Anyone following the debt limit debate?

Where CNN gets their information
awp-killer
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Spartus is correct. Of the developed world (33 OECD countries), the United States has the 3rd lowest tax rate, at 24% taxation. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/total-tax-revenue_20758510-table2;jsessionid=8et06hr3a83f.delta

What you are missing is, most other countries have a "value added tax". This is an enormous consumption tax and most people here don't even know what it is because the U.S. doesn't have it.

You are almost right on your numbers, but a few clarifications:

1) 39.3% is an average that includes state. (35% for federal, just as it is for personal income)
2) This is a marginal tax. If you make over $250k, the last dollar you earn will be taxed 35%, but no one pays that much for all their income.
3) We have huge credits and deductions which further reduce the effective tax rate. Hell, half the country doesn't even pay federal income tax!

HangOver
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Delray Beach

Re: Anyone following the debt limit debate?

Postby HangOver on Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:27 am

i sure wish i was only paying 24% ...

James
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 6:12 pm

Re: Anyone following the debt limit debate?

Postby James on Mon Aug 01, 2011 10:01 am

awp-killer wrote:39.3% is an average that includes state.


You are correct I apologize. However, we are still the highest in corporate taxation. I'm not arguing the individual tax rates.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/23034.html

awp-killer
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Silver Spring, MD
James wrote:However, we are still the highest in corporate taxation. I'm not arguing the individual tax rates.


Well, if you want to focus on just corporate taxes, what does a high corporate tax mean for the country and for business? If you are trying to say we are not a business friendly environment, I say poppycock!

We don't have a value added tax, which is enormous. Also, we treat businesses the same as people when it comes to taxes, except we only tax businesses on their profit, not gross income like we do with individuals. Finally, there are a lot of other perks, like we (absurdly) give businesses the same constitutional rights as individuals. If you are a faceless corporation, but you want to influence a government which is supposed to be of, for, and by the people, just throw lots of money and see what your influence can buy.

We are a very business friendly environment.

James
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 6:12 pm

Re: Anyone following the debt limit debate?

Postby James on Mon Aug 01, 2011 10:44 am

awp-killer wrote:We are a very business friendly environment.


I'm not saying that we aren't that either. Although many companies take their business's overseas because of it. What I'm saying is that if they really wanted to help the economy, and improve the unemployment problem, corporate taxes would be a good place to start.

-PC-Taishar
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2724
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Camp Pendleton, CA
If we are so business friendly why are we running a deficit of new business? Why are major corporations sending their HQ's over seas. WHY IS SO MUCH PRODUCTION (WHICH USED TO BE THE CORNERSTONE OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMY) GOING OVERSEAS?!?!?!!?

These fuckers. The plan on the table now: cut 900 billion dollars. Seems pretty good right. Well the catch is they are going to do it over TEN FUCKING YEARS. Not to mention they will still keep borrowing like a bad poker player. The budget forecasts are based on a couple of improbable events to boot. 1. 3% economic growth for the course of those ten years (we barely topped 1% recently) 2. The expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts. It may happen that the tax cuts will be allowed to expire but it seems STUPID to base a huge piece of legislation on it. Unless of course you are counting on the American public to be too stupid to catch on to it...on second thought guess that's not such a bad bet. The worst part is, this is being considered a BIG WIN for Republicans. So the American public will swallow it. Dems will get all pissed off and stupid ass Republicans will think they've really accomplished something and the whole time the debt keeps rising alarmingly fast. But nobody will even think about it until 2 years from now when the ceiling has to be increased again, and all the 'cuts' they are making end up amounting to shit.

It amazes me how anyone can continue to defend the fiscal policy of ANY of our government officials...TO INCLUDE BUSH. I believe I've railed on Bush as much as I've railed on Obama. Or at least I've done it proportionally to the level of stupidity demonstrated. I don't want to take the time to check the current numbers, but I'm wondering if Obama has topped Bush's spending yet (and I mean all eight years) last I checked he was on schedule to pass him before the 4 yr mark.

