Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I am always amazed that when a conversation about budgets and taxes starts up, someone always cries about "you're going to take something from me!" as if the ONLY possible option in tax discussions is to raise YOUR taxes.
There are other options.
For example, in 2011, corporations in America made over $7T in profits. Not revenue. Profits. How much of that did they pay in taxes? 35%? 25%? Nope. 12.1%.
Corporate Taxes As Percentage Of Profits Now Lowest In Decades
If companies ACTUALLY paid 35%, the federal budget would be balanced.
For example, in 2011, corporations in America made over $7T in profits. Not revenue. Profits.
No they didn't, not even close.
If companies ACTUALLY paid 35%, the federal budget would be balanced.
Your math is laughably inaccurate.
12.1% of $7T is $0.847T. 35% of $7T is $2.45T. A difference of $1.603T, which almost perfectly matches our budget deficit.
Now, I'm sure you will say my numbers are wrong, so I look forward to your link to the numbers you are using.
For example, in 2011, corporations in America made over $7T in profits. Not revenue. Profits.
No they didn't, not even close.
If companies ACTUALLY paid 35%, the federal budget would be balanced.
Your math is laughably inaccurate.
12.1% of $7T is $0.847T. 35% of $7T is $2.45T. A difference of $1.603T, which almost perfectly matches our budget deficit.
Now, I'm sure you will say my numbers are wrong, so I look forward to your link to the numbers you are using.
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1
Corporate profits with inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments in 2011 were $1.827 trillion. $1.388 trillion for domestic industry.
You shouldn't multiply the annualized numbers by 4. LOL!
12.1% of $7T is $0.847T
Historical Tables | The White House
Table 2.1.
LOL! In 2011, corporate tax receipts were $181 billion
12.1% of $7T is $0.847T. 35% of $7T is $2.45T. A difference of $1.603T, which almost perfectly matches our budget deficit.
Now, I'm sure you will say my numbers are wrong, so I look forward to your link to the numbers you are using.
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1
Corporate profits with inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments in 2011 were $1.827 trillion. $1.388 trillion for domestic industry.
You shouldn't multiply the annualized numbers by 4. LOL!
12.1% of $7T is $0.847T
Historical Tables | The White House
Table 2.1.
LOL! In 2011, corporate tax receipts were $181 billion
Again, what he said!
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1
Corporate profits with inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments in 2011 were $1.827 trillion. $1.388 trillion for domestic industry.
You shouldn't multiply the annualized numbers by 4. LOL!
12.1% of $7T is $0.847T
Historical Tables | The White House
Table 2.1.
LOL! In 2011, corporate tax receipts were $181 billion
Again, what he said!
Liberals are REALLY bad at math.
I'm sure it will come as no surprise that I am against the Ryan Budget, even if it is a rough draft or first pass. Here's why:
1) Cutting spending means laying off workers, and we don't need to be firing people in this economy. Ryan's Budget would cut government spending as a percentage of GDP from 12% to about 3%. That's a lot of lay offs.
2) Asking future seniors to pay more money out of pocket for health care will limit the disposable money those seniors have. This will reduce their purchasing power and demand for goods will drop and that will hurt the economy. The CBO projected the Ryan Budget would have future seniors paying their Medicare voucher plus all their Social Security just to get coverage.
3) Eliminating virtually all support for all levels of education will not assist people in achieving the American Dream. Education is the #1 way to advance higher in life. The Ryan Budget cuts spending on education, head start programs and student financial aid for college.
4) Cutting taxes for those making over $250K a year will not lead to an explosion in revenue, which is what the Ryan Budget is predicting. The last three times taxes have been cut, revenue has dropped.
I am sure it comes as no surprise that you are an idiot, here is why.
- The Ryan budget does not cut spending. It projects an increase in spending of $1 trillion over the next 10 years. That is less than what Obama's budget calls for,m but that does not equal a cut.
- The CBO projected no such thing. What they projected, which may or may not be right, is an increase in medical spending. No one knows how accurate that projection actually is, nor do they know how the shared spending will fall out vis a vis government spending and individuals.
- Since the federal government started throwing money at our schools we have gone from one of the best school systems in the world to one of the worst. Why, exactly, do you think spending federal dollars on education is a good thing?
