Advertisement
Taxes You are paying better than Three Quarters of your gross income to some government entity or other in the form of Taxes:
Overt Taxes:
• Fed income tax
• Fed FICA tax
• Fed SECA tax
• Fed Worker’s Comp
• State Worker’s Comp
• Fed Medicare
• State Income tax
• City Income tax
• Some Counties have an income tax
• Sales taxes
• Luxury taxes
• Road Tolls
• Real Estate taxes
• Vehicle taxes
• …………Surcharges
• …………License fees
• …………Registration fees
• …………Gasoline consumption taxes
Hidden Taxes
(Taxation that is structural – built into the cost of what you pay for things so you don’t see it as “tax” on your receipt but rather, higher prices):
• Real estate taxes on renters: Renters pay their landlord’s Real Estate taxes via higher rent.
• VAT taxation VIA higher retail prices for foods clothing and other goods made in or shipped through Europe.
• Sales and use taxes paid as higher prices for consumer goods that are made in any nation with taxes.
• Highway taxes VIA higher costs for consumer goods that are shipped across any road or rail whether in the US or any foreign
• Waterway use taxes for consumer goods chipped along any US or foreign water way.
• Unemployment taxes passed on to you VIA lower wages.
• Employer provided life insurance taxes you pay in lower wages
• Subsidy taxes for any thing you buy that benefits from a subsidy
• U.S. waterway taxes you pay to go anywhere by boat.
• Medical risk Taxes like the DPD tax
• Taxes on College Scholarships
• Taxes on debt forgiveness when you “cut a deal” with your creditor for anything less than the entire amount with interest.
• Gasoline tax. ( 19 - 45.8 cents {state depending}per gallon in federal, state and local taxes)
• Travel taxes: Airfare, hotels, car rental and taxi service: 7.5% air fare & $3.50 tax for each increment of the flight and $2.50 in security tax on each increment of that flight. Hotel & car rentals are taxed up to 40% of the cost.
• Sin taxes on beer, liquor, gambling and cigarettes. ($13.50-a-gallon tax on hard liquor and the 33-cent tax on a six-pack.)
• State taxes on insurance premiums. A $9-Billion wind fall for each state each year. You state taxes your insurance company which passes that on to you.
• Excise tax. All impoirts have a federal excise tax levied onto them.
The below is a very, very, short list of imports and their respective taxes which you pay.
• Bicycles 11%
• Brussel sprouts 12%
• Cotton hammocks 15%
• Infant formulas 18%
• Flashlights 18%
• Peanut butter 143%
• Girdles and panty girdles 24%
• Brooms 32%
• Plastic school supplies
The list goes on and on.
There are hundreds of taxes you pay. The cumulative effect is a tax of no less than 75% on your gross income.
You can be sure that if there is a transaction where you transfer any of the money you earn to some one for something you are paying a tax.
The result is that you pay on average about 75% of your gross income to government in the form of taxes.
This link takes you to a comprehensive study of the taxes you pay:
Google these names:
Nina Olson
Jared Bernstein
Pete Sepp,
Institute for Policy Innovation, Washington, D.C.
FABULOUS RESOURCE: Taxes You are paying better than Three Quarters of your gross income to some government entity or other in the form of Taxes:
Overt Taxes:
• Fed income tax
• Fed FICA tax
• Fed SECA tax
• Fed Worker’s Comp
• State Worker’s Comp
• Fed Medicare
• State Income tax
• City Income tax
• Some Counties have an income tax
• Sales taxes
• Luxury taxes
• Road Tolls
• Real Estate taxes
• Vehicle taxes
• …………Surcharges
• …………License fees
• …………Registration fees
• …………Gasoline consumption taxes
Hidden Taxes
(Taxation that is structural – built into the cost of what you pay for things so you don’t see it as “tax” on your receipt but rather, higher prices):
• Real estate taxes on renters: Renters pay their landlord’s Real Estate taxes via higher rent.
• VAT taxation VIA higher retail prices for foods clothing and other goods made in or shipped through Europe.
• Sales and use taxes paid as higher prices for consumer goods that are made in any nation with taxes.
• Highway taxes VIA higher costs for consumer goods that are shipped across any road or rail whether in the US or any foreign
• Waterway use taxes for consumer goods chipped along any US or foreign water way.
• Unemployment taxes passed on to you VIA lower wages.
• Employer provided life insurance taxes you pay in lower wages
• Subsidy taxes for any thing you buy that benefits from a subsidy
• U.S. waterway taxes you pay to go anywhere by boat.
• Medical risk Taxes like the DPD tax
• Taxes on College Scholarships
• Taxes on debt forgiveness when you “cut a deal” with your creditor for anything less than the entire amount with interest.
• Gasoline tax. ( 19 - 45.8 cents {state depending}per gallon in federal, state and local taxes)
• Travel taxes: Airfare, hotels, car rental and taxi service: 7.5% air fare & $3.50 tax for each increment of the flight and $2.50 in security tax on each increment of that flight. Hotel & car rentals are taxed up to 40% of the cost.
• Sin taxes on beer, liquor, gambling and cigarettes. ($13.50-a-gallon tax on hard liquor and the 33-cent tax on a six-pack.)
• State taxes on insurance premiums. A $9-Billion wind fall for each state each year. You state taxes your insurance company which passes that on to you.
• Excise tax. All impoirts have a federal excise tax levied onto them.
The below is a very, very, short list of imports and their respective taxes which you pay.
• Bicycles 11%
• Brussel sprouts 12%
• Cotton hammocks 15%
• Infant formulas 18%
• Flashlights 18%
• Peanut butter 143%
• Girdles and panty girdles 24%
• Brooms 32%
• Plastic school supplies
The list goes on and on.
There are hundreds of taxes you pay. The cumulative effect is a tax of no less than 75% on your gross income.
You can be sure that if there is a transaction where you transfer any of the money you earn to some one for something you are paying a tax.
The result is that you pay on average about 75% of your gross income to government in the form of taxes.
This link takes you to a comprehensive study of the taxes you pay:
Google these names:
Nina Olson
Jared Bernstein
Pete Sepp,
Institute for Policy Innovation, Washington, D.C.
FABULOUS RESOURCE: www.ipi.org/ipi%5CIPIPub...Tax-FINAL.pdf
www.irs.gov/irs/article/...01099,00.html
Google these names:
Nina Olson
Jared Bernstein
Pete Sepp,
Institute for Policy Innovation, Washington, D.C.
Google these names:
Nina Olson
Jared Bernstein
Pete Sepp,
Institute for Policy Innovation, Washington, D.C.
Overt Taxes:
• Fed income tax
• Fed FICA tax
• Fed SECA tax
• Fed Worker’s Comp
• State Worker’s Comp
• Fed Medicare
• State Income tax
• City Income tax
• Some Counties have an income tax
• Sales taxes
• Luxury taxes
• Road Tolls
• Real Estate taxes
• Vehicle taxes
• …………Surcharges
• …………License fees
• …………Registration fees
• …………Gasoline consumption taxes
Hidden Taxes
(Taxation that is structural – built into the cost of what you pay for things so you don’t see it as “tax” on your receipt but rather, higher prices):
• Real estate taxes on renters: Renters pay their landlord’s Real Estate taxes via higher rent.
