[GeneV]

Okay, there are several factors in play here but important ones include:

1) Turnover or "churn" of money in the economy. By reducing tax rates across the board, Bush and Reagan before him, took dollars out of the inefficient Federal government stream ($800 hammers?) and placed them in the private sector which will always have a higher velocity of churn and therefore more tax dollars paid due to more transactions taking place. And, frankly, I would rather there be 20 citizens earning a living wage outside of the Federal government than 5 government workers within the system.

2) There is a difference between someone being wealthy and someone having a high income. High income earners saw their incomes increase during the Bush years. Some folks may always believe there is a sinister plot involved but the truth is the high income earners saw their personal markets increase in scope and breadth. In order to earn more money there had to be more money being spent hence a larger economy.

3) Sure, the tax burden shifted to the highest of income earners due to their higher incomes. Isn't that what the folks espousing progressive tax policies want?

Eventually, we'll realize that in order to create new jobs that are not within our Federal government all of us will have to spend more of the money we have. Again, President Obama promised he wouldn't raise income taxes on Americans earning less than $250k per year. I'm still waiting for the legislation that will make this happen by extending the Bush tax cuts for those of us in that group.

1) Hammers are still being bought. In fact ,military spending increased under Reagan and Bush, and that is where the hammers were inflated. But after the Bush and Reagan tax cuts, no one is paying for them. It's borrowed money injected into the economy. Pure Keynes. Just like Obama, but less efficient.

2) The middle class is shrinking. It may or may not be a "sinister plot" but it is not healthy for the country as a whole. The fact that the wealthy are getting wealthier may or may not have anything to do with anyone earning or spending real money. We've found all kinds of ways to redefine and expand money that aren't tied to any real productivity.

3) No one wants to see the tax burden shifted upward for the reasons that this occurred in the Bush years, i.e. that the middle class was left behind.

---

Last edited by GeneV; 04-16-2010 at 07:35 AM.

[Ratmagiclady]

10 Inconvenient Truths for Tax Day | Crooks and Liars

Here, then, are 10 Inconvenient Truths for Tax Day:

1. Over 95% of Working Households Got Tax Cuts
2. Only 2% of Tea Baggers Know Obama Cut Their Taxes...
3. ...and 52% of Tea Partiers Think Their Taxes are Fair...
4. ...and Think the Federal Tax Level is Over Double What It Is
5. 1% of Families Earned 24% of All Income...
6. ...and 57% of All Capital Income
7. 400 Richest Taxpayers Saw Incomes Double, Tax Rates Halved
8. Only 1 in 500 Families Pay the Estate Tax
9. Corporate Taxes Have Plummeted as a Share of GDP
10. The U.S. Loses $345 Billion a Year to Tax Evasion and Fraud

That's ....Inconvenient to some, yes. But there we are, eh?

That's ....Inconvenient to some, yes. But there we are, eh?

Really? Where are we? As I have posted previous:

Quote:
Five percent of Americans pay over half the income taxes in this country. Forty percent of Americans pay no income taxes at all."

Fred Thompson on Wednesday, December 12th, 2007 in debate in Johnston, Iowa
Thompson's tax numbers add up

Fred Thompson, in arguing that the tax cuts of the Bush administration should be renewed, said that 5 percent of Americans pay over half the income taxes in this country, and that 40 percent of Americans pay no income taxes at all.

Both figures are true.

The top 5 percent of all payers do pay more than half the income tax. They pay about 59.2 percent of all individual income tax, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan institute run jointly by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution.

Thompson also said that 40 percent of Americans pay no income tax. This claim is supported by the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan tax research group that promotes transparency in the tax code and economic growth.

There's a small caveat to the 40 percent number — it includes nonfilers, typically taxpayers who don't have to file returns because their incomes are too low. It's logical to assume that most nonfilers don't pay income taxes, but it's possible that some did if they had income taxes withheld by an employer. This is probably a very small number, because people with low incomes have an economic incentive to file a return and get a refund.

The U.S. income tax system is progressive, which means that rates increase as income increases. Given that structure, it makes sense that people with higher incomes pay more taxes, and people with low incomes might pay no tax at all. Thompson's numbers are on the money, and we rate them True.

And RML it seems as though that "Inconvenience" is a little "off:

U.S. States Lead the World in High Corporate Taxes

by Scott A. Hodge

Fiscal Fact No. 119

America's political leadership is finally waking up to the fact that the tax rates businesses face in the U.S. are way out of step with our major economic competitors. Last year, for example, Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel proposed cutting the federal corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 30.5 percent. While a 5 percentage point cut in the federal corporate tax rate may sound significant, it may not be sufficient to meaningfully improve the competitiveness of the United States.

Currently, the average combined federal and state corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 39.3 percent, second among OECD countries to Japan's combined rate of 39.5 percent.1 Lowering the federal rate to 30.5 percent would only lower the U.S.'s ranking to fifth highest among industrialized countries.

More recently, other members of Congress—including Sen. John McCain and Congressman Eric Cantor—have released proposals to cut the corporate rate even deeper to 25 percent. While this lower rate would improve the U.S.'s international ranking and competitiveness, that improvement would be mitigated by the high corporate tax rates imposed by many states.

Many states impose state corporate income taxes at rates above the national average of 6.6 percent. Iowa, for example, imposes the highest corporate tax rate of 12 percent, followed by Pennsylvania's 9.99 percent rate and Minnesota's 9.8 percent rate. When added to the federal rate, these states tax their businesses at rates far in excess of all other OECD countries.

When compared to other OECD countries:

* 24 U.S. states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than top-ranked Japan.
* 32 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than third-ranked Germany.
* 46 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than fourth-ranked Canada.
* All 50 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than fifth-ranked France.