Look the bottom line is you can't spend more than you make. Plain and fucking simple. Only dumb arrogant assholes (read congress/liberals) think differently. It may work in the short run, but it catches up eventually. Especially when nobody has the balls or the power to make significant changes. Look at our national debt since WWII. Anyone familiar with the Moores Law curve? Well our debt curve looks eerily similar. Does ANYONE think that is OK? I don't care WHO has to suffer if we make drastic cuts to EVERYTHING, the bottom line is we HAVE to do it. The god damn liberals and pussy ass conservatives are going to make us go the route of Greece. Of course nobody really thinks that is possible right we're the God Damn United States of fucking America. The rules of economics don't apply to us.

Here's a question for any liberals out there. What is the limit? How much debt do you personally believe is too much? 30 trillion? 50 trillion? 100 trillion? It doesn't matter as long as we pay for everyone's entitlements? Where does it end.

Sorry AJ this may have sounded rude I'm just so fucking sick of the flat ignorance in society today. And the government that propagates it for their own gain. You're obviously a very intelligent human being, nuclear scientists tend to be that way. Of course that only annoys me even more to think that you buy into all this bullshit

[GWR]Droogan
 
Posts: 1418
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 11:14 am
Location: Ontario, Canada
Have you guys considered merging back together with Britain? Economically they are sound, and pulled out of the 2008 recession by 2009. I know, I know the Boston Tea Party thing is still a bit of a sore spot, but maybe now that Will and Kate visited the real American royalty in Hollywood a case could be made to become a single country again.

awp-killer
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Silver Spring, MD
-PC-Taishar wrote:Sorry AJ this may have sounded rude I'm just so fucking sick of the flat ignorance in society today. And the government that propagates it for their own gain. You're obviously a very intelligent human being, nuclear scientists tend to be that way. Of course that only annoys me even more to think that you buy into all this bullshit
Thanks, I guess. Heh

Believe it or not, but I think of myself as I a strong believer in fiscal discipline. However, unlike the state governments, businesses, or you, the federal government has responsibility to make sure the economy runs well. As a good Keynesian, I believe the government needs to step in to rescue the economy when it needs help by creating jobs and injecting money into the market with tax cuts and spending where it will do the most to counter a recession. So to answer your question on "what is the limit?", the limit is striking a balance between avoiding/mitigating the short-term consequences of a recession now with long-term consequences debt problems later. Perhaps you have heard of Japan's "lost decade". Japan had a very tight fiscal policy long after the start of their recession, and many economists argue they paid dearly for it. I don't want to make the same mistake, and I worry that this is completely overlooked in current policy. I know you are skeptical, and maybe someday we will know better what type of fiscal policy is best. Right now, I don't think anyone truly knows, but until then we may need to agree to disagree.

That worry aside, and considering how little we are taxed (see previous post), I believe the best way to deal with the deficit problem is taxes. I think a good compromise is 50/50 taxes/spending cuts. I was pissed when I heard Obama was offering 2:1, 3:1, even 4:1 spending cuts to taxes. And now, a bill that is only spend cuts...I am at a complete loss for words. Democrats just gave republicans EVERYTHING, just so they wouldn't burn the house down. The part I don't get is, some republicans are STILL voting against it. I think most republicans think they don't need to compromise because either:

1. they get their way (win), or
2. they are spiteful enough burn the whole economy down which they will take short-term blame for, but ultimately come next election, a horrible economy is always the responsibility of the president. In which case the government can't pay for things republicans don't want to pay for anyways when they aren't in power. Why compromise?

HangOver
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Delray Beach

Re: Anyone following the debt limit debate?

Postby HangOver on Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:56 am

they are intentionally over-complicating the issue to keep the general population confused. there are very simple, very common-sense things we could do to completely fix this country but the problem is those things aren't beneficial financially to the people making bazillions of dollars at the expense of the american people (and the world, really).

zel
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2442
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Naples, FL

Re: Anyone following the debt limit debate?