• VAT taxation VIA higher retail prices for foods clothing and other goods made in or shipped through Europe.
• Sales and use taxes paid as higher prices for consumer goods that are made in any nation with taxes.
• Highway taxes VIA higher costs for consumer goods that are shipped across any road or rail whether in the US or any foreign
• Waterway use taxes for consumer goods chipped along any US or foreign water way.
• Unemployment taxes passed on to you VIA lower wages.
• Employer provided life insurance taxes you pay in lower wages
• Subsidy taxes for any thing you buy that benefits from a subsidy
• U.S. waterway taxes you pay to go anywhere by boat.
• Medical risk Taxes like the DPD tax
• Taxes on College Scholarships
• Taxes on debt forgiveness when you “cut a deal” with your creditor for anything less than the entire amount with interest.
• Gasoline tax. ( 19 - 45.8 cents {state depending}per gallon in federal, state and local taxes)
• Travel taxes: Airfare, hotels, car rental and taxi service: 7.5% air fare & $3.50 tax for each increment of the flight and $2.50 in security tax on each increment of that flight. Hotel & car rentals are taxed up to 40% of the cost.
• Sin taxes on beer, liquor, gambling and cigarettes. ($13.50-a-gallon tax on hard liquor and the 33-cent tax on a six-pack.)
• State taxes on insurance premiums. A $9-Billion wind fall for each state each year. You state taxes your insurance company which passes that on to you.
• Excise tax. All impoirts have a federal excise tax levied onto them.
The below is a very, very, short list of imports and their respective taxes which you pay.
• Bicycles 11%
• Brussel sprouts 12%
• Cotton hammocks 15%
• Infant formulas 18%
• Flashlights 18%
• Peanut butter 143%
• Girdles and panty girdles 24%
• Brooms 32%
• Plastic school supplies
The list goes on and on.
There are hundreds of taxes you pay. The cumulative effect is a tax of no less than 75% on your gross income.
You can be sure that if there is a transaction where you transfer any of the money you earn to some one for something you are paying a tax.
The result is that you pay on average about 75% of your gross income to government in the form of taxes.
This link takes you to a comprehensive study of the taxes you pay:
Google these names:
Nina Olson
Jared Bernstein
Pete Sepp,
Institute for Policy Innovation, Washington, D.C.
FABULOUS RESOURCE: Taxes You are paying better than Three Quarters of your gross income to some government entity or other in the form of Taxes:
Overt Taxes:
• Fed income tax
• Fed FICA tax
• Fed SECA tax
• Fed Worker’s Comp
• State Worker’s Comp
• Fed Medicare
• State Income tax
• City Income tax
• Some Counties have an income tax
• Sales taxes
• Luxury taxes
• Road Tolls
• Real Estate taxes
• Vehicle taxes
• …………Surcharges
• …………License fees
• …………Registration fees
• …………Gasoline consumption taxes
Hidden Taxes
(Taxation that is structural – built into the cost of what you pay for things so you don’t see it as “tax” on your receipt but rather, higher prices):
• Real estate taxes on renters: Renters pay their landlord’s Real Estate taxes via higher rent.
• VAT taxation VIA higher retail prices for foods clothing and other goods made in or shipped through Europe.
• Sales and use taxes paid as higher prices for consumer goods that are made in any nation with taxes.
• Highway taxes VIA higher costs for consumer goods that are shipped across any road or rail whether in the US or any foreign
• Waterway use taxes for consumer goods chipped along any US or foreign water way.
• Unemployment taxes passed on to you VIA lower wages.
• Employer provided life insurance taxes you pay in lower wages
• Subsidy taxes for any thing you buy that benefits from a subsidy
• U.S. waterway taxes you pay to go anywhere by boat.
• Medical risk Taxes like the DPD tax
• Taxes on College Scholarships
• Taxes on debt forgiveness when you “cut a deal” with your creditor for anything less than the entire amount with interest.
• Gasoline tax. ( 19 - 45.8 cents {state depending}per gallon in federal, state and local taxes)
• Travel taxes: Airfare, hotels, car rental and taxi service: 7.5% air fare & $3.50 tax for each increment of the flight and $2.50 in security tax on each increment of that flight. Hotel & car rentals are taxed up to 40% of the cost.
• Sin taxes on beer, liquor, gambling and cigarettes. ($13.50-a-gallon tax on hard liquor and the 33-cent tax on a six-pack.)
• State taxes on insurance premiums. A $9-Billion wind fall for each state each year. You state taxes your insurance company which passes that on to you.
• Excise tax. All impoirts have a federal excise tax levied onto them.
The below is a very, very, short list of imports and their respective taxes which you pay.
• Bicycles 11%
• Brussel sprouts 12%
• Cotton hammocks 15%
• Infant formulas 18%
• Flashlights 18%
• Peanut butter 143%
• Girdles and panty girdles 24%
• Brooms 32%
• Plastic school supplies
The list goes on and on.
There are hundreds of taxes you pay. The cumulative effect is a tax of no less than 75% on your gross income.
You can be sure that if there is a transaction where you transfer any of the money you earn to some one for something you are paying a tax.
The result is that you pay on average about 75% of your gross income to government in the form of taxes.
This link takes you to a comprehensive study of the taxes you pay:
Google these names:
Nina Olson
Jared Bernstein
Pete Sepp,
Institute for Policy Innovation, Washington, D.C.
FABULOUS RESOURCE: www.ipi.org/ipi%5CIPIPub...Tax-FINAL.pdf
www.irs.gov/irs/article/...01099,00.html
Google these names:
Nina Olson
Jared Bernstein
Pete Sepp,
Institute for Policy Innovation, Washington, D.C.
Google these names:
Nina Olson
Jared Bernstein
Pete Sepp,
Institute for Policy Innovation, Washington, D.C.
posted by:
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Sat, November 14, 2009 - 7:51 AMNonsense.
You apparently know as much about my tax dollars as you do about Islam, liberalism, and global climate change.
(=Jack. Shit.) -
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Sat, November 14, 2009 - 10:56 AM>> Nonsense. <<
think about it. if you pay 40% income tax. and 10% sales tax. capital gains tax on investments. then lump in fees, fines and other incidentals, Cliff's estimate is not far off. -
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Sat, November 14, 2009 - 2:12 PM<<
think about it. if you pay 40% income tax. and 10% sales tax. capital gains tax on investments. then lump in fees, fines and other incidentals, Cliff's estimate is not far off.>>
I don't pay 40% income tax nor 10% sales tax and "fees, fines and other incidentals" do not amount to 25% of my income. Thanks for playing, care to make another wild guess designed only to make me go "OMG, this is SOCIALISM!"?
While you're at this game of telepathic tax calculating, care to telepathically file my own taxes for me? -
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Sat, November 14, 2009 - 5:35 PM
>> I don't pay 40% income tax nor 10% sales tax and "fees, fines and other incidentals" do not amount to 25% of my income. Thanks for playing, care to make another wild guess designed only to make me go "OMG, this is SOCIALISM!"? <<
really? have you checked your W2? or if you file a 1099, it's pretty much standard to send 1/3 to the Fed quarterly and 10% to the State.
unless of course you are on the low earning end. which means that you don't shoulder all that much of the burden. the primary tax burden falls on the shoulders that do. which means that if you want to be fair, you weight the average towards the end that pays the most. -
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Sun, November 15, 2009 - 8:50 AM<<really? have you checked your W2?>>
I know for 100% certain that you have not checked my W2. You're just shooting in the dark like Cliff here is, and I for one am not about to humor you by erroneously stating you're correct.