- The last three times taxes were cut there was an immediate drop in tax revenue, and an increase in GDP, which led to total revenues actually increasing within a few months.
1) I'll give you this one. The Ryan Budget does not reduce spending below the current amount.
2) Federal budget: CBO says Republican Rep. Paul Ryan's Medicare privatization plan would increase costs - Los Angeles Times
3) Many schools are run down, out of date and don't have enough teachers to get class sizes down to manageable levels. Spending more money might help address these issues, and that is debatable, but cutting ALL funding will definitely not help and there is no debating that. Plus, millions of adults need loans to go to college. Getting rid of those loans entirely will not translate to more college graduates and I think we can all agree on that.
4) A few months? From 2001-2003 tax receipts dropped every year.
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
Here we go again. Someone who thinks 2001-2003 didn't happen.
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
Yet another non response. What three financial crisiss' happened in that time frame? Oh, and low capital gains rates certainly did increase revenue!
Low capital gains did not increase revenue. If you honestly believe it did then you should have no problem proving it.
I await your proof.
Correct me if I'm wrong after going through the budget, but it appears to me that Paul Ryan believes that the bottom 95% should sacrifice a ton while the top gets more breaks.
How is this fair?
Yet another non response. What three financial crisiss' happened in that time frame? Oh, and low capital gains rates certainly did increase revenue!
Low capital gains did not increase revenue. If you honestly believe it did then you should have no problem proving it.
I await your proof.
Low capital gains did not increase revenue.
Review & Outlook: Obama's Revenue Soup - WSJ.com
According to this, capital gains in 2003 collected $51.3 billion. In 2007, $137.1 billion.
Even though the rate went from 20% to 15%.
Correct me if I'm wrong after going through the budget, but it appears to me that Paul Ryan believes that the bottom 95% should sacrifice a ton while the top gets more breaks.
How is this fair?
Considering that 49% of the US population pays zero taxes to the federal government I don't see how you came by your figure.
For example, in 2011, corporations in America made over $7T in profits. Not revenue. Profits.
No they didn't, not even close.
If companies ACTUALLY paid 35%, the federal budget would be balanced.
Your math is laughably inaccurate.
12.1% of $7T is $0.847T. 35% of $7T is $2.45T. A difference of $1.603T, which almost perfectly matches our budget deficit.
Now, I'm sure you will say my numbers are wrong, so I look forward to your link to the numbers you are using.
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1
Corporate profits with inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments in 2011 were $1.827 trillion. $1.388 trillion for domestic industry.
You shouldn't multiply the annualized numbers by 4. LOL!
12.1% of $7T is $0.847T
Historical Tables | The White House
Table 2.1.
LOL! In 2011, corporate tax receipts were $181 billion
Low capital gains did not increase revenue. If you honestly believe it did then you should have no problem proving it.
I await your proof.
Low capital gains did not increase revenue.
Review & Outlook: Obama's Revenue Soup - WSJ.com
According to this, capital gains in 2003 collected $51.3 billion. In 2007, $137.1 billion.
Even though the rate went from 20% to 15%.
Perhaps you didn't read my post.
Prove the capital gains cut caused this increase.
Just because it happened doesn't mean the cuts caused it. There were other things going on at that time you know.
Correct me if I'm wrong after going through the budget, but it appears to me that Paul Ryan believes that the bottom 95% should sacrifice a ton while the top gets more breaks.
How is this fair?
Considering that 49% of the US population pays zero taxes to the federal government I don't see how you came by your figure.
This is a lie.
The 49% figure refers to people who pay no federal INCOME tax. They still pay all other kinds of federal taxes, including the payroll tax, which hits them harder than those at the upper incomes.
Interpol is right and brings up the heart of why I asked about the Ryan Budget. The Budget clearly cuts taxes for the top incomes while at the same time cutting services and benefits for the bottom. I'm just wondering why people think that's a good idea. I'm looking for someone to explain how that approach is good for the country and is the correct direction in which we should be headed.
Low capital gains did not increase revenue. If you honestly believe it did then you should have no problem proving it.
I await your proof.
Low capital gains did not increase revenue.
