We have a revenue problem, absolute proof we need to raise taxes

[Quantum Windbag]

I suppose it might seem counter intuitive, but I believe radically raising taxes across the board - to a point that actually approached a balanced budget - would be the single most important step toward returning to sensibly limited government.

The reason government has grown into such a bloated, pervasive mess is that we're not actually paying for it; we're pushing it off on future generations. We won't be able to have a genuine national discussion on how much government we want and need until we're actually paying for the government we vote for.

Simply raising taxes will not work unless we also make sure they can't borrow more money. We need to require the government to only spend the money it has and only borrow if it can pass both houses and the signature of the president. We also have to make sure they have to pass any resolution to borrow money as a separate bill, not tack it onto something that no one would vote against. That would require a constitutional amendment.

Sure. I'd hoped the complementary requirement of balanced budget was implicit in my suggestion. In any case, my underlying point is that it's irrational to think we can make overbearing government go away by cutting taxes, or that doing so will somehow pressure the statists into backing off. They've shown an enthusiastic willingness to simply sink us all deeper and deeper into debt.

And the point I'm making is that most of us are ok with the status quo because it causes us no immediate pain. If government growth was accompanied by immediate and automatic tax increases, enough to fully fund any new spending, taxpayers would be howling. And that would put pressure on our leaders to curb spending.

We need to spell it out for the idiots that think that getting more money means spending more.

 

[Shelzin]

Corporate taxes...

Obama proposes lowering corporate tax rate to 28 percent

The plan would lower the nation’s corporate tax rate to 28 percent. At the same time, Obama wants to boost overall revenue from corporate taxation by banning numerous deductions and loopholes that save companies tens of billions of dollars a year on their tax bills.

The current U.S. corporate tax rate of 35 percent is one of the highest in the world, but the abundance of loopholes and deductions enable many businesses to pay far less than that — or nothing at all. Companies in the United States pay almost half the taxes that companies in other rich countries pay, compared with the size of the economy, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The president’s plan targets oil and gas companies for tax increases while promising special breaks for manufacturing companies.

And in a slap at U.S. multinational corporations that shelter profits overseas, Obama wants those firms to pay a minimum tax on their foreign earnings. He also wants to end tax breaks for companies that outsource and give new tax incentives to firms that move jobs back home.

Marguerite Higgins of the conservative Heritage Foundation argued that such a tax would hurt competition.

Washington Post - February 22, 2012

When are you libtards going to understand that corporations don't pay taxes? Taxes for a corporation are an expense and passed along to their customers, so if you want to pay more tax indirectly through the corporations in higher prices, just keep crying, you may get what you wish for.

That's not true, but don't let facts stop you from ranting.

Actually... I think it is true.

 

[Shelzin]

.

Personally, I'd like to see corporate rates at 0%, marginal income tax rates back to the Clinton-era range (maybe a bit higher), perhaps a new higher marginal rate for AGI over, say, $600,000, and minimum rates after deductions.

Then, to free up business even more, I'd take away all of their horrific health care costs by instituting a standard Medicare chassis coupled with a robust free-market/private insurance supplement system, all of which are personal and not connected to employers in any way. Not only would that help business enormously, it would further cut long term health care costs by providing far, far better preventive and diagnostic services across the board.

American businesses would then not only be able to hire more people, they would attract mountains of global capital.

Yeah, I know, I'm nuts, you don't have to say it.

.

Nuts? No man... Genius. A common sense genius.

 

[AmyNation]

Simply raising taxes will not work unless we also make sure they can't borrow more money. We need to require the government to only spend the money it has and only borrow if it can pass both houses and the signature of the president. We also have to make sure they have to pass any resolution to borrow money as a separate bill, not tack it onto something that no one would vote against. That would require a constitutional amendment.

Sure. I'd hoped the complementary requirement of balanced budget was implicit in my suggestion. In any case, my underlying point is that it's irrational to think we can make overbearing government go away by cutting taxes, or that doing so will somehow pressure the statists into backing off. They've shown an enthusiastic willingness to simply sink us all deeper and deeper into debt.