<< or if you file a 1099, it's pretty much standard to send 1/3 to the Fed quarterly and 10% to the State.>>
30+10 does not equal 75.
<<unless of course you are on the low earning end. which means that you don't shoulder all that much of the burden. the primary tax burden falls on the shoulders that do. which means that if you want to be fair, you weight the average towards the end that pays the most.>>
That's retarded. Everyone pays taxes, and just because rich people pay higher taxes doesn't mean that they individually "shoulder the most burden" nor does it mean that an average tax should be weighted in their favor. They make up a very small minority of the population, and an average tax should be calculated by the gross tax divided by the number of individuals, not how absurdly wealthy a minority of the taxpayers are.
The ones you're saying heroically shoulder the most burden do not wind up paying a majority of the US tax income and can afford taxes the most. It's a joke and it speaks volumes about what you and Cliff here are trying to do - it's basically Marxist style class war only instead of the "proletariat" I'm supposed to sympathize with, it's Cliff's libertarian multi-millionnaire Jesus. -
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Sun, November 15, 2009 - 4:37 PM>> I know for 100% certain that you have not checked my W2. You're just shooting in the dark like Cliff here is, and I for one am not about to humor you by erroneously stating you're correct. <<
did I ever claim to have read your W2?
>> 30+10 does not equal 75. <<
read Cliff's post. 40 is part of the equation. you then have to factor in sales tax, property tax, fines, fees, etc.
>> That's retarded. Everyone pays taxes, and just because rich people pay higher taxes doesn't mean that they individually "shoulder the most burden" nor does it mean that an average tax should be weighted in their favor. They make up a very small minority of the population, and an average tax should be calculated by the gross tax divided by the number of individuals, not how absurdly wealthy a minority of the taxpayers are. <<
everyone does not pay taxes. and if a higher percentage of tax is paid by people that earn above a certain amount, then indeed they do shoulder more of the burden. people at the poverty level pay very little taxes. what they pay accounts for a small portion of tax revenue. so averaging them in equally is idiotic since the contribute relatively less.
>> The ones you're saying heroically shoulder the most burden do not wind up paying a majority of the US tax income and can afford taxes the most. It's a joke and it speaks volumes about what you and Cliff here are trying to do - it's basically Marxist style class war only instead of the "proletariat" I'm supposed to sympathize with, it's Cliff's libertarian multi-millionnaire Jesus. <<
trying to do? Marxist? you really are working yourself into a corner on this one. it seems that you don't like my point of view so I have to be up to something nefarious. which speaks volumes as to where you're coming from. but instead of getting all worked up, just argue with the numbers.
www.ntu.org/main/page.php -
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Sun, November 15, 2009 - 8:56 PM"read Cliff's post. 40 is part of the equation"
That would be a waste of time. Cliff ignores some basic facts, such as that state and local taxes are deductible. You can't just add up tax rates, and if you did you still wouldn't come anywhere close to 75%. Total taxes in the U.S. only add up to 28% of GDP. -
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Sun, November 15, 2009 - 10:23 PM>> Cliff ignores some basic facts, such as that state and local taxes are deductible. <<
if you itemize your deductions. and it only matters if the itemized deductions are greater than your standard deductions.
>>You can't just add up tax rates, and if you did you still wouldn't come anywhere close to 75%. <<
if you're already around 40% INCOME TAX (caps for the morons in the audience). then add property taxes, fees, fines, sales tax on just about every purchase... you're getting pretty damn close.
>> Total taxes in the U.S. only add up to 28% of GDP. <<
keep repeating your mistake potato-head. it really makes you look smarter. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Mon, November 16, 2009 - 12:43 AM>>Aif you itemize your deductions. and it only matters if the itemized deductions are greater than your standard deductions.
If you had had much financial success, you would know that people in the upper income tax brackets never use the standard deduction. That's we why hire fancy accoutants.
>>if you're already around 40% INCOME TAX (caps for the morons in the audience). then add property taxes, fees, fines, sales tax on just about every purchase
As I have already pointed out, all that stuff is DEDUCTED, which is an important reason why my income taxes, which were in the top bracket, only amounted to 19% of gross income.
>>keep repeating your mistake potato-head
What I keep repeating is the statistics compiled by the Heritage Foundation.
What you keep repeating is insults, because that's all you know. -
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Mon, November 16, 2009 - 7:59 PM>> If you had had much financial success, you would know that people in the upper income tax brackets never use the standard deduction. That's we why hire fancy accoutants. <<
OK Rockefeller. you seem incapable of following the point. the itemized deduction for state income tax only benefits you if it trounces your standard deductions. again, having absolutely nothing to do with other deductions. but run with it. you seem to be enjoying yourself.
>> As I have already pointed out, all that stuff is DEDUCTED, which is an important reason why my income taxes, which were in the top bracket, only amounted to 19% of gross income. <<
wrong again genius. ALL of it is not deducted. for instance, you can either deduct sales tax OR you can deduct State income tax. not both. not sure how you deducted Capital gains though. but then again, you're obviously not too sure either.
>> What you keep repeating is insults, because that's all you know. <<
that and the fact that you should have a talk with your kids about finding a good nursing home. -
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Wed, November 18, 2009 - 10:29 PM>> you can either deduct sales tax OR you can deduct State income tax. not both
Oh dear, choices, choices, whatever shall I do . . . hmm, my state income taxes amounted to about 40 times the sales tax, typical for people in my income bracket . . . except for the states (there are seven) with no income tax . . . you seem to have some difficulty figuring that out.
Adding up ALL the taxes I paid in 2008, I arrive at a total of 28% of gross income, pretty affordable for someone in the top bracket. If you find ANYONE who paid 75%, let me know . . . otherwise, I accuse you of making things up.
-
-
-
-
-
ooh, didn't see this one.
Tue, December 15, 2009 - 12:23 PM<<
did I ever claim to have read your W2? >>
You asked. Since you haven't, you don't really know what kind of taxes I pay. Well, that and you don't know key information you would need to compute my taxes.
<<everyone does not pay taxes.>>
Who doesn't, now? I like that you're agreeing with the original post (which was essentially TAXES ARE EVERYWHERE! AND 75% OF YOUR INCOME!!!) and now claiming that not everyone even PAYs taxes. Contradictory good fun that.
<<and if a higher percentage of tax is paid by people that earn above a certain amount, then indeed they do shoulder more of the burden. people at the poverty level pay very little taxes. what they pay accounts for a small portion of tax revenue.>>
But a large part of their individual spending power and thus ability to advance economically. Wealthier people are more able to part with wealth without risking their daily survival, well-being, business options, or advancement. -
-
Re: ooh, didn't see this one.
Tue, December 15, 2009 - 7:13 PM>> You asked. Since you haven't, you don't really know what kind of taxes I pay. Well, that and you don't know key information you would need to compute my taxes. <<
I asked if you checked your W2. and your insect brain somehow interpreted that as a claim that I've seen your W2. hey, if you're earning below 50K then fine. although, the requisite percentage will still be deducted from your check each week assuming you even earn a salary. and the state of CA, as a result of years of profligate spending and an inability to cut any form of spending has advanced itself a few more points. so they're pocketing a few more percentage points. all to be returned when we file of course. assuming it remains solvent.