Postby zel on Tue Aug 02, 2011 12:14 pm

HangOver wrote:they are intentionally over-complicating the issue to keep the general population confused. there are very simple, very common-sense things we could do to completely fix this country but the problem is those things aren't beneficial financially to the people making bazillions of dollars at the expense of the american people (and the world, really).


This is how i've felt for a long time. They start spouting all kinds of bullshit mumbo-jumbo and they make up statistical relationships and give them dumb-fuck names to confuse the issue and to prove their own point. If the chart doesn't support them, they claim its insignificant or that the other party did THAT right there. The plain and simple truth they want to hide is that they're all doing what feeds their wallets the most despite the fact that doing the right thing still leaves them financially healthy, but they're just too greedy. Problem is, there is nothing I can do to fix it. Nothing I say here,no matter how long a spiel i go on about, will ever fix it. If I wanna fix it i need to get into politics and even then, "fixing it" is a long shot.

so i just say... meh...

-PC-Taishar
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2724
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Camp Pendleton, CA
I think some Republicans are still holding out because for the last two years the Dems had a filibuster proof majority in Congress and Senate AND control of the Whitehouse. Full control of all three branches. All it got us was RECORD deficit spending. I believe a slight turn from that course is not the answer we need a 180, and the Tea Party is leading the way. Good on them for not voting for this trash. 900 billion dollars over ten years shouldn't even be considered spending cuts. The worst part is, they are taking into account automatic budget increases every year so a cut may in actuality be a smaller increase and it would go on the books as a "cut" which is utter horse shit, but the public is too stupid to call that play.

eg Uncle Sam spends 1million in 2010 then 1.1 million in 2011. That is just the way the CBO runs the books. Not really sure why since spending should NEVER automatically go up because our GDP sure as hell doesn't. So back to the example. If congress modifies the budget to only spend 1.05 million in 2011 that is considered a 50,000 dollar spending cut. Amazing how we can spend 50,000 dollars more and STILL consider ourselves CUTTING. This is just one example of how crooked our books are.

You know I don't agree with Keynes. BUT I will grant you this. I think, properly executed, a government injection of money into the economy would work WONDERS. However, here's my beef:

The government cannot add to the GDP it only recirculates what is created by the private market. They waste money on millions of government jobs that could be MUCH better handled at the private, or even public STATE and LOCAL levels. Federally funded programs are woefully inefficient and bloated. Entitlement programs are based on income that is slowly dwindling.

Think of a society where the government actually ran like a business and TRIED to post profit rather than haphazardly spending every dime it pulls in and more. Then imagine that this imaginary government used all the profit it made during good years, revitalize a downturned economy. There would be no need to raise taxes OR cut spending because the government would have...GASP... :shock: ...savings. Then use this money on programs like house building infrastructure and telecommunication programs. AND DO IT SELFLESSLY by not asking for anything in return. The governments job is to stay the fuck out of the private sector unless a DIRE EMERGENCY dictates otherwise. Of course the last time the government intervened in a dire emergency we got Social Security.

I don't disagree that government money CAN stimulate an economy. But if 1.7 trillion dollars doesn't do it once, what makes you think it will in the future? He dumped all that money into the economy and we STILL haven't recovered. And don't use the it would have been worse if he didn't argument. 1. That is pure speculation and 2. If he hadn't spent that money, we wouldn't have even had to have the debt limit ceiling discussion right now.

PS. the economy is already horrible. And if it gets worse in the short term to fix it long term so be it. But nothing Obama has done has helped one single bit so he SHOULD take the blame for a bad economy.

HangOver
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Delray Beach

Re: Anyone following the debt limit debate?