And the point I'm making is that most of us are ok with the status quo because it causes us no immediate pain. If government growth was accompanied by immediate and automatic tax increases, enough to fully fund any new spending, taxpayers would be howling. And that would put pressure on our leaders to curb spending.

We need to spell it out for the idiots that think that getting more money means spending more.

I think a big problem is a lot of programs are paid for by the federal goverment that should be issues of the state.

State reps are FAR more concerned with balancing their own budgets than the federal one. Even republicans will beam about how well they slash costs at state level while quietly lobbying the federal goverment for more money.

 

[AmyNation]

When are you libtards going to understand that corporations don't pay taxes? Taxes for a corporation are an expense and passed along to their customers, so if you want to pay more tax indirectly through the corporations in higher prices, just keep crying, you may get what you wish for.

That's not true, but don't let facts stop you from ranting.

Actually... I think it is true.

As soon as I typed that, I knew you would disagree.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We have a spending problem, absolute proof we need to fire some people.

Fixed it for ya.

'We' have...

If it weren’t for all the lost jobs in the public sector — mostly teachers, police, firemen and sanitation workers at the state and local level — unemployment would be significantly lower right now, perhaps as low as 7 percent. Here’s how public sector employment fared during the first years of the Clinton and Bush terms (also recessionary) compared to under Obama:

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

If it weren’t for all the lost jobs in the public sector — mostly teachers, police, firemen and sanitation workers at the state and local level — unemployment would be significantly lower right now

Yes, we must immediately hire more public sector workers everywhere, no matter if the states and cities can afford it. No matter how much new debt that would cause. No matter if their bloated unaffordable pensions are only 50% funded. Whether or not these public employees are actually needed.

So whose going to answer when you call 911? Your banker or broker?

 

[Shelzin]

that's not true, but don't let facts stop you from ranting.

actually... I think it is true.

as soon as i typed that, i knew you would disagree.

:grin:

 

[The Rabbi]

'We' have...

If it weren’t for all the lost jobs in the public sector — mostly teachers, police, firemen and sanitation workers at the state and local level — unemployment would be significantly lower right now, perhaps as low as 7 percent. Here’s how public sector employment fared during the first years of the Clinton and Bush terms (also recessionary) compared to under Obama:

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

If it weren’t for all the lost jobs in the public sector — mostly teachers, police, firemen and sanitation workers at the state and local level — unemployment would be significantly lower right now

Yes, we must immediately hire more public sector workers everywhere, no matter if the states and cities can afford it. No matter how much new debt that would cause. No matter if their bloated unaffordable pensions are only 50% funded. Whether or not these public employees are actually needed.

So whose going to answer when you call 911? Your banker or broker?

Yeah, because states and municipalities only hire police and firefighters who are on call all the time to protect you. Right?
Geez, what a cock sucker.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

'We' have...

If it weren’t for all the lost jobs in the public sector — mostly teachers, police, firemen and sanitation workers at the state and local level — unemployment would be significantly lower right now, perhaps as low as 7 percent. Here’s how public sector employment fared during the first years of the Clinton and Bush terms (also recessionary) compared to under Obama:

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

If it weren’t for all the lost jobs in the public sector — mostly teachers, police, firemen and sanitation workers at the state and local level — unemployment would be significantly lower right now

Yes, we must immediately hire more public sector workers everywhere, no matter if the states and cities can afford it. No matter how much new debt that would cause. No matter if their bloated unaffordable pensions are only 50% funded. Whether or not these public employees are actually needed.

So whose going to answer when you call 911? Your banker or broker?

So whose going to answer when you call 911?

Despite these awful cuts in government employment, we still have 911 operators.

 

[Bfgrn]

I believe personal tax rates in the US are too low.

Corporate taxes are probably too high, and I think a VAT is inevitable.

But what party has the balls to say so?

Corporate taxes...

Obama proposes lowering corporate tax rate to 28 percent

The plan would lower the nation’s corporate tax rate to 28 percent. At the same time, Obama wants to boost overall revenue from corporate taxation by banning numerous deductions and loopholes that save companies tens of billions of dollars a year on their tax bills.