>> Who doesn't, now? I like that you're agreeing with the original post (which was essentially TAXES ARE EVERYWHERE! AND 75% OF YOUR INCOME!!!) and now claiming that not everyone even PAYs taxes. Contradictory good fun that. <<
it's pretty much implicit in Cliff's post that he's referring to people that actually pay income taxes. just like he's probably referring to people that are still alive and over the age of ten. I had assumed that went without saying. but based upon your post I obviously assumed too much from this forum.
>> But a large part of their individual spending power and thus ability to advance economically. Wealthier people are more able to part with wealth without risking their daily survival, well-being, business options, or advancement. <<
they are also the ones that have the purchase power to drive the economy. you know all that evil seed money that drives silicon valley for instance. horrible assholes that risked a percentage of their income on startups that ended up creating more wealth.
and the problem with completely shielding the poor from their tax burden is that they never feel the cost of voting for increases in government spending. and you end up with complete idiocy like you have in CA where blocks of voters keep passing bond measure after bond measure. that and the trust-fund babies that have no concept of what it means to build wealth.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Sat, November 14, 2009 - 11:36 AMThanks for the entertaining fairy tale. Here is what the "2009 Index of Economic Freedom" published by the Heritage Foundation says:
Total taxation in the United States amounts to 28% of GDP, the lowest of any industrialized nation except Japan (27%).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...age_of_GDP
www.heritage.org/Index/
-
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Sat, November 14, 2009 - 12:49 PM>> Thanks for the entertaining fairy tale. Here is what the "2009 Index of Economic Freedom" published by the Heritage Foundation says:
Total taxation in the United States amounts to 28% of GDP, the lowest of any industrialized nation except Japan (27%). <<
you poor confused moron. GDP has nothing to do with personal income.
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)
in California, I pay around 45% income tax (state + federal). about another 20% is consumed. that consumption is taxed (sales tax). the rest goes to a 401K or is invested. investment income is also taxed (capital gains). people that own homes pay property taxes. why don't you run along and be stupid somewhere else? -
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Sat, November 14, 2009 - 12:52 PM
or better yet, try reading the summary of the links you provide.
"Total government spending equals more than a third of GDP. Corporate and personal taxes are high and increasingly uncompetitive."
www.heritage.org/Index/Cou...itedStates
and the portion of the paragraph you omitted to get the number you think proves your point.
"U.S. tax rates are burdensome. Both the top income tax rate and the top corporate tax rate are 35 percent."
which, mind you, is limited to Federal tax only. -
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Sat, November 14, 2009 - 3:29 PM"GDP has nothing to do with personal income. "
According to who?
The gross domestic product (GDP) or gross domestic income (GDI) is a basic measure of a country's overall economic performance. It is the market value of all final goods and services made within the borders of a country in a year. It is often positively correlated with the standard of living, though its use as a stand-in for measuring the standard of living has come under increasing criticism and many countries are actively exploring alternative measures to GDP for that purpose. GDP can be determined in three ways, all of which should in principle give the same result. They are the product (or output) approach, the income approach, and the expenditure approach. The most direct of the three is the product approach, which sums the outputs of every class of enterprise to arrive at the total. The expenditure approach works on the principle that all of the product must be bought by somebody, therefore the value of the total product must be equal to people's total expenditures in buying things. The income approach works on the principle that the incomes of the productive factors ("producers," colloquially) must be equal to the value of their product, and determines GDP by finding the sum of all producers' incomes.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gdp
Or to put it more briefly, GDP is the monetary value of all goods and services produced or the sum of all income, which gives the same result. The total sum of all production = the total sum of all income.
"Total government spending equals more than a third of GDP."
That's the spending, wiseguy, not the taxes. We pay lower taxes than anyone but the Japanese.
I have oil wells in Texas. I pax more taxes, I would guess, than anyone else here. With considerable deductions, my federal taxes amounted to 19% of my gross income in 2008. (Yeah, it does help to have good accountants.) All the other taxes, state, local, withholding, amounted to about half that.
Here's something else from the Heritage page:
"The United States' economic freedom score is 80.7, making its economy the 6th freest in the 2009 Index. Its score is 0.3 point lower than last year, reflecting declines in five of the 10 economic freedoms. The United States is ranked 1st out of three countries in the North America region, and its overall score is much higher than the world average."
1 Hong Kong 90.0
2 Singapore 87.1
3 Australia 82.6
4 Ireland 82.2
5 New Zealand 82.0
6 United States 80.7
7 Canada 80.5
8 Denmark 80.0
9 Switzerland 79.4
10 United Kingdom 79.0
Sorry, I don't think we'll be catching up with Hong Kong and Singapore anytime soon.
As for the theory that the economy is being strangled by high taxes, save it for the teabagger rallies.
-
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Sat, November 14, 2009 - 5:50 PM>> According to who? <<
??? according to how GDP is calculated.
instead of regurgitating Wikipedia, try formulating a cogent argument.
>> Or to put it more briefly, GDP is the monetary value of all goods and services produced or the sum of all income, which gives the same result. The total sum of all production = the total sum of all income. <<
are you slow-witted? or perhaps you missed your medication. the fucking calculation of GDP includes government spending. it has nothing to do with the percent of income that goes to taxes.
>> That's the spending, wiseguy, not the taxes. We pay lower taxes than anyone but the Japanese. <<
who funds that spending? and to refer to your original "argument"
>> Total taxation in the United States amounts to 28% of GDP <<
28% of total tax revenue. a very important detail you seem unable to grasp. 28% related to the calculation of GDP which also includes government spending. but I'm sure pointing out the circularity of your 4th grade logic is a complete waste of time. it is just fucking unbelievable how dense some of you people are. I swear, if I had a bag of kittens as stupid as you, I'd drown them. -
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Sun, November 15, 2009 - 12:33 PMI see that you are repeating yourself, in hopes that no one will notice that you have no sources for your claims.
An insult is not an argument, it merely exposes your own ignorance.
I should say though, that you are not alone. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and all the leading Republicans repeat assertions instead of presenting facts, substitute insults for arguments and base opinions on ignorance. The purpose, though, is not to win over people who can be convinced by facts and reasoning, but to weed out any doubters in their own flock.
When I was a child, they taught me the Apostle's Creed:
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
I didn't know what that all meant: We were Methodists, not Catholics, and the "resurrection of the body" was a doctrine most churches gave up in the 19th Century, and I'm still not sure what the "communion of saints" refers to . . . but it didn't matter. None one was going to dispute any of these points, you weren't going to be tested on them, you just had to memorize them and repeat them every Sunday, and that meant you were part of the flock.
If we study today's "conservatism," we see that is based on unproved and dubious assumptions, which are accepted as a matter of faith, and repeated in ritual fashion, for example:
* Free markets are self-regulating.
* Lower taxes for the wealthy mean prosperity for everyone.
* The Constitution is based on Christian principles.
* Abortion is murder.
* Evolution is just a theory.
* Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.
* Global warming is a myth.