Review & Outlook: Obama's Revenue Soup - WSJ.com
According to this, capital gains in 2003 collected $51.3 billion. In 2007, $137.1 billion.
Even though the rate went from 20% to 15%.
Perhaps you didn't read my post.
Prove the capital gains cut caused this increase.
Just because it happened doesn't mean the cuts caused it. There were other things going on at that time you know.
Correct me if I'm wrong after going through the budget, but it appears to me that Paul Ryan believes that the bottom 95% should sacrifice a ton while the top gets more breaks.
How is this fair?
Considering that 49% of the US population pays zero taxes to the federal government I don't see how you came by your figure.
This is a lie.
The 49% figure refers to people who pay no federal INCOME tax. They still pay all other kinds of federal taxes, including the payroll tax, which hits them harder than those at the upper incomes.
Interpol is right and brings up the heart of why I asked about the Ryan Budget. The Budget clearly cuts taxes for the top incomes while at the same time cutting services and benefits for the bottom. I'm just wondering why people think that's a good idea. I'm looking for someone to explain how that approach is good for the country and is the correct direction in which we should be headed.
I heard this morning on CNN that if the year Romney revealed his tax forms for had been under the Ryan budget,
he would have paid 1% instead of 14%.
That wouldn't surprise me if it's proven true.
I heard this morning on CNN that if the year Romney revealed his tax forms for had been under the Ryan budget,
he would have paid 1% instead of 14%.
That wouldn't surprise me if it's proven true.
Here's what the Tax Policy Center has to say about Ryan's Budget.
The Tax Policy Center is a non partisan tax think tank. From Wiki: In 2002, tax experts who had served in the Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton administrations established the Tax Policy Center to provide unbiased analysis of tax issues. The following year TPC developed a comprehensive tax simulation model to analyze the federal income tax and proposals to change it. That model has evolved to incorporate new and additional data, changes in federal tax law, and other aspects of the tax system and the economy
Tax Policy Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Paul Ryan’s Budget Plan: More Big Tax Cuts for the Rich
No surprise here, but the tax cuts in Paul Ryan’s 2013 budget plan would result in huge benefits for high-income people and very modest—or no— benefits for low income working households, according to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center.
TPC looked only at the tax reductions in Ryan’s plan, which also included offsetting–but unidentified–cuts in tax credits, exclusions, and deductions. TPC found that in 2015, relative to today’s tax system, those making $1 million or more would enjoy an average tax cut of $265,000 and see their after-tax income increase by 12.5 percent. By contrast, half of those making between $20,000 and $30,000 would get no tax cut at all. On average, people in that income group would get a tax reduction of $129. Ryan would raise their after-tax income by 0.5 percent.
Nearly all middle-income households (those making between $50,000 and $75,000) would see their taxes fall, by an average of roughly $1,000. Ryan would increase their after-tax income by about 2 percent.
Ryan would extend all of the 2001/2003 tax cuts, and then consolidate individual rates to just two—10 and 25 percent. In addition, he’d repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax, reduce the corporate rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, and kill the tax provisions of the 2010 health reform law.
Earlier this week, TPC projected the tax cuts in Ryan’s budget would add $4.6 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade, even after extending the 2001/2003 tax cuts, which would add another $5.4 trillion to the deficit.
For more go to: TaxVox » Blog Archive » Paul Ryan
======================================
So in the end;
* We get an additional 4.6 trillion dollars added to the deficit;
**The millionaires would see an additional 12.5 increase in their income after the Ryan tax reductions while the middle class would only see a 2% increase in their income after Ryan's tax cuts. The working poor would see of only a half percent increase in their income after the cuts.
Ever since the 80's the working middle class has been spinning it's wheels when it comes to wage growth after inflation. Since the recession started in December of 2007, the middle class has loss wealth that is a long ways to ever being recovered. Their share of the National Income is at record low levels. In other words, the middle class is being left behind. But those who would reap a windfall with the Ryan Budget in most cases, have already recovered their lost wealth from the recession and gained even more and their share of the National Income naturally increased.
Ryan's budget is a slap in the face of 90% or more of Americans. It's plutocracy in action.
So much for that BS. This at your link.
Posts and Comments are solely the opinion of the author and not that of the Tax Policy Center, Urban Institute, or Brookings Institution.