The current U.S. corporate tax rate of 35 percent is one of the highest in the world, but the abundance of loopholes and deductions enable many businesses to pay far less than that — or nothing at all. Companies in the United States pay almost half the taxes that companies in other rich countries pay, compared with the size of the economy, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The president’s plan targets oil and gas companies for tax increases while promising special breaks for manufacturing companies.

And in a slap at U.S. multinational corporations that shelter profits overseas, Obama wants those firms to pay a minimum tax on their foreign earnings. He also wants to end tax breaks for companies that outsource and give new tax incentives to firms that move jobs back home.

Marguerite Higgins of the conservative Heritage Foundation argued that such a tax would hurt competition.

Washington Post - February 22, 2012

When are you libtards going to understand that corporations don't pay taxes? Taxes for a corporation are an expense and passed along to their customers, so if you want to pay more tax indirectly through the corporations in higher prices, just keep crying, you may get what you wish for.

Libtards? Tell me this oh wise conservative, what is stopping these corporations from raising their prices TODAY? Is it because they are just being 'nice'?

 

[The Rabbi]

Corporate taxes...

Obama proposes lowering corporate tax rate to 28 percent

The plan would lower the nation’s corporate tax rate to 28 percent. At the same time, Obama wants to boost overall revenue from corporate taxation by banning numerous deductions and loopholes that save companies tens of billions of dollars a year on their tax bills.

The current U.S. corporate tax rate of 35 percent is one of the highest in the world, but the abundance of loopholes and deductions enable many businesses to pay far less than that — or nothing at all. Companies in the United States pay almost half the taxes that companies in other rich countries pay, compared with the size of the economy, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The president’s plan targets oil and gas companies for tax increases while promising special breaks for manufacturing companies.

And in a slap at U.S. multinational corporations that shelter profits overseas, Obama wants those firms to pay a minimum tax on their foreign earnings. He also wants to end tax breaks for companies that outsource and give new tax incentives to firms that move jobs back home.

Marguerite Higgins of the conservative Heritage Foundation argued that such a tax would hurt competition.

Washington Post - February 22, 2012

When are you libtards going to understand that corporations don't pay taxes? Taxes for a corporation are an expense and passed along to their customers, so if you want to pay more tax indirectly through the corporations in higher prices, just keep crying, you may get what you wish for.

Libtards? Tell me this oh wise conservative, what is stopping these corporations from raising their prices TODAY? Is it because they are just being 'nice'?

I see you punked out on the Reagan tax rates increased revenue argument. Let's see you do the same here.
The reason they dont raise prices is competition. But if tax rates go up, they go up for every company. So there is no competition holding back pricing because of tax rates. Everyone is on the same level. So prices will go up.

 

[Bfgrn]

When are you libtards going to understand that corporations don't pay taxes? Taxes for a corporation are an expense and passed along to their customers, so if you want to pay more tax indirectly through the corporations in higher prices, just keep crying, you may get what you wish for.

Libtards? Tell me this oh wise conservative, what is stopping these corporations from raising their prices TODAY? Is it because they are just being 'nice'?

I see you punked out on the Reagan tax rates increased revenue argument. Let's see you do the same here.
The reason they dont raise prices is competition. But if tax rates go up, they go up for every company. So there is no competition holding back pricing because of tax rates. Everyone is on the same level. So prices will go up.

So, the only competition is domestic, eh Einstein? BTW, it only takes one competitor to internalize an increase. BUT, President Obama is calling for lowering the corporate tax rate. So prices should go DOWN by your thinking...

Yes, it is the market. But it is not as simple as your simple mind understands it. The price of other costs from raw goods to transportation change on a daily basis. They are not passed on daily. A corporate strategy attempts to balance profit and market-share. It is common knowledge that the only way to drastically increase market-share is to buy it.

