Not a budget deficit - a taxes deficit!

[1KielsonDrive]

We have a budget deficit? What do you call it when tax cuts equaling trillions were enacted in the last decade all while involved in two wars costing trillions which our leaders refuse to stop? How about trillions gambled by banks/insurance companies? Those just for starters.

[jackie5275]

Reaganomics & it's legacy.

[oladub]

Reaganomics & it's legacy; Obamanomics except Reagan didn't get us into or keep us in any prolonged wars.

[firstandten]

A case can be made that we are undertaxed based on what people want government to do. For example in 2009 Gov't took in taxes 15% of GDP spending was 26% of GDP. It is projected that by 2020 Gov't will take in 19% of GDP spending at 26%.

Now if you elimate most tax deferrals you can gain 100 m per year. If you eliminate the cap on ss taxes you can keep ss going for a long time. Those are just two painless ways of beginning to balance the budget

[coracle]

A case can be made that we are undertaxed based on what people want government to do. For example in 2009 Gov't took in taxes 15% of GDP spending was 26% of GDP. It is projected that by 2020 Gov't will take in 19% of GDP spending at 26%.

Now if you elimate most tax deferrals you can gain 100 m per year. If you eliminate the cap on ss taxes you can keep ss going for a long time. Those are just two painless ways of beginning to balance the budget

100 m per year is an insignificantly small amount overall and won't make any difference.
According to my parents ss was already "capped" for the last two years [[after 25 years of very small annual raises). They are taxed on 80% of their ss; They paid into the system all their working lives with their after tax money and now when they need it back it's taxed again.
The only real way to balance the budget is to SPEND LESS. Reducing or stopping entitlements might be a good place to start [[payments to groups who haven't contributed to the system to earn them). Then of course payments to left wing voters [[maybe that's the same group!).
On a different subject I'm currently working on ways of legally evading payments of my deferred taxes.

[firstandten]

The only real way to balance the budget is to SPEND LESS. Reducing or stopping entitlements might be a good place to start [[payments to groups who haven't contributed to the system to earn them).

.

What about military spending ? health care [[thats the real budget buster) ? Do your research !
What you are talking about is just a drop in the bucket.

[Detroitej72]

To get control of unbalanced budgets we need to start by ending the two costly wars, and stop sending aid to countries like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Pakistan, etc. Then we need to end subsities[[taxpayer money) to the oil companies who continue to post record profits. Finally, we need to end the practice of paying large corporate farming operations not to grow crops, as well as their subsities. Unfortunately, these generous handouts are near and dear to right wing cons and their masters, so I don't expect any of them to be implimented any time soon.

[ghettopalmetto]

To get control of unbalanced budgets we need to start by ending the two costly wars, and stop sending aid to countries like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Pakistan, etc. Then we need to end subsities[[taxpayer money) to the oil companies who continue to post record profits. Finally, we need to end the practice of paying large corporate farming operations not to grow crops, as well as their subsities. Unfortunately, these generous handouts are near and dear to right wing cons and their masters, so I don't expect any of them to be implimented any time soon.

If you cut out EVERYTHING from the federal budget except:

1. Debt service
2. Defense
3. Social Security
4. Medicare/Medicaid

You'd only cut spending by 25%. And you'd still have a 2010 deficit of $283 billion.

Good luck.

[oladub]

To get control of unbalanced budgets we need to start by ending the two costly wars, and stop sending aid to countries like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Pakistan, etc. Then we need to end subsities[[taxpayer money) to the oil companies who continue to post record profits. Finally, we need to end the practice of paying large corporate farming operations not to grow crops, as well as their subsities. Unfortunately, these generous handouts are near and dear to right wing cons and their masters, so I don't expect any of them to be implimented any time soon.

As gp pointed out, making all the changes you suggest would not go nearly far enough to balance the federal budget. However Senator Rand Paul has a budget proposal that would make every change you suggest and balance the federal budget deficit within five years. His plan does not change Social Security or Medicare benefits.

[rb336]

If you cut out EVERYTHING from the federal budget except:

1. Debt service
2. Defense
3. Social Security
4. Medicare/Medicaid

SS/MM are not part of the general budget. stop borrowing from them to support everything else. they should not be part of the deficit reduction. they are currently NOT in deficit - except for the fact that they have been stolen from for the past dozen-thirty years

[maxx]

In " The Real State of the Union", one essayist stated that business taxes used to be 8 times greater than they are now. The power of money over what we laughingly still call democracy.

[oladub]

In " The Real State of the Union", one essayist stated that business taxes used to be 8 times greater than they are now. The power of money over what we laughingly still call democracy.

I don't know if your '8 times' figure is correct even assuming inflation was taken into account. It might be even larger if corporate subsidies were subtracted from taxes companies pay. The easiest, most productive way of moving taxes away from all individuals and to corporations would be to offset income taxes with import taxes. We didn't even have income taxes until 1913. Income taxes had effect of transferring the tax burden from importers [[corporations) to individuals. I suspect the folks behind the establishment of the Federal Reserve and the federal income tax in 1913 were pretty aware of that. First, though, we should eliminate all corporate subsidies.

