marcus phoenix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > The majority voted for Bush twice in 2000 (or did > they?) and 2004. What benefits did they get from > the public treasury? The only ones that truly > benefited from his policies represented a very > small segment of the population (defense > contractors, big oil, the wealthiest Americans). > So really your quote doesn’t hold much water when > in reality policies are being crafted to mainly > benefit mostly the rich and powerful. Interesting that you bring up the Bush years, considering corporate income taxes accounted for the largest portion of federal tax receipts during his presidency than they had since the 1970s. Corporate income tax receipts under Clinton never reached 12% of total tax receipts. They topped 12% for 4 years under Bush, including 2 years where they topped 14%. They aren’t even in double digits under President Obama.
Also, the collapse of the Roman Republic wasn’t wandering barbarians - that was the collapse of the Roman Empire. The Roman Republic collapsed due to civil war and the difficulty of governing a continent-sized region effectively with a single Senate consisting of major Italian families. Athenian democracy collapsed due to war with Sparta, which they lost when they succumbed to plague during siege; later, conquest by the Macedonians ended any chance of reestablishing local sovereignty.
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Authoritarian regimes collapse too, and are often > just as prone to fiscal mismanagement. > > Engineers and economists often go for the > “authoritarian regimes are better” argument > because they see democratic haggling processes as > inevitably inefficient and watering down “what > needs to be done.” They think, “Gee, if we didn’t > have to do that, we could have a sensible policy > and just force people to live by it.” But there > are two problems here: 1) their “sensible policy” > may leave out key realities that don’t come up > until you have the ability to haggle; 2) just > because you have authoritarian leaders doesn’t > mean that they will choose to implement sensible > policies, particularly if the costs can be > externalized onto future generations or repressed > groups and have to be paid on someone else’s > watch; and 3) if an authoritarian regime chooses > to stop listening, there is really nothing one can > do about it, except take to the streets to try to > overthrow it, or attempt to leave the place. > > So it’s not that democracies don’t have a lot of > problems, but it’s an illusion that authoritarian > regimes can be depended on to resolve them > consistently. I’m not advocating for dictatorship. I simply see parallels between the quote and your comment about voters dislike of Congress but propensity to vote the same people back into office because they provide them pork.
higgmond Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > marcus phoenix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > The majority voted for Bush twice in 2000 (or > did > > they?) and 2004. What benefits did they get > from > > the public treasury? The only ones that truly > > benefited from his policies represented a very > > small segment of the population (defense > > contractors, big oil, the wealthiest Americans). > > > So really your quote doesn’t hold much water > when > > in reality policies are being crafted to mainly > > benefit mostly the rich and powerful. > > > Interesting that you bring up the Bush years, > considering corporate income taxes accounted for > the largest portion of federal tax receipts during > his presidency than they had since the 1970s. > Corporate income tax receipts under Clinton never > reached 12% of total tax receipts. They topped > 12% for 4 years under Bush, including 2 years > where they topped 14%. They aren’t even in double > digits under President Obama. Of course they would, we had the biggest housing bubble in the history of united states and we spent trillions on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the years you specified. How can tax receipts approach similar levels in the worst downturn since the 1930s?
higgmond Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bchadwick Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Authoritarian regimes collapse too, and are > often > > just as prone to fiscal mismanagement. > > > > Engineers and economists often go for the > > “authoritarian regimes are better” argument > > because they see democratic haggling processes > as > > inevitably inefficient and watering down “what > > needs to be done.” They think, “Gee, if we > didn’t > > have to do that, we could have a sensible > policy > > and just force people to live by it.” But > there > > are two problems here: 1) their “sensible > policy” > > may leave out key realities that don’t come up > > until you have the ability to haggle; 2) just > > because you have authoritarian leaders doesn’t > > mean that they will choose to implement > sensible > > policies, particularly if the costs can be > > externalized onto future generations or > repressed > > groups and have to be paid on someone else’s > > watch; and 3) if an authoritarian regime > chooses > > to stop listening, there is really nothing one > can > > do about it, except take to the streets to try > to > > overthrow it, or attempt to leave the place. > > > > So it’s not that democracies don’t have a lot > of > > problems, but it’s an illusion that > authoritarian > > regimes can be depended on to resolve them > > consistently. > > > I’m not advocating for dictatorship. I simply see > parallels between the quote and your comment about > voters dislike of Congress but propensity to vote > the same people back into office because they > provide them pork. For the most part, its lobbyists acting at the behest special interest groups who demand pork for the said project/ tax break. I don’t see you average voter harassing his congressman for funding the latest construction project/ military base in his/her district.