Reagan:
That chart is an economic indictment of Reagan and Bush II. But the right is not about fiscal conservatism, the chart and those who defend it is proof of that. It is all about social conservatism. Social Darwinism combined with your Monica Lewinsky worship of the opulent...

 

[The Rabbi]

Libtards? Tell me this oh wise conservative, what is stopping these corporations from raising their prices TODAY? Is it because they are just being 'nice'?

I see you punked out on the Reagan tax rates increased revenue argument. Let's see you do the same here.
The reason they dont raise prices is competition. But if tax rates go up, they go up for every company. So there is no competition holding back pricing because of tax rates. Everyone is on the same level. So prices will go up.

So, the only competition is domestic, eh Einstein? BTW, it only takes one competitor to internalize an increase. BUT, President Obama is calling for lowering the corporate tax rate. So prices should go DOWN by your thinking...

Yes, it is the market. But it is not as simple as your simple mind understands it. The price of other costs from raw goods to transportation change on a daily basis. They are not passed on daily. A corporate strategy attempts to balance profit and market-share. It is common knowledge that the only way to drastically increase market-share is to buy it.

Reagan:
That chart is an economic indictment of Reagan and Bush II. But the right is not about fiscal conservatism, the chart and those who defend it is proof of that. It is all about social conservatism. Social Darwinism combined with your Monica Lewinsky worship of the opulent...

You're even less coherent than usual. And your pronouncements about business are simply absurd.

 

[Bfgrn]

I see you punked out on the Reagan tax rates increased revenue argument. Let's see you do the same here.
The reason they dont raise prices is competition. But if tax rates go up, they go up for every company. So there is no competition holding back pricing because of tax rates. Everyone is on the same level. So prices will go up.

So, the only competition is domestic, eh Einstein? BTW, it only takes one competitor to internalize an increase. BUT, President Obama is calling for lowering the corporate tax rate. So prices should go DOWN by your thinking...

Yes, it is the market. But it is not as simple as your simple mind understands it. The price of other costs from raw goods to transportation change on a daily basis. They are not passed on daily. A corporate strategy attempts to balance profit and market-share. It is common knowledge that the only way to drastically increase market-share is to buy it.

Reagan:
That chart is an economic indictment of Reagan and Bush II. But the right is not about fiscal conservatism, the chart and those who defend it is proof of that. It is all about social conservatism. Social Darwinism combined with your Monica Lewinsky worship of the opulent...

You're even less coherent than usual. And your pronouncements about business are simply absurd.

Yea, I spent 20 years trying to grow market-share in the marketplace. It is obviously something you didn't learn flipping burgers.

 

[Conservative]

That our FEDERAL and state governments piss money away foolishly is a given.

Most of the money is redistributed to the wealthiest people in America.

That same group of people pay very low percentages of their incomes back in taxes.

There's the two root sources of our nation's economic woes.

That you are a monumental mental midget is a given.

 

[Conservative]

I believe personal tax rates in the US are too low.

Corporate taxes are probably too high, and I think a VAT is inevitable.

But what party has the balls to say so?

Corporate taxes...

Obama proposes lowering corporate tax rate to 28 percent

The plan would lower the nation’s corporate tax rate to 28 percent. At the same time, Obama wants to boost overall revenue from corporate taxation by banning numerous deductions and loopholes that save companies tens of billions of dollars a year on their tax bills.

The current U.S. corporate tax rate of 35 percent is one of the highest in the world, but the abundance of loopholes and deductions enable many businesses to pay far less than that — or nothing at all. Companies in the United States pay almost half the taxes that companies in other rich countries pay, compared with the size of the economy, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The president’s plan targets oil and gas companies for tax increases while promising special breaks for manufacturing companies.

And in a slap at U.S. multinational corporations that shelter profits overseas, Obama wants those firms to pay a minimum tax on their foreign earnings. He also wants to end tax breaks for companies that outsource and give new tax incentives to firms that move jobs back home.

Marguerite Higgins of the conservative Heritage Foundation argued that such a tax would hurt competition.

Washington Post - February 22, 2012

Where are the specifics? What loopholes does Obama want to eliminate? No details, so saying you want to close loopholes means shit.

