"privatization"
-
People that make 100K and above pay almost 80% of the total taxes in the US. Eddy Vluggen wrote:I doubt that number, and would like to point out that they do not "earn" this money single-handed. I provided two reputable sources of information backing up my statement and still you ignore the facts, so there's no point in going on with this discussion. "You can't argue with a sick mind" - Joe Walsh
ineedajobsoon wrote:
I provided two reputable sources of information backing up my statement
No. You did nothing of the kind. The figures you quote relate to Federal Personal Income Tax. That is nothing like the 'total taxes' in the US. You would, of course, expect the highest earners to be paying the most income tax in total (although there remain questions about whether it is proportionate). But in 2015 income and other personal taxes accounted for just 46.5% of US total taxes. Eddy is therefore quite right to question your outlandish claim.
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
-
People that make 100K and above pay almost 80% of the total taxes in the US. Eddy Vluggen wrote:I doubt that number, and would like to point out that they do not "earn" this money single-handed. I provided two reputable sources of information backing up my statement and still you ignore the facts, so there's no point in going on with this discussion. "You can't argue with a sick mind" - Joe Walsh
-
RE: "...but it was not the corporations or the rich people that built the roads and the hospitals" Answer: You're almost right. Except that hospitals are overwhelmingly private in the US. Most roads and other "public works projects" are financed by governments., but again, where do those governments get their money? Answer: From businesses created by individuals. RE: "Not from the rich people, they don't pay taxes. They get it from the working class." - False Answer: People that make 100K and above pay almost 80% of the total taxes in the US. Read: href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/24/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/ And: http://www.ntu.org/foundation/page/who-pays-income-taxes Also, If you've ever been in business you know that an employer pays almost as much in Federal, SS and Medicare taxes on the employee's behalf as the employee does. Not to mention State, County, City and regulatory taxes and fees just for being in business. My favorite tax on business is "privilege" tax. You get taxed for the "privilege" of doing business in my State, City etc. "Never wrestle with pigs, you both get dirty and the pig likes it." George Bernard Shaw
ineedajobsoon wrote:
Answer: You're almost right. Except that hospitals are overwhelmingly private in the US. Most roads and other "public works projects" are financed by governments., but again, where do those governments get their money? Answer: From businesses created by individuals.
That is no longer true. When the US was prospering about 33% of its tax revenue came from corporate tax. After the 80s it plummeted to single digit and coincidentally the US debt sky-rocketed. So as for the roads etc. around, no those businesses did not build it. They barely paid for the extra kick backs that the government hands corporations.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
-
ineedajobsoon wrote:
Answer: You're almost right. Except that hospitals are overwhelmingly private in the US. Most roads and other "public works projects" are financed by governments., but again, where do those governments get their money? Answer: From businesses created by individuals.
That is no longer true. When the US was prospering about 33% of its tax revenue came from corporate tax. After the 80s it plummeted to single digit and coincidentally the US debt sky-rocketed. So as for the roads etc. around, no those businesses did not build it. They barely paid for the extra kick backs that the government hands corporations.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
N_tro_P wrote: When the US was prospering about 33% of its tax revenue came from corporate tax. Corporate tax is currently between 15% & 39%. The US corporate tax rate is the highest in the world. (see list at link below) That is one reason why US companies keep assets "offshore". Corporate tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[^] The National Debt has gone up under all but two US Presidents. One was a Democrat (if you think Clinton, you're wrong) one a Republican. Yes, some businesses hire tax lawyers to pay less "corporate" tax, (GE comes to mind) but they still pay boatloads of taxes for every employee on the payroll among other taxes. When Corporate (and other) taxes get too high, a country's manufactured goods become less competitive to other countries. Do you intentionally pay more taxes than you should? Not me, I pay as little as I am legally obliged to pay. As far a "kickbacks" go: That ax swings both ways. States give tax breaks to companies to create new jobs so the revenue base goes up... home sales, retail sales and such. Sometimes it works out for the State, sometimes not. Blame your politicians when they make bad decisions. Business always goes where it will get the best return on investment. Look at Apple, they make a 35% profit margin because they get their stuff made in China and other low labor cost countries. Tax "loopholes" created for business so that they pay lower or no tax. Blame your politicians. The tax laws (loopholes) are created by politicians to return the favor of political contributions. In many other professions, that would be called a bribe. Admittedly, sometimes they create incentives to help business get started and it works. The airline industry was heavily subsidized to get established. Fortunately the subsidy was later removed, competition ensued, and we all fly for a lot less money. Even at that, I'd be surprised if there wasn't some sort of "jiggery-pokery" going on. The airlines are still among the most regulated industries in the US. Which is worse, the one that offers the bribe or the one who accepts it?