* White people are the chief victims of racism in America today.
* Immigrants are loafers who undermine the economy.
What you don't understand is that these propositions are not as obvious to "reality-based" people as they are to believers, and if you repeat them without any evidence, you are more likely to alienate people than to convince them. -
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Sun, November 15, 2009 - 4:43 PM>> I see that you are repeating yourself, in hopes that no one will notice that you have no sources for your claims. <<
by "claims" you mean the definition of GDP? or are you referring to the fact that I had the audacity to point out the circularity of your argument? or are you just some brain-dead oaf allowing his brainstem to guide his online behavior?
>> I should say though, that you are not alone. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and all the leading Republicans repeat assertions instead of presenting facts <<
kind of like the way prototypical morons such as yourself reflexively trot out the litany of right-wing stereotypes.
sorry for the honesty guy. but you really are dogshit stupid.
>> and if you repeat them without any evidence, you are more likely to alienate people than to convince them. <<
Roger or Dave have their shit together. so there is a point to the discussion. you're just wasted space. whether or not you agree with me or not is of no concern. -
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Sun, November 15, 2009 - 8:50 PM>>by "claims" you mean the definition of GDP?
So far as I can recall you never tried to define GDP, you merely said it had nothing to do with income, which is not true.
>> I had the audacity to point out the circularity of your argument?
I quoted the Wikipedia. That is not a circular argument, that is a source. You have no source, you simply dispute mine. You cannot define GDP because you do not know, you are simply making things up.
>>some brain-dead oaf allowing his brainstem to guide his online behavior?
Thank you for providing more evidence for my assertion that Republicans habititually substitute insults for rational argument. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Sun, November 15, 2009 - 10:03 PM
>> So far as I can recall you never tried to define GDP, you merely said it had nothing to do with income, which is not true. <<
the post where I provide the calculation. extracted from the very Wiki article you are mangling.
tribes.tribe.net/globalpol...69932975e5
>> I quoted the Wikipedia. That is not a circular argument, that is a source. You have no source, you simply dispute mine. <<
nope. you're contradicting an assertion about the percent of taxes relative to income we pay by referencing GDP. you did link to a page about GDP. but that doesn't matter because GDP has nothing to do with tax rates.
>> You cannot define GDP because you do not know, you are simply making things up. <<
sorry dumbass. the definition is right in the Wiki stone tablets you carried down from your mountain of ignorance.
>> Thank you for providing more evidence for my assertion that Republicans habititually substitute insults for rational argument. <<
anytime moron. -
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Mon, November 16, 2009 - 12:30 AM>> the calculation. extracted from the very Wiki article you are mangling.
I am mangling it? You ignored the whole point of my post:
Total Production = Total Income = GDP
The formula you refer to is only one of the three methods, all of which give the same result: "They are the product (or output) approach, the income approach, and the expenditure approach."
Your original claim: "GDP has nothing to do with personal income," which is plainly false. When I refuted this from the Wikipedia article, you then citee the EXPENDITURES forumula, which is different. But the income method gives the same result, so one cannot be more valid than the other.
In any case, the Heritage Foundation uses the same calculations for each nation, so my statement that the United States has the lowest taxes of any industrialized nation but Japan is true in any case.
>>GDP has nothing to do with tax rates.
I didn't say it did. It is the RATIO between total taxes and GDP which is significant.
>>sorry dumbass. the definition is right in the Wiki stone tablets you carried down from your mountain of ignorance.
Since you depend on the same source, I gather that you are admitting to be a "dumbass" also. OK, "Dumbass."
>>anytime moron.
This appears to be typical expression of conservative values, surpassed only by the immortal words of Dick Cheney: "Fuck you!"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Sat, November 14, 2009 - 5:46 PMOkay. Well, what do you propose we do? How do we pay for our roads, our trains and buses, our parks and so on? Because, if we apply the whole capitalistic user-fee kind of thing, we'd be paying a lot more, I think. Isn't it easier when the burden is spread out or subsidized? -
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Sat, November 14, 2009 - 5:54 PM>> Isn't it easier when the burden is spread out or subsidized? <<
is it? you get more of what you subsidize. especially when funds are distributed based upon the fickle opinions of the voter and meted through a massive bureaucracy several degrees removed from any realistic feedback.
>> Well, what do you propose we do? <<
limit the scope of responsibilities for the Fed and State. abolish Federal/State employee unions. simplify the tax code and force the Fed to pay for costs it foists upon business and State governments. -
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Sat, November 14, 2009 - 6:02 PM>>limit the scope of responsibilities for the Fed and State. abolish Federal/State employee unions. simplify the tax code and force the Fed to pay for costs it foists upon business and State governments.<<
Okay, let's talk about this because I knew the "small government" argument would come eventually.
Wouldn't you agree that in a Capitalistic societies, growth is the ONLY model? This notion also undergirds how govermental agencies operate in the modern economy. Because of unbroken calls for smaller government, governmental agencies on all levels are constantly pressured to contract out. In my view, it's this relentless "contracting out" -- along with an exploding population-- that has helped to broaden the scope of what government does. Moreover, with "contracting out" and other public/private partnership (P3) schemes, many private industry firms and companies would be out of business, puttling millions out of work. Dont' get me wrong, Thought Leader, I'm not for large government either, but the train's already left the station, I think.
-
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Sat, November 14, 2009 - 10:54 PM
>> Wouldn't you agree that in a Capitalistic societies, growth is the ONLY model? <<
growth and change. I'm not so deluded as to say there is some perfect solution. it's the dynamism of the US economy that sets it apart.
the choice is periodic market disruptions or chronic distortions created by bureaucratic attempts to regulate and control the uncontrollable. don't discount the role distortions caused by short-sighted public policy played on our current economic situation.
>> Because of unbroken calls for smaller government, governmental agencies on all levels are constantly pressured to contract out. <<
maybe some things shouldn't be regulated at all. is the greater good served for instance by adding tobacco to the list of responsibilities of the FDA as opposed to refocusing oversight on pharmaceuticals? the more we grow government the harder oversight becomes. the more unwieldy the bureaucracy, the less likely it becomes that it performs it's core responsibilities satisfactorily. -
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Sun, November 15, 2009 - 7:38 AM>>the choice is periodic market disruptions or chronic distortions created by bureaucratic attempts to regulate and control the uncontrollable. don't discount the role distortions caused by short-sighted public policy played on our current economic situation.<<
I'm not discounting that at all, but are you suggesting that it's a systemic problem, or that it was a matter of the ideology of those who were "in charge" of running the administration of the system at the time? Goverment is simply a system, kind of like a computer, and the kind of energy that is put into it, is the result that's going to come out of it.
I do agree with you that oversight fell flat, and the banks took advantage of that breech in the system to rake in millions. The CRA (the Community Reinvestment Act), for example, though seemingly helpful on the surface, allowed banks to take advantage of the disadvantaged. What's funny about the whole sub-prime debaucle is that the non- or not-for- profit world already had wonderful models in place to assist low-income families in getting into homes and in starting businesses. But, unfortunately, instead of following those models most local CRA boards--populated by, you guessed it: bankers and so-called CEO's from the private sector--chose to do otherwise. Why? Because there is this prevailing notion (and pressure from the Right) that for government to work well, it must succumb to the "expertise" from and the fixation on profiteering of the business world.