The 8 times figure would go even higher if the rich had to go back to paying what they did before the Bush tax cuts for the rich which Obama recently extended.

[ghettopalmetto]

The 8 times figure would go even higher if the rich had to go back to paying what they did before the Bush tax cuts for the rich which Obama recently extended.

Let's nip this in the bud, skippy:

CORPORATIONS pay CORPORATE taxes.

PEOPLE pay PERSONAL taxes.

Any questions?

[jiminnm]

Let's nip this in the bud, skippy:

CORPORATIONS pay CORPORATE taxes.

PEOPLE pay PERSONAL taxes.

Any questions?

Let's nip this in the bud, skippy:

Only people pay income taxes. It's only a different the manner of payment. People pay taxes directly on their own personal income taxes, and people pay corporate income taxes indirectly by buying goods and services from corporations. If a corporation doesn't sell any products or services to generate income, then it doesn't pay any income tax.

[rb336]

I don't know if your '8 times' figure is correct even assuming inflation was taken into account. It might be even larger if corporate subsidies were subtracted from taxes companies pay. The easiest, most productive way of moving taxes away from all individuals and to corporations would be to offset income taxes with import taxes. We didn't even have income taxes until 1913. Income taxes had effect of transferring the tax burden from importers [[corporations) to individuals. I suspect the folks behind the establishment of the Federal Reserve and the federal income tax in 1913 were pretty aware of that. First, though, we should eliminate all corporate subsidies.

The 8 times figure would go even higher if the rich had to go back to paying what they did before the Bush tax cuts for the rich which Obama recently extended.

I'm not sure corporate taxes were ever that high. They are lower in Europe [[makes more sense that cutting CORPORATE taxes would increase investment in this country than individual) Wonder how many pushing the "cut business tax" line would be willing to switch to higher income tax.

[ghettopalmetto]

People pay taxes directly on their own personal income taxes, and people pay corporate income taxes indirectly by buying goods and services from corporations. If a corporation doesn't sell any products or services to generate income, then it doesn't pay any income tax.

The key word you use is "indirectly".

Show me any corporation that has ever cut it's prices as the direct result of a tax break, and I might buy a nickel's worth of your dogma.

On the other hand, there are corporations that have billions of dollars in revenue and pay zero income tax. Would you say that we, the consumers, are indirectly paying income taxes for that company? Because I would say that by relieving said company of any tax burden, we are in fact subsidizing that company.

The gist of my original post was that tax rates for the wealthy are independent of corporate tax rates, and vice versa. It would behoove our right-wing friends to stop pretending that cutting taxes for billionaires will do anything to create jobs in the corporations that they run.

[oladub]

Let's nip this in the bud, skippy:

CORPORATIONS pay CORPORATE taxes.

PEOPLE pay PERSONAL taxes.

Any questions?

Can I ask two questions?

Last year, President Obama, with the help of a Democratic Congress, gave the IMF $100,000,000,000. This year another round for the IMF, in the same amount, is being requested and some Republicans are on board. Do you think this should be paid for with 'personal' or 'corporate' taxes? Consider that the IMF is very good to it's employees. The IMF just promised $250,000 of severance pay to Dominique Strauss–Kahn. Is this one of the reasons there is a need for plugging the 'taxes deficit" with higher taxes?

[1KielsonDrive]

Can I ask two questions?

Last year, President Obama, with the help of a Democratic Congress, gave the IMF $100,000,000,000. This year another round for the IMF, in the same amount, is being requested and some Republicans are on board. Do you think this should be paid for with 'personal' or 'corporate' taxes? Consider that the IMF is very good to it's employees. The IMF just promised $250,000 of severance pay to Dominique Strauss–Kahn. Is this one of the reasons there is a need for plugging the 'taxes deficit" with higher taxes?

I dunno the accuracy of anything you stated. How about a little background, facts and corroboration.

[maxx]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/legis.../1960.cfm#1962

Revenue Act of 1964

• Individual Tax Rates. Reduced individual tax rates [[top rate dropped from 91% to 70%).
• Corporate Tax Rates. Reduced top corporate tax rate from 52% to 48%.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/04...tes-1916-2010/

[oladub]

I dunno the accuracy of anything you stated. How about a little background, facts and corroboration.

I made a major point and two minor points as $250,000 is just 1/40,0000 of $100,000,000,000.

One minor point was that the IMF treated Dominique Strauss–Kahn pretty well as an employee. That was just a value judgement considering the circumstances of his departure from the IMF. However, it is a sorry reason to raise our taxes also in my opinion.

The second minor point was the amount of $250,000; the amount of his severence pay. That number was found in an opinion piece by Martin Sieff the former Managing Editor of International Affairs of United Press International.

My major point was that Last year, President Obama, with the help of a Democratic Congress, gave the IMF $100,000,000,000. This year another round for the IMF, in the same amount, is being requested and some Republicans are on board." It's basis was found at
-GOP Seeks to Halt $100 Billion Boost to Troubled International Monetary Fund or go to the original source http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/faq/contribution.htm

$100B two years in a row is a lot of money, also a value judgement. No wonder the Obama administration had to 'tap' federal pension funds. A hundred billion here plus a hundred billion there to pay to our international banking friends can add up. At least the IMF is spreading some of it around renting swank NYC hotel suites and by indirectly hiring pricey US attorneys. It could be looked at as job creation.