-
ineedajobsoon wrote:
I provided two reputable sources of information backing up my statement
No. You did nothing of the kind. The figures you quote relate to Federal Personal Income Tax. That is nothing like the 'total taxes' in the US. You would, of course, expect the highest earners to be paying the most income tax in total (although there remain questions about whether it is proportionate). But in 2015 income and other personal taxes accounted for just 46.5% of US total taxes. Eddy is therefore quite right to question your outlandish claim.
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
The question was about how much the "rich" paid in taxes. When I said "total" it was in context of income taxes. Duh! You're mixing apples and oranges. Nice try though.
-
N_tro_P wrote: When the US was prospering about 33% of its tax revenue came from corporate tax. Corporate tax is currently between 15% & 39%. The US corporate tax rate is the highest in the world. (see list at link below) That is one reason why US companies keep assets "offshore". Corporate tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[^] The National Debt has gone up under all but two US Presidents. One was a Democrat (if you think Clinton, you're wrong) one a Republican. Yes, some businesses hire tax lawyers to pay less "corporate" tax, (GE comes to mind) but they still pay boatloads of taxes for every employee on the payroll among other taxes. When Corporate (and other) taxes get too high, a country's manufactured goods become less competitive to other countries. Do you intentionally pay more taxes than you should? Not me, I pay as little as I am legally obliged to pay. As far a "kickbacks" go: That ax swings both ways. States give tax breaks to companies to create new jobs so the revenue base goes up... home sales, retail sales and such. Sometimes it works out for the State, sometimes not. Blame your politicians when they make bad decisions. Business always goes where it will get the best return on investment. Look at Apple, they make a 35% profit margin because they get their stuff made in China and other low labor cost countries. Tax "loopholes" created for business so that they pay lower or no tax. Blame your politicians. The tax laws (loopholes) are created by politicians to return the favor of political contributions. In many other professions, that would be called a bribe. Admittedly, sometimes they create incentives to help business get started and it works. The airline industry was heavily subsidized to get established. Fortunately the subsidy was later removed, competition ensued, and we all fly for a lot less money. Even at that, I'd be surprised if there wasn't some sort of "jiggery-pokery" going on. The airlines are still among the most regulated industries in the US. Which is worse, the one that offers the bribe or the one who accepts it?
ineedajobsoon wrote:
Corporate tax is currently between 15% & 39%. The US corporate tax rate is the highest in the world. (see list at link below) That is one reason why US companies keep assets "offshore".
On face fail, not in reality. GE made over a billion dollars last year and not only did not pay any taxes actually received government money... so yeah, there is that.
ineedajobsoon wrote:
The National Debt has gone up under all but two US Presidents. One was a Democrat (if you think Clinton, you're wrong) one a Republican.
I never said it did not go up. I said it skyrocketed after we reduced corporate tax. Do make a straw man argument here.
ineedajobsoon wrote:
Yes, some businesses hire tax lawyers to pay less "corporate" tax, (GE comes to mind) but they still pay boatloads of taxes for every employee on the payroll among other taxes.