Those are the same words libtards here used when Romney talked about lowering corporate tax rates and closing loopholes.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

That our FEDERAL and state governments piss money away foolishly is a given.

Most of the money is redistributed to the wealthiest people in America.
That same group of people pay very low percentages of their incomes back in taxes.

There's the two root sources of our nation's economic woes.

Prove it.

 

[The Rabbi]

So, the only competition is domestic, eh Einstein? BTW, it only takes one competitor to internalize an increase. BUT, President Obama is calling for lowering the corporate tax rate. So prices should go DOWN by your thinking...

Yes, it is the market. But it is not as simple as your simple mind understands it. The price of other costs from raw goods to transportation change on a daily basis. They are not passed on daily. A corporate strategy attempts to balance profit and market-share. It is common knowledge that the only way to drastically increase market-share is to buy it.

Reagan:
That chart is an economic indictment of Reagan and Bush II. But the right is not about fiscal conservatism, the chart and those who defend it is proof of that. It is all about social conservatism. Social Darwinism combined with your Monica Lewinsky worship of the opulent...

You're even less coherent than usual. And your pronouncements about business are simply absurd.

Yea, I spent 20 years trying to grow market-share in the marketplace. It is obviously something you didn't learn flipping burgers.

I doubt the market for condom-washers is really that big. You don't know jack shit about business. You dont know jack shit about budgets. And you can't read a graph worth a flip. I doubt you ever finished high school.
But let's take your absurd stateements here:
1) While input costs do vary, sometimes daily, pricing by businesses incorporates a range to account for that. Further, taxes are (or are supposed to be) a very stable input. So accounting for them is fairly certain. Thus they are not the same as material costs, which can fluctuate more.
2) There are numerous ways to increase market share. One is pricing. But it is only one. Technological innovation is another one. Additional advertising is another one. These things will vary depending on the industry and its conditions.
3) The chart was an indictment of the Democratic Congresses that Reagan had to deal with. He was not a dictator. He had to work with an often hostile Congress that raised taxes sometimes and raised spending all the time. My point stands: Reagan's lower tax rates increased revenue to the government dramatically.

 

[Bfgrn]

You're even less coherent than usual. And your pronouncements about business are simply absurd.

Yea, I spent 20 years trying to grow market-share in the marketplace. It is obviously something you didn't learn flipping burgers.

I doubt the market for condom-washers is really that big. You don't know jack shit about business. You dont know jack shit about budgets. And you can't read a graph worth a flip. I doubt you ever finished high school.
But let's take your absurd stateements here:
1) While input costs do vary, sometimes daily, pricing by businesses incorporates a range to account for that. Further, taxes are (or are supposed to be) a very stable input. So accounting for them is fairly certain. Thus they are not the same as material costs, which can fluctuate more.
2) There are numerous ways to increase market share. One is pricing. But it is only one. Technological innovation is another one. Additional advertising is another one. These things will vary depending on the industry and its conditions.
3) The chart was an indictment of the Democratic Congresses that Reagan had to deal with. He was not a dictator. He had to work with an often hostile Congress that raised taxes sometimes and raised spending all the time. My point stands: Reagan's lower tax rates increased revenue to the government dramatically.

Hey Rabbi, are you really THAT fucking stupid? You imply possessing a knowledge of budgets, costs and profits. You REALLY don't know jack shit.

I said:
"It is common knowledge that the only way to drastically increase market-share is to buy it."

You said:
"There are numerous ways to increase market share. One is pricing. But it is only one. Technological innovation is another one. Additional advertising is another one."

1) Technological innovation is another one. Is there a COST to that Rabbi?

2) Additional advertising is another one. Is there a COST to that Rabbi?

3) Conclusion: "It is common knowledge that the only way to drastically increase market-share is to buy it."

a) there are numerous ways to BUY marketshare

Hey Rabbi, you keep repeating the same lie over and over and over. I corrected you once, and you punked out on the Reagan vs. Congress argument on the last thread. Is it because you are:

1) A dishonest piece of shit

2) A retard

Pick one...

The Myths of Reaganomics

Mises Daily: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 by Murray N. Rothbard

Government Spending. How well did Reagan succeed in cutting government spending, surely a critical ingredient in any plan to reduce the role of government in everyone's life? In 1980, the last year of free-spending Jimmy Carter the federal government spent $591 billion. In 1986, the last recorded year of the Reagan administration, the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%. Whatever this is, it is emphatically not reducing government expenditures.

Sophisticated economists say that these absolute numbers are an unfair comparison, that we should compare federal spending in these two years as percentage of gross national product. But this strikes me as unfair in the opposite direction, because the greater the amount of inflation generated by the federal government, the higher will be the GNP. We might then be complimenting the government on a lower percentage of spending achieved by the government's generating inflation by creating more money. But even taking these percentages of GNP figures, we get federal spending as percent of GNP in 1980 as 21.6%, and after six years of Reagan, 24.3%. A better comparison would be percentage of federal spending to net private product, that is, production of the private sector. That percentage was 31.1% in 1980, and a shocking 34.3% in 1986. So even using percentages, the Reagan administration has brought us a substantial increase in government spending.

Also, the excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget.

Deficits. The next, and admittedly the most embarrassing, failure of Reaganomic goals is the deficit. Jimmy Carter habitually ran deficits of $40-50 billion and, by the end, up to $74 billion; but by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion, a level that seems to be permanent, despite desperate attempts to cook the figures in one-shot reductions.

This is by far the largest budget deficit in American history. It is true that the $50 billion deficits in World War II were a much higher percentage of the GNP; but the point is that that was a temporary, one-shot situation, the product of war finance. But the war was over in a few years; and the current federal deficits now seem to be a recent, but still permanent part of the American heritage.

One of the most curious, and least edifying, sights in the Reagan era was to see the Reaganites completely change their tune of a lifetime. At the very beginning of the Reagan administration, the conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives, convinced that deficits would disappear immediately, received a terrific shock when they were asked by the Reagan administration to vote for the usual annual increase in the statutory debt limit. These Republicans, some literally with tears in their eyes, protested that never in their lives had they voted for an increase in the national debt limit, but they were doing it just this one time because they "trusted Ronald Reagan" to balance the budget from then on. The rest, alas, is history, and the conservative Republicans never saw fit to cry again. Instead, they found themselves adjusting rather easily to the new era of huge permanent deficits. The Gramm-Rudman law, allegedly designed to eradicate deficits in a few years, has now unsurprisingly bogged down in enduring confusion.

The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

 

[Erand7899]

Corporate taxes...

Obama proposes lowering corporate tax rate to 28 percent

The plan would lower the nation’s corporate tax rate to 28 percent. At the same time, Obama wants to boost overall revenue from corporate taxation by banning numerous deductions and loopholes that save companies tens of billions of dollars a year on their tax bills.

The current U.S. corporate tax rate of 35 percent is one of the highest in the world, but the abundance of loopholes and deductions enable many businesses to pay far less than that — or nothing at all. Companies in the United States pay almost half the taxes that companies in other rich countries pay, compared with the size of the economy, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The president’s plan targets oil and gas companies for tax increases while promising special breaks for manufacturing companies.

And in a slap at U.S. multinational corporations that shelter profits overseas, Obama wants those firms to pay a minimum tax on their foreign earnings. He also wants to end tax breaks for companies that outsource and give new tax incentives to firms that move jobs back home.

Marguerite Higgins of the conservative Heritage Foundation argued that such a tax would hurt competition.

Washington Post - February 22, 2012

When are you libtards going to understand that corporations don't pay taxes? Taxes for a corporation are an expense and passed along to their customers, so if you want to pay more tax indirectly through the corporations in higher prices, just keep crying, you may get what you wish for.

That's not true, but don't let facts stop you from ranting.

That is true. Taxes are a cost of doing business, just like rent and electricity. It is all calculated into the price of the product or service, and passed on to the consumer. There is no such thing as a free lunch.