When I was in the Army, equipment troubleshooting always began with... Make sure the O N O F F switch is in the O N position.

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

W∴ Balboos wrote: most of the debt was still there - the trillions brought to you, in particular, by Iraq and Afghanistan So it's still "Bush's fault" after almost eight years... And you say I blame everything on Obama? You are really on your talking points today hitting all the big ones: The poorly educated, Talk radio, The GOP, The Koch Bros, The Tea Party, and last but not least - Fox News. Even Obama doesn't hit that many in one speech. I read your opinion, which I respect, but no facts. You have expressed your opinion, and I, mine. My statements have been substantiated below. Here are the facts without spin or blame: Here is the National Debt by year by percent of GDP and dollars. http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/a/National-Debt-by-Year.htm https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt\_histo5.htm The debt under Obama rose almost 2 Trillion a year. current debt ~19 Trillion The debt under Bush rose less than 1 Trillion a year. End of FY 2008 debt ~10 Trillion Decisiveness: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/politico-poll-race-relations-under-obama-110924 http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/226262-race-relations-worse-under-obama-poll-says someone else's tag line, but it fits so well in this case. “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” -- Christopher Hitchens

W∴ Balboos wrote: how they're erroneous (and perhaps 'stock') I don't knowingly use "stock" except when offered "stock" questions. W∴ Balboos wrote: What I speak of is not a "conspiracy" theory:   it was proudly spoken right in to the camera Treason is a very serious offence. Punishable by death. I'd like to see that myself... Please send a link or video. But I suspect that it doesn't really exist or has been twisted way beyond its original content. If it did exist and really implicated the GOP in an attempt to subvert the Government of the US, action would have already been taken. More likely just hyped-up accusations. (I was going to say "trumped-up", but I know where that would go these days) :) The "vast right-wing conspiracy" remark refers to what Dems blame every time they get accused of something underhanded. W∴ Balboos wrote: But - rejecting the nominee without even knowing who it is? Yeah... McConnell is a turd-stirring moron. Why provoke ire? He should have just said "Send over your nominee", then go about the business of the Senate. Statements like that actually make Harry Reid appear sentient. No, not really... W∴ Balboos wrote: I'm still waiting for those to disappear as the first stem in getting government off of the backs of "business". I don't like subsides either, even though a few have been beneficial for a while, but like most government "programs" they never end. I'm guessing you've never been in business. I have, wholesale, retail and even Government contracting and it looks a lot different from the inside than as an employee. Regulation isn't all bad, but like subsidies, they just keep accumulating and outlive their alleged usefulness. They added something like 70K+ pages of new regs last year. W∴ Balboos wrote: how long and how much damage. A lot of unjust pain Agreed, I think exactly the same thing but from a different viewpoint.

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.

W∴ Balboos wrote: I was there. I watched Reagan do for the US what he did for California I grew up in So Cal and was there when Reagan was in charge. Times were good. My brother in law and sister in law both worked for the Department of Education in Sacramento. They absolutely despised Reagan for cutting the budget to get California out of debt, which he accomplished. The DoE had 37 administrators for every teacher, so the cuts were probably justified (sarcasm). He was an very popular with the people of the state winning reelection despite heavy opposition from big money liberals and unions. While you say you were there, I lived there. You remember what the media/academia has told you about Reagan. I remember a man who, when California had a budget surplus (yes, a surplus) the congress wanted to spend the money and he said "give it back to the taxpayers, it's their money". That is what I know from personal experience, without a media filter. W∴ Balboos wrote: but the blame is squarely on the GOP in the House and Senate No it is not, you are again spouting liberal talking points. I thought you were above that. It takes two to tango and Obama must take blame for half of the problem. He rarely ever consulted or visited congress, much less offer up a workable compromise. Something Clinton was great at. Reps regained control of the house because the voters wanted to slow Obama down. W∴ Balboos wrote: the GOP has been guilty of treason Ahhhhh, the "vast right wing conspiracy" rears its ugly head. Sadly, an entire political party cannot be guilty of treason. Would be nice if it could be done, clear both of them out and start over. Talk about term limits... more like termination limits. W∴ Balboos wrote: with their rejection of the supreme court nominee Not "rejected", ignored. Perfectly legit. Please don't tell me that the Dems wouldn't do the same thing were the circumstances reversed. Biden is on record saying exactly that. The longest period for the Supreme Court to go with only eight members is 391 days. It happened during the Nixon years because a Dem Senate rejected his nominees. The country survived. W∴ Balboos wrote: continue to value their party above their nation. You expend a lot of effort criticizing the GOP/Conservatives. I could do the same on the other side and you know that. There is not a nickle's worth of difference between the parties. They both have politicians that only want to stay in power at their core . I don't buy the en

There once was a loving machine both concave and convex it could serve either sex entertaining itself in between!

W∴ Balboos wrote: Privatization is a big farce imposed to take successful government entities :laugh:

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.

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

Sorry about the "duh". My apologies. But you clearly didn't read the thread to see what we were talking about.

How he truly felt about astrology is something we will never know. Would you tell anyone that the love of your life might be a little "off"? I wouldn't. I'd say "that's wonderful honey, now kiss me and wish me luck at my meeting." You are apparently a Reagan hater, so you would never cut him any slack. Just as I would never cut Barack Obama any slack either who is also lost without a teleprompter script.

W∴ Balboos wrote: Waiting for astrologer's advice, That was Nancy.

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?

I'm comfortably retired now, the handle is sarcasm from a long time ago. I was never out of a job unless I wanted to be. However, getting the definition wrong did reflect my coding style. I was/am not a very good coder, but I am very dedicated, persistent and completed my projects with functional, but rarely elegant, code. If you've never made a mistake, you've never done anything.

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

Dominic Burford wrote: less likely to fall for the rhetoric that comes out of someone like Trump Or Barack Obama who promised "Hope and Change". The "Hope" became divisiveness and the change is that the country is now 20 trillion dollars in debt.

GuyThiebaut wrote: after three and a half years in a job I know much more and am much more productive than just being a code monkey That is so true! There is so much more to learn about working for a company than just your particular skill set. I worked most of my life as a machinist in the aerospace (defense) industry. But the last 20 years I worked for a large commercial airline in jet engine overhaul. I had so much to learn about the business after (and before) I got into IT to be a productive employee.

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