Yes, also known as income tax which is now the bulk of the governments funding. THAT was not the case, and THAT was what I said. NOT that the tax RATEs were XX before and are YY now. I said specific revenue streams and you have yet to prove that false. The data is out there and no I do not have a link. I am sure I could find it if I really cared that much. I don't, but have seen it many many times. In the 50s through 70s about 33% of the government funding came directly from corporate tax. That percent is now single digit. That has NOTHING to do with "The US having the highest corporate tax rates in the world" and everything to do with lobbying and corporatism. And Also maintains my point, that no they did not build that. They barely paid for their own building to be built in many cases (e.g. Walmart has used city taxes to get their stores built).
ineedajobsoon wrote:
When Corporate (and other) taxes get too high, a country's manufactured goods become less competitive to other countries. Do you intentionally pay more taxes than you should? Not me, I pay as little as I am legally obliged to pay.
You do realize that the high taxes benefit the big corporations right? The system is rigged such that it looks like they have to pay a butt load but in the end pay nothing leaving the smaller individual holding the bag. Back to my point, in the 50s through the 70s the government funding was propped up by 33% of corporate taxa
-
Why is it called "privatization" when the Government takes control of a private company? Shouldn't it be said to be "Governmentalized"? "You didn't build that!" says Barack Obama insinuating the Government did it... Let's ask the question "Who does the Government get it's money from?"
ineedajobsoon wrote:
Why is it called "privatization" when the Government takes control of a private company?
Well - because it isn't, that why. Privatization was the darling of the Reagan administration. It took government entities and put them in the hands of the private sector. I was around for this. It was a friggin' fiasco. He, for example, de-federalized machinists at a Department of Energy facility. They, however, were essential to the running of the facility (a research station). Not to worry, they were hired to do the same job by the site's private contractor: at a big fat profit. Reagan/Privatization: cut the government payroll. Reality: Increased the cost of government and enriched EG&G (amongst others) Privatization is a big farce imposed to take successful government entities and let the private sector cherry pick the ones they want to take over, exploit, cut services, and increase costs to the public. The keep feeding believers that Cool-aid* and the keep drinking. * Currently, the cool aid is served by the Tea Party
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
The question was about how much the "rich" paid in taxes. When I said "total" it was in context of income taxes. Duh! You're mixing apples and oranges. Nice try though.
-
It wasn't what you thought or what you meant that counts but what you said. Duh, yourself.
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
Sorry about the "duh". My apologies. But you clearly didn't read the thread to see what we were talking about.
-
ineedajobsoon wrote:
Corporate tax is currently between 15% & 39%. The US corporate tax rate is the highest in the world. (see list at link below) That is one reason why US companies keep assets "offshore".
On face fail, not in reality. GE made over a billion dollars last year and not only did not pay any taxes actually received government money... so yeah, there is that.
ineedajobsoon wrote:
The National Debt has gone up under all but two US Presidents. One was a Democrat (if you think Clinton, you're wrong) one a Republican.
I never said it did not go up. I said it skyrocketed after we reduced corporate tax. Do make a straw man argument here.
ineedajobsoon wrote:
Yes, some businesses hire tax lawyers to pay less "corporate" tax, (GE comes to mind) but they still pay boatloads of taxes for every employee on the payroll among other taxes.
Yes, also known as income tax which is now the bulk of the governments funding. THAT was not the case, and THAT was what I said. NOT that the tax RATEs were XX before and are YY now. I said specific revenue streams and you have yet to prove that false. The data is out there and no I do not have a link. I am sure I could find it if I really cared that much. I don't, but have seen it many many times. In the 50s through 70s about 33% of the government funding came directly from corporate tax. That percent is now single digit. That has NOTHING to do with "The US having the highest corporate tax rates in the world" and everything to do with lobbying and corporatism. And Also maintains my point, that no they did not build that. They barely paid for their own building to be built in many cases (e.g. Walmart has used city taxes to get their stores built).
ineedajobsoon wrote:
When Corporate (and other) taxes get too high, a country's manufactured goods become less competitive to other countries. Do you intentionally pay more taxes than you should? Not me, I pay as little as I am legally obliged to pay.
You do realize that the high taxes benefit the big corporations right? The system is rigged such that it looks like they have to pay a butt load but in the end pay nothing leaving the smaller individual holding the bag. Back to my point, in the 50s through the 70s the government funding was propped up by 33% of corporate taxa
this is fun... your arguments are pretty good. Let's go through your re-re-re-rebuttals. N_tro_P wrote: On face fail, not in reality. GE made over a billion dollars... What I said is correct, but you want to state that every company in the US pays little or no taxes. Again, "The US corporate tax rate is the highest in the world". - True C'mon man! Think about it... why would companies keep a big chunk of their assets offshore if they could pay less taxes in the US? Do you really think they'd do that? N_tro_P wrote: I said it skyrocketed after we reduced corporate tax. It may have "skyrocketed" after the taxes were reduced, but I'd be surprised if that was the only reason. Convince me that is the only reason for the increase. The debt has been out of control for a long time. I doubt that it is all due to corporate tax rate. N_tro_P wrote: Yes, also known as income tax You missed my point completely. The employer portion is paid by the employer to the Federal Government. If you make $100 gross and pay $24 in withholding tax, your employer pays an additional, roughly equal amount to the IRS that you never see. (except for SS which gets added to your benefit contribution). Yes you could call it income tax, but it is not employee income tax, because the employees don't pay it, the company does. Yes it is not a "corporate" tax, but it is a tax that corporations pay. Taxation in the US is like a balloon animal. You squeeze one part and the other part gets bigger. Then all the politicians cry "We lowered taxes on blah-blah-blah" but fail to tell the whole story. I'm not sure who said: "A huge tax cut amounts to about $25, but a slight tax increase is $100" N_tro_P wrote: I said specific revenue streams I'm sorry. If you find some info as to what you're talking about, please send the link. N_tro_P wrote: And Also maintains my point, And mine as well. Remember the "Blame your politicians" line? Simplified for sure, but it remains true. You can blame either side, but to be fair it takes two to tango. N_tro_P wrote: You do realize that the high taxes benefit the big corporations right? That one goes right over my capitalist head. Is there a position paper somewhere that I can read about that? (I'm assuming you're talking about corporate taxes) N_tro_P wrote: in the 50s through the 70s the government funding True. Also consider this: During that time period industry in the US was the "big dog" in the world. After WWII, the rest of the industr
-
this is fun... your arguments are pretty good. Let's go through your re-re-re-rebuttals. N_tro_P wrote: On face fail, not in reality. GE made over a billion dollars... What I said is correct, but you want to state that every company in the US pays little or no taxes. Again, "The US corporate tax rate is the highest in the world". - True C'mon man! Think about it... why would companies keep a big chunk of their assets offshore if they could pay less taxes in the US? Do you really think they'd do that? N_tro_P wrote: I said it skyrocketed after we reduced corporate tax. It may have "skyrocketed" after the taxes were reduced, but I'd be surprised if that was the only reason. Convince me that is the only reason for the increase. The debt has been out of control for a long time. I doubt that it is all due to corporate tax rate. N_tro_P wrote: Yes, also known as income tax You missed my point completely. The employer portion is paid by the employer to the Federal Government. If you make $100 gross and pay $24 in withholding tax, your employer pays an additional, roughly equal amount to the IRS that you never see. (except for SS which gets added to your benefit contribution). Yes you could call it income tax, but it is not employee income tax, because the employees don't pay it, the company does. Yes it is not a "corporate" tax, but it is a tax that corporations pay. Taxation in the US is like a balloon animal. You squeeze one part and the other part gets bigger. Then all the politicians cry "We lowered taxes on blah-blah-blah" but fail to tell the whole story. I'm not sure who said: "A huge tax cut amounts to about $25, but a slight tax increase is $100" N_tro_P wrote: I said specific revenue streams I'm sorry. If you find some info as to what you're talking about, please send the link. N_tro_P wrote: And Also maintains my point, And mine as well. Remember the "Blame your politicians" line? Simplified for sure, but it remains true. You can blame either side, but to be fair it takes two to tango. N_tro_P wrote: You do realize that the high taxes benefit the big corporations right? That one goes right over my capitalist head. Is there a position paper somewhere that I can read about that? (I'm assuming you're talking about corporate taxes) N_tro_P wrote: in the 50s through the 70s the government funding True. Also consider this: During that time period industry in the US was the "big dog" in the world. After WWII, the rest of the industr
ineedajobsoon wrote:
The employer portion is paid by the employer to the Federal Government. If you make $100 gross and pay $24 in withholding tax, your employer pays an additional, roughly equal amount to the IRS that you never see.
No, he doesn't. That part is also paid by the worker. A workers' cost is wages plus taxes. If the worker is too expensive, you don't hire. It does not come from the profit of the company. It is merely a burden on the workers' cost, nothing else. If your computer costs more, you factor in those costs :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
ineedajobsoon wrote:
The employer portion is paid by the employer to the Federal Government. If you make $100 gross and pay $24 in withholding tax, your employer pays an additional, roughly equal amount to the IRS that you never see.
No, he doesn't. That part is also paid by the worker. A workers' cost is wages plus taxes. If the worker is too expensive, you don't hire. It does not come from the profit of the company. It is merely a burden on the workers' cost, nothing else. If your computer costs more, you factor in those costs :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
Eddy Vluggen wrote: No, he doesn't. That part is also paid by the worker. You are so wrong. I've had three businesses, wholesale, retail and Government Contracting. I know of what I speak. Google "IRS Form 941", look at boxes 5a thru 5e. That is the employer part paid by the employer.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote: No, he doesn't. That part is also paid by the worker. You are so wrong. I've had three businesses, wholesale, retail and Government Contracting. I know of what I speak. Google "IRS Form 941", look at boxes 5a thru 5e. That is the employer part paid by the employer.
Which the employer counts as "cost of worker". Your initial salary is based on that cost. The cost is paid by the worker, as the cost dictate what the employer can burden.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
ineedajobsoon wrote:
Why is it called "privatization" when the Government takes control of a private company?
Well - because it isn't, that why. Privatization was the darling of the Reagan administration. It took government entities and put them in the hands of the private sector. I was around for this. It was a friggin' fiasco. He, for example, de-federalized machinists at a Department of Energy facility. They, however, were essential to the running of the facility (a research station). Not to worry, they were hired to do the same job by the site's private contractor: at a big fat profit. Reagan/Privatization: cut the government payroll. Reality: Increased the cost of government and enriched EG&G (amongst others) Privatization is a big farce imposed to take successful government entities and let the private sector cherry pick the ones they want to take over, exploit, cut services, and increase costs to the public. The keep feeding believers that Cool-aid* and the keep drinking. * Currently, the cool aid is served by the Tea Party
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
W∴ Balboos wrote: Privatization is a big farce imposed to take successful government entities :laugh:
-
this is fun... your arguments are pretty good. Let's go through your re-re-re-rebuttals. N_tro_P wrote: On face fail, not in reality. GE made over a billion dollars... What I said is correct, but you want to state that every company in the US pays little or no taxes. Again, "The US corporate tax rate is the highest in the world". - True C'mon man! Think about it... why would companies keep a big chunk of their assets offshore if they could pay less taxes in the US? Do you really think they'd do that? N_tro_P wrote: I said it skyrocketed after we reduced corporate tax. It may have "skyrocketed" after the taxes were reduced, but I'd be surprised if that was the only reason. Convince me that is the only reason for the increase. The debt has been out of control for a long time. I doubt that it is all due to corporate tax rate. N_tro_P wrote: Yes, also known as income tax You missed my point completely. The employer portion is paid by the employer to the Federal Government. If you make $100 gross and pay $24 in withholding tax, your employer pays an additional, roughly equal amount to the IRS that you never see. (except for SS which gets added to your benefit contribution). Yes you could call it income tax, but it is not employee income tax, because the employees don't pay it, the company does. Yes it is not a "corporate" tax, but it is a tax that corporations pay. Taxation in the US is like a balloon animal. You squeeze one part and the other part gets bigger. Then all the politicians cry "We lowered taxes on blah-blah-blah" but fail to tell the whole story. I'm not sure who said: "A huge tax cut amounts to about $25, but a slight tax increase is $100" N_tro_P wrote: I said specific revenue streams I'm sorry. If you find some info as to what you're talking about, please send the link. N_tro_P wrote: And Also maintains my point, And mine as well. Remember the "Blame your politicians" line? Simplified for sure, but it remains true. You can blame either side, but to be fair it takes two to tango. N_tro_P wrote: You do realize that the high taxes benefit the big corporations right? That one goes right over my capitalist head. Is there a position paper somewhere that I can read about that? (I'm assuming you're talking about corporate taxes) N_tro_P wrote: in the 50s through the 70s the government funding True. Also consider this: During that time period industry in the US was the "big dog" in the world. After WWII, the rest of the industr
Not even going to read through your crap as you started out (again) saying stuff I never said.
ineedajobsoon wrote:
What I said is correct, but you want to state that every company in the US pays little or no taxes.
No. That is not at all what I said. When you get your head out of your ass and realize I said NOTHING EVEN CLOSE to that. We can talk and I will read what you wrote. But starting out by putting blatent lies into my mouth will not get you far. For reference, I will repeat for the (I believe 4th time) In the 50s through 70s the tax revenue was made up of 33% corporate tax. Today it is single digit and the individual tax income is making up that difference. Take that information for what you will, but do NOT make a straw man argument with me. It will get you no where. Hope your long rant was fun. Didn't read past the first line of you BSing by blatantly claiming I said something I did not.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
-
Not even going to read through your crap as you started out (again) saying stuff I never said.
ineedajobsoon wrote:
What I said is correct, but you want to state that every company in the US pays little or no taxes.
No. That is not at all what I said. When you get your head out of your ass and realize I said NOTHING EVEN CLOSE to that. We can talk and I will read what you wrote. But starting out by putting blatent lies into my mouth will not get you far. For reference, I will repeat for the (I believe 4th time) In the 50s through 70s the tax revenue was made up of 33% corporate tax. Today it is single digit and the individual tax income is making up that difference. Take that information for what you will, but do NOT make a straw man argument with me. It will get you no where. Hope your long rant was fun. Didn't read past the first line of you BSing by blatantly claiming I said something I did not.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
In the 50s through 70s about 33% of the government funding came directly from corporate tax. That percent is now single digit. My apologies, I mistook the second sentence to be the referring to the tax rate rather than the percent of funding. Hence the reference to the current corporate tax rate and the reference to the amount of taxes paid. A minor misunderstanding really. Please don't start swearing and name calling, simply ask me to reread or provide further explanation and try to be polite. No one is getting a Pulitzer for their comments here, it just isn't that important to get so worked up about. Everyone gets a bit thick from time to time. Tell me it has never happened to you... (if you say that it hasn't, we can end this conversation now) Again, my apologies. If you want to continue this thread, I promise to read your comments twice before I respond.
-
In the 50s through 70s about 33% of the government funding came directly from corporate tax. That percent is now single digit. My apologies, I mistook the second sentence to be the referring to the tax rate rather than the percent of funding. Hence the reference to the current corporate tax rate and the reference to the amount of taxes paid. A minor misunderstanding really. Please don't start swearing and name calling, simply ask me to reread or provide further explanation and try to be polite. No one is getting a Pulitzer for their comments here, it just isn't that important to get so worked up about. Everyone gets a bit thick from time to time. Tell me it has never happened to you... (if you say that it hasn't, we can end this conversation now) Again, my apologies. If you want to continue this thread, I promise to read your comments twice before I respond.
-
In the 50s through 70s about 33% of the government funding came directly from corporate tax. That percent is now single digit. My apologies, I mistook the second sentence to be the referring to the tax rate rather than the percent of funding. Hence the reference to the current corporate tax rate and the reference to the amount of taxes paid. A minor misunderstanding really. Please don't start swearing and name calling, simply ask me to reread or provide further explanation and try to be polite. No one is getting a Pulitzer for their comments here, it just isn't that important to get so worked up about. Everyone gets a bit thick from time to time. Tell me it has never happened to you... (if you say that it hasn't, we can end this conversation now) Again, my apologies. If you want to continue this thread, I promise to read your comments twice before I respond.
ineedajobsoon wrote:
Please don't start swearing and name calling, simply ask me to reread or provide further explanation and try to be polite.
I did write it quite a few times and observed you changing what I wrote correcting it each time.... We can certainly continue though. Now you get my point though. If only (I believe it is about 9%) of the entire government funding is coming from corporate taxes and we break that down to what actual goes to roads we can deduce that corporations pay for near nil of it. Most of the road funding etc. comes out of the hard working middle class with a house. Yes corporations provide jobs, but this idea that they could even offer a job without society is just silly. There is a reason that the Urban cities vote liberal. They want social programs. That is the whole point of living in an Urban area. If people don't want them, move to the Rockies and give off the grid. The grid exists because society made it exist to pool our resources. It's just we have been getting the shaft due to this freakonimics idea which is utter BS. The only thing lifting taxes on the rich has done is get the rich (including big corps) richer. That is what allowed the ridiculous swing of pay for CEO and other execs. Why do they need that much? Saw an interesting statement on my stream:
Saying:
If you have more than you need do not build a wall, build a bigger table.
Greed is destroying this nation.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
-
ineedajobsoon wrote:
Please don't start swearing and name calling, simply ask me to reread or provide further explanation and try to be polite.
I did write it quite a few times and observed you changing what I wrote correcting it each time.... We can certainly continue though. Now you get my point though. If only (I believe it is about 9%) of the entire government funding is coming from corporate taxes and we break that down to what actual goes to roads we can deduce that corporations pay for near nil of it. Most of the road funding etc. comes out of the hard working middle class with a house. Yes corporations provide jobs, but this idea that they could even offer a job without society is just silly. There is a reason that the Urban cities vote liberal. They want social programs. That is the whole point of living in an Urban area. If people don't want them, move to the Rockies and give off the grid. The grid exists because society made it exist to pool our resources. It's just we have been getting the shaft due to this freakonimics idea which is utter BS. The only thing lifting taxes on the rich has done is get the rich (including big corps) richer. That is what allowed the ridiculous swing of pay for CEO and other execs. Why do they need that much? Saw an interesting statement on my stream:
Saying:
If you have more than you need do not build a wall, build a bigger table.
Greed is destroying this nation.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
N_tro_P wrote: If only (I believe it is about 9%) of the entire government funding is coming from corporate taxes The 9% figure is close enough. Last year was 11%. I got to thinking about the 33% thing and found this page which proves your figures. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm Then I wondered how/why it changed because the cost of government always goes up, so how did they recover the money? If you look at figure 2, it's pretty clear that they made up the difference by increasing payroll taxes steadily from the 50s up to the present. Having been an employer, I know that "payroll tax" = "employer contribution on IRS Form 941". I also know that currently, the "total" employer contribution is roughly equal (in total tax based on what I paid my employees) to the employee withholding amount. I found this info which addresses the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal\_Insurance\_Contributions\_Act\_tax The info doesn't contain any historical info about the employer contribution rates, but it clearly shows that the corporate tax has been shifted to payroll tax. So here goes... Even though they reduced "corporate" taxes, payroll tax increased. Payroll tax has almost completely replaced Corporate + Excise Tax revenue. I never made the connection before, but I now see why the politicians keep screaming "jobs!, jobs!, jobs!", they are worried about revenue. The high-paying/skilled-labor/factory work jobs are steadily evaporating and along with them the associated tax revenue stream. Computers and technology changed the game by reducing the number of people needed to do a job. The payroll tax model motivates companies to reduce the number of employees. N_tro_P wrote: Yes corporations provide jobs, but this idea that they could even offer a job without society is just silly. Yup. N_tro_P wrote: The only thing lifting taxes on the rich has done is get the rich (including big corps) richer. The rich will always get richer. Back when the tax rate was 90% the rich got richer. The rich get richer under both Democratic and Republican administrations. The rich work hard at getting richer. One of the problems with high tax rates in today's world is that the rich and a lot of companies are much more mobile than in the old days. The French found that out when they raised taxes on the rich. They started leaving the country, forcing rate cuts. In most "industrial" countries, the rich pay a large chunk of the taxes, not by percentage, but in money. Business i