So, you have a situation where the members of the private sector sit on PUBLIC boards and councils in an effort to dismantle them and those very people turn around and say, "See? Government isn't working well. We need to lessen its reach." You know, the fox in the henhouse scenario.
Finally, like the private sector, the public sector's performance is quite uneven. There are some agencies that work quite efficiently and others that really need to be dismantled or whose purview needs to be truncated. So, that's where I agree with you on the FDA comment, but I don't think that government is systemically problematic. It is when we buy into this idea that governments should perform like businesses that we run into problems. Not everything should be privatized and not all matters within the public sector's purview deserve to be there either. -
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Sun, November 15, 2009 - 4:30 PM>> I'm not discounting that at all, but are you suggesting that it's a systemic problem, or that it was a matter of the ideology of those who were "in charge" of running the administration of the system at the time? <<
I'm saying big organizations require big bureaucracies. the more responsibility you lump on a single organization, the more likely any one thing is done poorly. an effective government bureaucracy has a narrow focus. bloated wastes of time have several, sometimes contradictory goals.
>> Finally, like the private sector, the public sector's performance is quite uneven... It is when we buy into this idea that governments should perform like businesses that we run into problems. Not everything should be privatized and not all matters within the public sector's purview deserve to be there either. <<
absolutely. there are services that only the government should and can provide. then we get into gray areas and the perceived problem of the moment. we collectively lump these new responsibilities with the best of intentions and end up taking resources from what is important. and the more something does, the more complicated it becomes. as a result, it's nearly impossible to manage or police. -
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Sun, November 15, 2009 - 9:09 PM" the more responsibility you lump on a single organization, the more likely any one thing is done poorly"
United States has none of the most efficient public sectors in the world, despite its considerable size.
workforall.net/assets/Eff...ector_k.gif
composite-indicators.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Document/ecbwp242.pdf
"we collectively lump these new responsibilities with the best of intentions and end up taking resources from what is important"
You ignore the fact that private free enterprise is often inefficient in delivering public services. The private health insurance system in the United States provides less care at a much higher price than in other countries. One reason for this is the high overhead and profit margin required by private insurers.
www.dailykos.com/story/200...022/666148
-
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Sun, November 15, 2009 - 9:12 PMAnd too think -- the horde that is the Boomers have not yet begun to retire?!
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Sun, November 15, 2009 - 10:26 PM>> You ignore the fact that private free enterprise is often inefficient in delivering public services. <<
jesus christ! and then you link to Kos. un-fucking-believable. it's as if a toaster oven got bored and decided to argue it out online.
I never made any assertion about the private sector in regards to "delivering" public services. the statement in relation to lumping added responsibilities on say the FDA was predicated on the fact that these added responsibilities are bogus. lots of nice-to-haves that should never be. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Mon, November 16, 2009 - 1:01 AM>>you link to Kos. un-fucking-believable
Since you called the Heritage Foundation a bunch of "potato heads," I figured you must be a leftist.
Since you have not cited any sources for your ridiculous claims, any link, whether from left or right, has more authority than your fanciful speculations.
I was pointing out that the "distortions" you complain about in the public sector are often exceeded (sometimes by several orders of magnitude) by the private sector. For example, last year, the market in credit default swaps was $62 TRILLION, a figure more than four times the GDP and 20 times the budget. This market was totally unregulated. It produced nothing, added no value to the economy, but provided a huge market for speculators, who included the largest financial institutions in this country, and several of whom required massive government assistance to survive the collapse.
www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/...709239/
What happened to supposed efficiency of the free market? It only seems to have been efficient in delivering huge bonuses to the CEOS of failed companies. -
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Mon, November 16, 2009 - 4:49 PM>>I was pointing out that the "distortions" you complain about in the public sector are often exceeded (sometimes by several orders of magnitude) by the private sector. For example, last year, the market in credit default swaps was $62 TRILLION, a figure more than four times the GDP and 20 times the budget. This market was totally unregulated. It produced nothing, added no value to the economy, but provided a huge market for speculators, who included the largest financial institutions in this country, and several of whom required massive government assistance to survive the collapse.<<
I have to agree with Forrest on this one. I would even add to what you said the fact that credit swaps and other fancy financial derivatives even made the market worse, by making it even more vulnerable.
With that said, the public sector, i.e.: The S.E.C. and other agencies should have been the watchdogs for the people, but they truly dropped the ball. Of course, there were individuals within these organizations who expressed deep concerns about the way effect these derivities would have on the system, but they were hushed or pushed to the fringes, or in some private instituions, they were even fired!
To Forrest: I'm intrigued by the links you posted and the cogent point you made about CDS failing to add value to the market. Would you care to explore that further as it relates to real estate? Also, what - in your view - will be the next shoe to drop? Warren Buffet was on Charlie Rose the other night expressing his concern about the dire state of global commercial real estate concerns. What's your take? -
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Mon, November 16, 2009 - 7:50 PM>> I have to agree with Forrest on this one. I would even add to what you said the fact that credit swaps and other fancy financial derivatives even made the market worse, by making it even more vulnerable. <<
agree away. you both seem to be Hell bent on responding to things I didn't post.
back to the original post, when you tally up federal and local taxes, then add on sales tax, property tax, capital gains tax you approaching Cliff's estimate. the other point has to do with vesting too much responsibility with the government. I stated that the government does some things well. there are things that only the government can do.
that doesn't mean we should continue to grow these responsibilities. you reach a threshold where you keep adding responsibilities and things start falling apart. you exceed the threshold and nothing is done well. not to mention what good is a government watchdog if it is monitoring itself? and the inherent problems of trying to manage and police an ever-expanding government.
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Thu, November 19, 2009 - 12:48 AM>>To Forrest: I'm intrigued by the links you posted and the cogent point you made about CDS failing to add value to the market. Would you care to explore that further as it relates to real estate? Also, what - in your view - will be the next shoe to drop? Warren Buffet was on Charlie Rose the other night expressing his concern about the dire state of global commercial real estate concerns. What's your take?
Ooh, serious questions, now I have to actually think about my replies . . .
Speculative bubbles occur when investors buy in anticipation of rising prices. Eventually, prices fall, and everyone looks for someone to blame. In this case, I believe you are correct, the warning voices were suppressed.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...43.html
Regulators were blinded by their free-market theories. Allen Greenspan said, "I really didn't get it until very late in 2005 and 2006," and admitted that his policies had actually contributed to the bubble. Nonetheless, he seems convinced that government intervention can only hinder the recovery.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_greenspan
Buffet is indeed a clever fellow, and he warned against speculation a long time before the collapse, though his wisdom is a bit short of infallible: "Buffett's big problem was that he had stayed in cash too long while other investors enjoyed go-go returns during the real-estate bubble. Then, with the market down and the bubble deflating, Buffett got bullish too early. He proclaimed his bullishness in an October 2008 New York Times commentary, right before the markets took another deep dive."
articles.moneycentral.msn.com/lea...aspx
Like a lot of people, Buffet is good at predicting trends, but not so great at timing them . . .
He is probably right about the danger of commercial real estate defaults; certainly, he is not the only one saying so.
online.wsj.com/article/SB...502904.html
www.investmentu.com/IUEL/200...ents.html
money.cnn.com/2009/10/21/...ne/index.htm
The over-valuing of commercial real estate had severe consequences for the Japanese economy, and is frequently blamed for the "lost decade" of stagnation in that country.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japa...ice_bubble
However, I would doubt whether it could have a similar effect in this country, as the markets here are more flexible. I also find it reassuring that the government, this time, at least seems alert to the problem.
online.wsj.com/article/SB...457264.html
-
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Fri, November 20, 2009 - 2:29 PMI have been thinking about this some more. It strikes me that the commercial real estate is a serious problem, but not an insoluble one. In a growing economy, the price of real estate will tend to rise, and the problem thereby diminished. The greatest danger was that bankers could disguise bad debt on their books, in order to present a favorable balance sheet and give themselves bigger bonuses. New federal regulation will make that more difficult.
www.observer.com/2009/comm...en-and-now
Some economists are concerned about the risk of inflation. This risk is somewhat difficult to measure, because the effects of government policy are still uncertain, but considering the current rate of economic growth, there seems no great danger in the immediate future. In any case, the Fed has a pretty good record on controlling inflation.
www.stltoday.com/stltoday/...7300098D32
The situation in China is more troubling: Slack consumer demand weakens the crucial export market.
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news
For years, the Chinese have been holding down the price of the yuan in order to encourage exports . . . Chinese conumers don't like to spend money because there is no "social safety net" in that country, without exports, their economy dries up and blows away . . . U.S. consumers have the confidence that Uncle Sugar will pick them up if they fall, and they have therefore been spending more than they make for years . . .
The trade imbalance naturally piles up in China, where it is swiftly turned into U.S. treasuries and finances our national debt, a relationship which is not likely to change anytime soon.
www.time.com/time/busine...9638,00.html
For the last ten years, consumer debt has been increasing at a ridiculous rate.
www.frbsf.org/publication...2009-16a.gif
This is obviously not sustainable. "As the United States saves more as a country, future growth will depend more on domestic growth outside of the United States," says Geithner.
www.newjerseynewsroom.com/econo...nomies
Where this "domestic growth" will take place, no one seems to know.
The problem with our consumers is that they have no money. Income inequality is the highest since the 1920s.
topics.nytimes.com/top/refe...ndex.html
"Rich" people, though better off than the rest, are also experiencing a decline in personal income. The total of personal income as a percent of GDP is declining.
www.clevelandfed.org/researc...06-3.gif
Even the number of billionaires has declined.
www.forbesinc.com/newsroom/...033009.pdf
What this suggests to me is that the process of income concentration (the rich getting richer as the poor getting poorer) is reaching its natural limits. When the shareholders at Goldman Sachs (themselves doubtless very well off) protest against executive bonuses, things have probably gone as far as they are going to go.
www.thebigmoney.com/features...rs-seethe
A healthy economy depends on the prosperity of the consumers, and until we find some way of putting more money (and NOT just credit cards) in their pockets, economic growth will be anemic at best.
-
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Fri, November 20, 2009 - 7:12 PM
>> I have been thinking about this some more. It strikes me that the commercial real estate is a serious problem, but not an insoluble one. <<
I love tribe. nothing like having a numbnut wrap up a slew of talking points and regurgitate it as if he's discovered a new proof of Fermat's last theorem.
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Sun, November 22, 2009 - 10:13 AMForrest: You hit the nail on the head with your final statement about wealth building and how wealth is currently concentrated. It seems to me that the members of the capitalist classes keep advocating for lower taxes because they'd rather have charity than justice. I'd rather have a government agency, for example, that provides low-income housing for the homeless and working poor, where they can live in relative comfort, protected from the elements, than wait on the capitalist classes to feel compunction in their hearts to "gift" monies through their foundations to fund non-profits to build a homeless shelter where the homeless only visit a few nights a week and where many don't even visit because they fear for their lives.
Charity: hoping that the capitalist classes will feel sorry for the rest of us and "gift" monies to non-profits (where many, in order to survive, have little interest in actually being efficient because they rely on their "clients" to remain in their present state to justify funds -- it's a vicious cycle).
Justice: ensuring that the capitlist classes, in their relentless pursuit of profit, profit and more profit, don't destroy our environment, pay their fair share (even Warren Buffet admits to paying less in taxes than his secretary), and don't dismantle our government piece-by-piece.
It's like my Dad always says: "In Europe--particularly France & Germany-- the rich are afraid of the middle class because the middle class has the government behind them; but, in the United States, the middle class are afraid to upset the rich because the middle class is tricked into thinking they will become "rich" one day, so they shouldn't anger the very group of people whose rank they'll join...someday."
But, that "someday" never really comes, yet we continue to "adore" the capitalist classes which use our tax dollars as betting money. We need more justice. -
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Sun, November 22, 2009 - 3:29 PMYou would probably be interested in this:
secularright.org/wordpress/
For the first time since they started polling, a majority of those with incomes over $200,000 voted Democratic. This was certainly not from charitable motives or concern for social justice, but self-interest. A growing number of the richest citizens no longer trust conservative politicians to represent their interests. To put it another way, the theory that free markets are self-regulating and lower taxes bring prosperity is no longer credible.
Economic growth has been feeble for the last decade, but so long as the stock market was soaring, no one listened to the skeptics, and the tax cuts were welcome. However, the crash of 2008 and the collapse of major financial institutions caused a lot of people to re-examine their premises. While taxes are a major expense for rich people, they are a small price to pay for economic stablity. Regulation is a nuisance, but not nearly as dangerous as the lack of transparency which lay behind the collapse of AIG. When highly-paid analysts can study the reports of financial institutions without learning what is going on, no one can feel very secure in their investments.
Rich people pay hardly any taxes on their assets until someone pays a dividend or they have to sell something. While they may bitch about taxes, most of their assets are increasing in value without being taxed . . . so long as the economy is growing and the market is rising. But a declining market will probably cost them a lot more than they pay in taxes. Right now, the stock market is lower than in 2000, so the price of voting Republican is obviously high even for the wealthy.
www.djaverages.com/
The education chart is also revealing. While Democrats outnumbered Republicans in all categories, the largest gap, except for HS-dropouts, was among people with postgraduate education. This includes all those MBAs and CPAs, besides lawyers, doctors, professors and professionals generally. The better you understood the problem, the less plausible Republican solutions seemed to you.
Compare the map of red and blue states with the map of states with the highest SAT scores.
dba-oracle.blogspot.com/2009/0...te.html
2008election.procon.org/viewresource.asp
Notice any pattern? On a state-by-state basis, the average SAT correlates closely to political alignment, the brightest states are the bluest.
blog.faithnscience.com/2008/1...e-vote/
Even more striking is the gap among young people: People in the age group 18-29 voted for Obama by 62% to 34%.
www.gallup.com/poll/11131...l-vote.aspx
This really reminds me of the progerss of the civil rights movement in the 60s. The youngest and the best educated people are always the most open to change. What we are reaching for now, as then, is a more inclusive society, one where it is understood that no man is an island, that everyone's wellbeing depends on the rest. Democracy cannot survive for long in a country with a few privileged citizens and many impoverished. The challenge of coming years will be to deliver a better life to those who hunger for it, to turn Obama's "Hope" into real accomplishments which benefit us all.
-
-
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Fri, November 20, 2009 - 7:10 PM>> Ooh, serious questions, now I have to actually think about my replies . . . <<
be sure to cut and paste with care.
-
-
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Mon, November 16, 2009 - 8:09 PM>> Since you have not cited any sources for your ridiculous claims, any link, whether from left or right, has more authority than your fanciful speculations. <<
i.e. I linked to the same Wiki-article you used to point out that GDP has absolutely nothing to do with the ratio of taxes to personal income.
but you seem incapable of even acknowledging that simple glaring fact.
>> I was pointing out that the "distortions" you complain about in the public sector are often exceeded (sometimes by several orders of magnitude) by the private sector. <<
so you seem to be completely unaware of the deductions that can be taken out on interest costs... a government policy which incentivizes leveraging. and yet you feel you're up to discussing this topic. not surprising. yep. it's all the nasty private sector's fault. just nationalize everything and our economy will be saved.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Tue, December 15, 2009 - 9:55 AM*************allowed banks to take advantage of the disadvantaged*************
Why are you using the language of victimhood?
Hector takes out a loan on a house selling for $400,000
Hector earns 30 grand a year and has three kids.
You are calling him disadvantaged as if he's some kind of victim and you can't see the problem with him wanting to owe $400,000
I mean who the hell is applying for these insane loan amounts.
I wouldn't take a mortgage for that much but people earning orders of magnitude less than I, were doing it like it was free.
I ain't saying that the loan arrangers were not at fault.
I am saying that the guy who takes out such an obligation with no means to meet it is right at the core of the problem.
I ain't saying that people who created the specious financial instruments where all these horrible loans were packaged up and sold to dummies who were stupid enough to purchase a security portfolio without knowing anything at all about what was in them.
They were a substantial part of how the problem became larger becase those people created an expansive market for bad loans.
Nor am I saying that the ratings houses houses like Moody's who were giving good ratings to those horrible securities were not part of the problem since all they did was ask one question: "Is it real estate?" Then told themselves that real estate won't ever lose value and got out their rubber stamp.
I am saying that the problems started with people whom you are calling "victims" who were not victims but were greedy fuks who over reached and took on way fukin too much.
Sort of beggers the question:
"Why were they unwilling to buy a house they could afford?"
The answer is greed.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Tue, November 24, 2009 - 1:59 AMWe were having a good time with this one over at IPD before you were booted, bear, and I'm happy to return to these muttons. in brief- we Americans pay a socialist tax rate and receive NO SOCIALISM. The worst of every possible world, it seems.
At the very least, I'm sure you'll agree we have certainly the most expensive and inept "free market" economy ever heard of.
You can take it apart, piece by piece and see a pattern of sucking up money and giving nothing back, like a brute example of Marx's "primitive accumulation" stage of capital.
<< • Sales taxes >>
On the whole, a giant pain-in-the-ass that poor suffering-bastard merchants have to collect for the state and the worst kind of regressive tax on workers. A drag on the economy at its most basic level.
<< • Road Tolls >>
Another insane way to collect money that is, again, a drag on the economy by the number of useless workers it employs and hindrance to free flow of people and trade.
<< • …………Gasoline consumption taxes >>
Again, pure robbery of the consumer.
<< • VAT taxation VIA higher retail prices for foods clothing and other goods made in or shipped through Europe. >>
A particular pain to collectors of European-issued music CDs, I can tell you.
<< • Taxes on College Scholarships >>
Sick, isn't it?
<< • Travel taxes: Airfare, hotels, car rental and taxi service: 7.5% air fare & $3.50 tax for each increment of the flight and $2.50 in security tax on each increment of that flight. Hotel & car rentals are taxed up to 40% of the cost. >>
It's amazing how much of even basic ticket price is tax these days.
<< • Brooms 32% >>
If that's not the last straw, I don't know what is.
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Wed, November 25, 2009 - 10:51 AMI know my taxes are higher than they have ever been.
My hubby and I try to keep things low cost by making things myself. We find that we often make things better than what you can purchase with the exception of things that require higher technologies such are vehicles and machinery.
-
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Wed, November 25, 2009 - 3:59 PMWarren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.
Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/mon...6735.ece
-
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Fri, December 18, 2009 - 2:30 PM********Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000,************
bear in mind he was only talking about one species of taxation. Capitol Gains.
He made no mention of all the plethora of myriad taxes that the fed and states and municipalities and county pile on. Nor did he speak to the licensing fees and surcharges and god knows what all other fees you are slapped with every year.
In fact unless people like Buffet are profligate consumers of shit loads more of the usual day to day items that people end up purchasing - unless they really use lots more of that sort of thing - those people are paying substantially less as a percentage of their income as tax.
If you and some one like Buffet are paying excise and tariff and other duty based taxes on the commodities you buy ( and you are) and the quantum of those commodities you buy happen to be similar your dollar per dollar comparison with Buffet should about the same but the percentage it represents from your income and from his will be dramatically different.
-
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Fri, December 18, 2009 - 5:30 PMBajillionaire Warren Buffett has argued that he isn’t being asked to pay his share. He went around his office, asking people what share of their income they pay in income taxes. Buffett’s 17.7 percent tax rate compared a bit too favorably with the 30 percent tax rate paid by his secretary.
So it appears that the tax system favors the super-rich over working stiffs.
And Buffett went a step further, putting his money where his mouth is. Last November he issued a challenge to his fellow billionaires:
I’ll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes 400 who challenges me that the average (federal tax rate including income and payroll taxes) for the Forbes 400 will be less than the average of their receptionists.
So far, no-one has taken him up on this bet.
freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/20...re/
I pay income taxes at about 18%, despite being in the top tax bracket. Add in taxes of ALL kinds -- state, local, and foreign -- I would estimate the total at about 28%, which would put me close to the national average. (Total tax revenues for the United States are 28% of GDP.) Possibly the secretary was exaggerating (I really don't know what she pays), but I'm pretty sure Buffet was telling the truth.
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Fri, December 18, 2009 - 10:22 PM>> bear in mind he was only talking about one species of taxation. Capitol Gains. <<
of course. Buffet's being taxed on returns on investments derived from money he's already earned. so if you were to consider the percentage income tax he paid on his original earnings and correct for the profit he would have earned then his rate of taxation increases.
anyway. you're pointing out what should be obvious. but it will be ignored and the lie repeated because that's what people on tribe are best at. -
-
Re: US taxes ate about 75%
Sat, December 19, 2009 - 1:38 AMSo he collects no dividends? Interest? Rents? Royalties? Distributions? Besides paying himself a pretty generous salary, I should think . . . Actually, if he is like most of the people in his tax bracket, he pays no tax on most of his income, because it is reinvested. Or it is kept in some privately held corporation or partnership or trust (I once counted I had interests in 17 of these) . . Taxable income is only a small fraction . . . and there are no capital gains until he sells . . . and his deductions probably run into the millions . . . all of this perfectly legal. But can your ordinary wage slave take advantage of these tax breaks? Hell no! He gets his taxes deducted from his paycheck, which is his main source of income, and investments (if any) are only a trickle . . . besides which he probably is paying off credit cards, mortgages, student loans . . . any yes, he probably pays a larger slice to Uncle Sam than Warren Buffet.
-
-
-
-