"Our proposal to increase U.S. participation in the NAB by up to $100 billion as part of an overall increase of $500 billion was warmly endorsed by the G-20 Leaders." -President Barack Obama in a letter of request to Rep. Boehner

[ghettopalmetto]

My major point was that Last year, President Obama, with the help of a Democratic Congress, gave the IMF $100,000,000,000. This year another round for the IMF, in the same amount, is being requested and some Republicans are on board." It's basis was found at
-GOP Seeks to Halt $100 Billion Boost to Troubled International Monetary Fund or go to the original source http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/faq/contribution.htm

$100B two years in a row is a lot of money, also a value judgement. No wonder the Obama administration had to 'tap' federal pension funds. A hundred billion here plus a hundred billion there to pay to our international banking friends can add up. At least the IMF is spreading some of it around renting swank NYC hotel suites and by indirectly hiring pricey US attorneys. It could be looked at as job creation.

TRANSLATION: "Anything I don't understand = BAD."

You're not happy when the U.S. borrows money. You're not happy when the U.S. lends money. In fact, you're not really happy with anything the government does at all. Is it fair to think that you'd be happiest as a peasant farmer with no contact from the outside world?

[oladub]

TRANSLATION: "Anything I don't understand = BAD."

You're not happy when the U.S. borrows money. You're not happy when the U.S. lends money. In fact, you're not really happy with anything the government does at all. Is it fair to think that you'd be happiest as a peasant farmer with no contact from the outside world?

Well, if the President thinks that the US should be contributing $100,000,000,000 yearly to Dominique Strauss–Kahn and his friends at the IMF, then don't be bitchin' if there isn't enough money left over in the cookie jar for your favorite federal programs even after tapping federal pensions. Of course, the premise of this thread is that there there is not a budget deficit so much as their is a 'taxes deficit' for bailing out our friends at the IMF and other such things. How can one argue with that?

[ghettopalmetto]

Well, if the President thinks that the US should be contributing $100,000,000,000 yearly to Dominique Strauss–Kahn and his friends at the IMF, then don't be bitchin' if there isn't enough money left over in the cookie jar for your favorite federal programs even after tapping federal pensions. Of course, the premise of this thread is that there there is not a budget deficit so much as their is a 'taxes deficit' for bailing out our friends at the IMF and other such things. How can one argue with that?

Yes, this is what Barack Obama does. He sits around with The Giant Checkbook sayiing, "Oh gee, I think I'll cut a check for $100 billion to my friends at the IMF. Just because." Because he knows it pisses you off. Well, that and he doesn't give two shits what the economy looks like. It's all just a big pile of play money to him, and he spends it arbitrarily and with reckless abandon. Why? Because he can, that's why.

It's not like we're bailing out your billionaire buddies again with more arbitrary and unnecessary tax cuts. By the way--has the trickle made it to you yet???

Now go get pissed about something that matters.

[oladub]

I'm not bailing out anyone. Remember, the bailouts were the work of neocons and Democrats and the Bush tax cut for the rich was extended by President Obama. Perhaps you should understand that if money is leant to the IMF, then it is no longer available to lend to Americans and that with the US over $14T [[a big number to a lot of non-Democrats) in debt, the US government has to borrow and tap this money from other sources. To the extent it is borrowed and tapped from Americans, it leaves our economy for a period of time. Perhaps you could share the time frame and interest rate because I haven't seen them.

I already pointed out that some of the IMF money has been spent on swank hotel suites and pricey lawyers. You are right. We do get some crumbs from the table.

"Our proposal to increase U.S. participation in the NAB by up to $100 billion as part of an overall increase of $500 billion was warmly endorsed by the G-20 Leaders." -President Barack Obama in a letter of request to Rep. Boehner

"Warmly endorsed" I love that part.

[ghettopalmetto]

I'm not bailing out anyone. Remember, the bailouts were the work of neocons and Democrats and the Bush tax cut for the rich was extended by President Obama. Perhaps you should understand that if money is leant to the IMF, then it is no longer available to lend to Americans and that with the US over $14T [[a big number to a lot of non-Democrats) in debt, the US government has to borrow and tap this money from other sources. To the extent it is borrowed and tapped from Americans, it leaves our economy for a period of time. Perhaps you could share the time frame and interest rate because I haven't seen them.

I already pointed out that some of the IMF money has been spent on swank hotel suites and pricey lawyers. You are right. We do get some crumbs from the table.

"Our proposal to increase U.S. participation in the NAB by up to $100 billion as part of an overall increase of $500 billion was warmly endorsed by the G-20 Leaders." -President Barack Obama in a letter of request to Rep. Boehner

"Warmly endorsed" I love that part.

Right. Just like you get pissy about foreign aid, when two of the largest beneficiaries of US foreign aid are Israel and Egypt. And do you know what they spend our money on? American-made weapons, which is about the only damned thing we make anymore. Well, that and crocodile tears.