Postby HangOver on Tue Aug 02, 2011 12:53 pm

the problem is our two-party system. it simply does not work anymore. the democrats could suggest the perfect solution to a problem and the republicans will AUTOMATICALLY AND INSTANTLY oppose it. doesn't matter what it is, they will oppose it. and vice versa. they are more concerned with making the opposing party look bad, rather than doing right by the country. the opposing side will come up with "factual" data to prove why the idea is bad and all the party followers will repeat the same "factual" data over and over and believe they are 100% correct in their beliefs. the other side will come up with their own "factual" data to prove why their idea is good and their party followers will repeat the same "factual" data over and aover and believe they are 100% correct. it is absurd.

and these same people will talk about how DEPLORABLE it is the way that islamist extremists brainwash people ...

zel
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2442
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Naples, FL

Re: Anyone following the debt limit debate?

Postby zel on Tue Aug 02, 2011 1:29 pm

amen hang, amen

awp-killer
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Silver Spring, MD
-PC-Taishar wrote:I think some Republicans are still holding out because for the last two years the Dems had a filibuster proof majority in Congress and Senate AND control of the Whitehouse. Full control of all three branches. All it got us was RECORD deficit spending.
That's revisionist history. Democrats had 60 seats in the senate for maybe 6 months, and much of that time it wasn't filibuster-proof because Ted Kennedy was in the hospital. And the Supreme Court isn't run by democrats.

Don't act like this is somehow all the democrats fault. This deficit exists because a recession dramatically cut revenues and because for the first time in history, we decided to go invade other countries and pass massive tax cuts at the same time, neither of which have ever been paid for and are still adding to the deficit today.

Also, on the topic of revisionist history, don't forget republicans had their own equally large stimulus bill that they wanted to spend. And the TARP bailouts of the banks made us money. In fact the only major piece of deficit spending that both parties didn't fully support was when *republicans* teamed up with Obama to add another massive $858 Billion tax cut to the deficit.

I don't disagree that government money CAN stimulate an economy. But if 1.7 trillion dollars doesn't do it once, what makes you think it will in the future? He dumped all that money into the economy and we STILL haven't recovered. And don't use the it would have been worse if he didn't argument. 1. That is pure speculation and 2. If he hadn't spent that money, we wouldn't have even had to have the debt limit ceiling discussion right now.
Well, it's pure speculation that the economy wouldn't have been worse too. Many economists were saying from the very beginning that it wasn't large enough, but democrats in congress got all that they could. And since then, we realize that it was actually much worse than what we thought. I don't think we should be shocked to be where we are today.

PS. the economy is already horrible. And if it gets worse in the short term to fix it long term so be it. But nothing Obama has done has helped one single bit so he SHOULD take the blame for a bad economy.
Go ahead and blame him if you want, everyone probably will. But he hasn't exactly had free reign to enact his policies. You still need 60 votes in the Senate to pass anything, which is an enormous threshold. At one point in time, the best he could even hope for is what ALL the most conservative democrats could stomach (and pay dearly for), which really isn't much. Anything he gets from congress is largely compromised, so why would our ability to fight the recession be any different?

What more would you have had Obama do to help pull us out of the recession?

the problem is our two-party system. it simply does not work anymore. the democrats could suggest the perfect solution to a problem and the republicans will AUTOMATICALLY AND INSTANTLY oppose it. doesn't matter what it is, they will oppose it. and vice versa.
Normally you have a much too cynical view of our politicians for me to agree with you Hang, but on this one I completely agree. It's all based on our voting system too. There are much better methods than ours: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system

[Creep]-Tyrant
 
Posts: 1833
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 2:47 am
Location: The Armpit of North Carolina
Heh, I agree with Hang, like I said, the redneck Ford vs Chevy argument, the automatic gainsay of whatever the other party has to say, not because of a belief that what was said is wrong, askew or otherwise invalid, but simply because it came from the other party. This is what I have been saying for years, it's like instead of having two teams working FOR us in the government, we have two teams battling each other for supremacy in the government. It's just plain failsauce anymore, too many personal agendas, multi million dollar incentives, and crooked BS and not enough caring about this country and the toilet it is swirling it's way down into.

Previous

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron