hundreds of thousands of families got evicted and are now living in their cars or on the street with their children, the destruction of the middle class. We will be feeling it for a long time to come.
This is something we GenXers learned in our early teens. Watching Reaganomics destroy the country and then learning in school people knew it would happen 30 years before Reagan. And they still didn't give a shit and went ahead with robbing future generations.
Horrible feeling when you are helpless, a lot of the PTB have no idea and live in the D.C. Bubble. Yet right outside their doorsteps sits homeless vets begging for change.
Someone has to take on the system above the government and sadly that can only happen from one in the ownership society.
Back to work.
Rex
(65,616 posts)It is and will always be a held believe that the PTB and the wealthy saw how much of an impact media had on the Vietnam war and civil unrest at home as they HELPED Nixon escape prison with a pardon from his VP...setting the standard as low as possible.
The media learned how valuable it is to keep a pretense going even after most people don't believe it anymore and think the system is rigged...something we share in common with China and North Korea. Sadly.
We went in the wrong direction, however there is always time to change. I hate the fact that the change has to happen from the very group that destroyed the middle class, but the media just don't care anymore and the government never did in the first place.
We are back to begging for table scraps.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)It has become pathetic.
Rex
(65,616 posts)You go against the media line, you pay for it with your job. Lie like there is no ending and get rewarded with an anchor spot.
annabanana
(52,791 posts)zentrum
(9,865 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)No wonder they did away with the Fairness Doctrine. Keep everyone ignorant.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)and still pretend they are Dems
This is just fucking orwellian
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)Are they advocating for austerity? Or for more cuts to social programs somewhere?
egalitegirl
(362 posts)The political class has divided us into fighting about welfare for the poor. We the people need to unite and demand austerity that cuts welfare programs for the rich across both parties. This includes bailouts for corporations as well as grants for universities. Just because universities are aligned with the Democrats does not mean we mindlessly support them and argue that the one percenters should keep getting money.
Elmergantry
(884 posts)egalitegirl
(362 posts)They do not use the term welfare, but yes, corporate welfare and university welfare programs are welfare for the rich. Research grants, Wall Street bailouts, stimulus funding, grants for non-profit groups are some examples of welfare for the rich.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)GE hasn't paid a dime in taxes in decades. And it's current boss advises President Obama on labor and stuff.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/top-10-corporate-tax-avoiders
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)according to what I can find.
First, my 2001 SAUS only goes back to 1990. In 1990, individual income taxes were $467 billion, FICA taxes were $380 billion, corporate income taxes were $93.5 billion and excise taxes $35.3 billion.
Looking at the SAUS online from 1955, I find for 1950. Individual income taxes were $17.4 billion, corporate income taxes $10.9 billion, excise taxes $7.6 billion, employment taxes $2.9 billion, estate taxes 0.7 billion, and miscellaneous $1.4 billion. http://www.census.gov/library/publications/1955/compendia/statab/76ed.html (It's part 4, page 352)
It depends on how you calculate that. Does the corporation pay half of the FICA taxes, or do the workers pay all of it? I would say the workers pay all of it, even though we never see the half that our employers pay, it is really just part of our pay. Do corporations pay excise taxes, or do they just pass those costs on to the customer? Anyway, corporate income taxes and excise taxes both used to be much higher relative to personal income taxes. Total appears to be about $21 billion for the people (are they all 'workers'? Some income tax is being paid by the 'owners'.) and perhaps $19.4 billion for the corporations (if they paid all of the 'miscellaneous')
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Javaman
(62,534 posts)just like...
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)does not change the ratios or formulas used to compare tax rates. If anything a higher population should result in more money spent on an overburdened infrastructure, job creation, affordable schools and public programs instead of LESS.
The formula has been changed shunting money away from what America needs to function as a country and off to the rich and military conquering and robbing resources overseas. That has become obvious, and no word parsing can change what people are experiencing and seeing in everyday life.
We have gone beyond debating THAT this robbery exists nationwide and worldwide, the longer nothing is done, more people die and more pissed off people are going to get. Bernie Sanders is offering a way out of an upcoming inevitable collapse of this system--it is on the way out even pretending to be a democracy and will soon convert to a very harsh and unforgiving authoritarian system that will not tolerate any feedback from the people. We are almost there and more and more people can see it coming, and as is human nature there are those who side with the most powerful.
The Pentagon Papers obliterates any claims that there is not enough money to pay for public services or pay employees FOREVER.
Edited mistyped
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)warrprayer
(4,734 posts)and rec!!!
bjo59
(1,166 posts)point in history and austerity will be imposed on every "developed" or "first world" (or whatever you want to call them) country. It's the new normal, not a temporary fix for financial problems. Time to bring the wealthy countries into alignment with the poor countries. China is a problem and Russia is a problem in this regard (their governments aren't playing ball). If they can't be brought into the fold, many see a future military solution. The whole thing is ghastly.
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)Last edited Mon May 2, 2016, 08:48 PM - Edit history (1)
So if your numbers are also right, corporations now pay .22 out of 1.22 or 18% of the taxes paid. To go back to 75%, they would have to pay 4.16 times as much. Since 4.16 x 27.7%=115.2% which means that in order to pay the 3 of 4 dollars they used to pay, they would have to raise prices 15% while selling exactly as much and paying no more in wages and benefits in order to make no profit after taxes.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)and it's a stage 4 cancer in both parties
colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)Yes, yes, yes.
All those enormously rich people and corporations who avoid taxes with every trick in the book, the book that is increasingly just a tool for them.
We need to raise top marginal rates drastically as well as closing all the loopholes. No more filing out of some tax haven where you might have one person in a little room.
The one big spending problem is defense, Ike's military industrial complex. We can safely slash it by at least half.....but anyone put out of work to work repairing our infrastructure and parks, a new CCC.