Seems as though we are not "there" by any accounts.

[Rupert]

Really? Where are we? As I have posted previous:



And RML it seems as though that "Inconvenience" is a little "off:



Seems as though we are not "there" by any accounts.

Well George, those are interesting figures, but you are not calculating in the differences in American and Foreign Corporations. Foreign Corporations tend to actually earn more of their profits, which reduces their profit margins, and does not allow for higher taxes. Here in America a large portion of profit earnings are actually from theft of taxpayers, which gives them more available profits to be taxed. Think about it George....if AIG was suddenly taxed at a rate of 50%.....so what? Most of their profit was hooked and crooked from Americans, and the rest was from bailouts, so they still have 50% of a lot of free cash.
I didn't complain a lick about the giant tax on my BOA stock sale....it was all Free money anyhow! If I gave you over half a million dollars, would you complain if I demanded that you give half of it to the DNC or loose it all? Sure you would complain, just like you are doing here, but you would do it just the same.....I know you George, you are as greedy as they come....when you are a "Conservative" it just comes with the Doggie Collar.......
Regards!

[larryinlc]

US corporate tax rate is all smoke and mirrors. Tax rate does not equal tax receipts. CNBC is doing an upcoming special on 8 large US companies which combined, made 18 billion last year. Their collective Federal income tax?? None. As a matter of fact, the government gave them 415 million back. Certainly small business does not have the same ability to scam the system thru loop holes, but the so called corparate tax rate is meaningless.

Larry

[Rupert]

US corporate tax rate is all smoke and mirrors. Tax rate does not equal tax receipts. CNBC is doing an upcoming special on 8 large US companies which combined, made 18 billion last year. Their collective Federal income tax?? None. As a matter of fact, the government gave them 415 million back. Certainly small business does not have the same ability to scam the system thru loop holes, but the so called corparate tax rate is meaningless.

Larry

Uhhh....Larry, can you loan old George a TV set to catch that CNBC program? His set is Superglued on FAUX News and it is unlikely that they will be airing a program such as the one you mentioned. I think the term is "Information Impaired"....and if George finds his taxes too high, and his wages too low, as he has been claiming here, there is no doubt that he will qualify for Disability Benefits with his severe case of impairment. He can then join that 80%, or whatever bizarre figure he claims, that pay no taxes. I'll even send him a nice Obama/Biden Button so he will feel more comfortable with his disability.
Best Regards!

[GeneV]

US corporate tax rate is all smoke and mirrors. Tax rate does not equal tax receipts. CNBC is doing an upcoming special on 8 large US companies which combined, made 18 billion last year. Their collective Federal income tax?? None. As a matter of fact, the government gave them 415 million back. Certainly small business does not have the same ability to scam the system thru loop holes, but the so called corparate tax rate is meaningless.

Larry

Corporate income tax is one area where I agree with the conservative position. Corporate income taxes were originally enacted primarily to keep corporations from being used as tax shelters for the rich. It is not working, and it distorts the way business is conducted. Between corporate income tax and corporate raiders, we have created a business climate that is based upon debt, discourages forward planning and makes investing in stock even more opaque.

[Ratmagiclady]

One still has to wonder why there's this massive 'grass-roots tax protest movement' ...When the taxes most people pay, and taxes in general have in fact... Gone..... ...Down, during Obama's brief tenure?

One wonders if the hysteria and thrown bricks and threatened lawmakers and general anger and conspicuous bigotry...

Aren't cause of anything actually happening?

(Even if somehow so many of these concerned and informed voters believe taxes went up when they didn't?)

One still has to wonder why there's this massive 'grass-roots tax protest movement' ...When the taxes most people pay, and taxes in general have in fact... Gone..... ...Down, during Obama's brief tenure?

One wonders if the hysteria and thrown bricks and threatened lawmakers and general anger and conspicuous bigotry...

Aren't cause of anything actually happening?

(Even if somehow so many of these concerned and informed voters believe taxes went up when they didn't?)

You are kidding aren't you? How do you think he's going to pay for all his spending? Is he going to take the money out of his own pocket? Come on the guy has spent more than all previous POTUS. Combined. You think there are enough "rich" to pay for it all?

[shooz]

You are kidding aren't you? How do you think he's going to pay for all his spending? Is he going to take the money out of his own pocket? Come on the guy has spent more than all previous POTUS. Combined. You think there are enough "rich" to pay for it all?

So did Reagan and Bush.
Bet you weren't beefing then. Too busy sticking up for them.

[Rupert]

George is just another rabid Obama hater....the only difference between him and Boris is that if George is a racist bigot, and I have no idea one way or the other, he keeps it out of sight here. Still, when it comes to Obama, George completely looses all reason and acts like a little kid in a senseless tantrum. Which, not knowing much about George....he may be?
Regards!

[shooz]

He does seem to enjoy calling people names, when faced with facts that disprove his statments.

Never appologized for that whole Obama took my fish thing.

So did Reagan and Bush.
Bet you weren't beefing then. Too busy sticking up for them.

Actually your statement of Reagan and Bush have to be wrong. If the Obama spent MORE than all previous presidents combined than that would necessarily include all the spending of Reagan and Bush. Simple mathematics seems to elude you. As for the links that prove this go look at my posts where I have provided them. And I have done it on several occasions.

[shooz]

Maybe..........But Obama took your fish and salt!
So you are predjudiced.

Maybe..........But Obama took your fish and salt!
So you are predjudiced.

Remind me what it is about the fish. The salt I know. And I didn't say it was the Obama. It was a moron NY Jackass Party senator that wants to ban salt in food prep. Personally I wish they wouldn't use so much but is it worth legislation?