marcus phoenix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Of course they would, we had the biggest housing > bubble in the history of united states and we > spent trillions on the wars in Iraq and > Afghanistan for the years you specified. > > How can tax receipts approach similar levels in > the worst downturn since the 1930s? You lost me. How do the housing bubble, the Iraq war and the Afghan war translate into corporations shouldering a higher portion of the tax burden than they had in nearly 30 years? How do they translate into corporations paying the 3 highest dollar totals in history in 2006, 2007 & 2008?
marcus phoenix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > For the most part, its lobbyists acting at the > behest special interest groups who demand pork for > the said project/ tax break. I don’t see you > average voter harassing his congressman for > funding the latest construction project/ military > base in his/her district. Voters with some knowledge will vote for the person who creates the illusion that he or she has or will make their life better. They generally don’t care if making their life better means your life will suck a little more. That’s why House members start running for re-election 3 hours after they are elected. They have to get out and tell the people of their district what they’ve done for them: how much federal funding they’ve secured for local infrastructure projects, how many jobs they saved or created in their district by shifting a lucrative defense contract from Company A in some other state to Company B in their state, how they killed federal funding of an unnecessary infrastructure project in some other state, etc., etc., etc.
higgmond Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > marcus phoenix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > Of course they would, we had the biggest > housing > > bubble in the history of united states and we > > spent trillions on the wars in Iraq and > > Afghanistan for the years you specified. > > > > How can tax receipts approach similar levels in > > the worst downturn since the 1930s? > > > You lost me. How do the housing bubble, the Iraq > war and the Afghan war translate into corporations > shouldering a higher portion of the tax burden > than they had in nearly 30 years? How do they > translate into corporations paying the 3 highest > dollar totals in history in 2006, 2007 & 2008? I can’t believe you are asking this question. Larger profits for companies due to the housing boom related and war spending = higher tax receipts? Profits = no carryover losses? How many banks, mortgage companies, realty companies and and lenders existed back then versus now? What was the unemployment rate during those years versus now?
@higgmond, Please present a credible source for your assertion, “corporate income taxes accounted for the largest portion of federal tax receipts during his presidency than they had since the 1970s” (preferably a CBO or Treasury report). Thanks.
higgmond Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > marcus phoenix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > For the most part, its lobbyists acting at the > > behest special interest groups who demand pork > for > > the said project/ tax break. I don’t see you > > average voter harassing his congressman for > > funding the latest construction project/ > military > > base in his/her district. > > > Voters with some knowledge will vote for the > person who creates the illusion that he or she has > or will make their life better. They generally > don’t care if making their life better means your > life will suck a little more. You make the assumption that most people actually bother voting and think voting will have any impact on their lives. Just take a look at the abysmal voter turnouts in the poorer neighborhoods.
marcus phoenix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I can’t believe you are asking this question. > Larger profits for companies due to the housing > boom related and war spending = higher tax > receipts? Profits = no carryover losses? How many > banks, mortgage companies, realty companies and > and lenders existed back then versus now? What was > the unemployment rate during those years versus > now? But corporations don’t pay taxes under Republicans, remember? Republicans shift the tax burden to the poor and middle class, remember?
Zesty Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @higgmond, Please present a credible source for > your assertion, “corporate income taxes accounted > for the largest portion of federal tax receipts > during his presidency than they had since the > 1970s” (preferably a CBO or Treasury report). > Thanks. Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table 2.1; http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals.
higgmond Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Zesty Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > @higgmond, Please present a credible source for > > your assertion, “corporate income taxes > accounted > > for the largest portion of federal tax receipts > > during his presidency than they had since the > > 1970s” (preferably a CBO or Treasury report). > > Thanks. > > > Office of Management and Budget, Historical > Tables, Table 2.1; > http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals. Zesty that was lazy and cocky. Well done sir.
@higgmond, Do you work in accounting? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you’re in accounting. In order to accurately compare tax receipts from one presidency to the next you’ll have to do at least two things. 1. You’ll have to adjust for differences in economic activity, as Marcus was eluding to in his political rant. I.e., 2005 - 2007 boom can’t be accurately compared to 1991 recession. This is why we have seasonal adjustments for economic data. 2. You’ll have to use real numbers not nominal figures, i.e. adjust for inflation. After you do that then we can compare the corporate tax receipts from varying presidencies. Other than that you’re like a politician making statements without proper context.
Zesty Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @higgmond, Do you work in accounting? I’ll give > you the benefit of the doubt and say that you’re > in accounting. In order to accurately compare tax > receipts from one presidency to the next you’ll > have to do at least two things. > > 1. You’ll have to adjust for differences in > economic activity, as Marcus was eluding to in his > political rant. I.e., 2005 - 2007 boom can’t be > accurately compared to 1991 recession. This is why > we have seasonal adjustments for economic data. > > 2. You’ll have to use real numbers not nominal > figures, i.e. adjust for inflation. > > After you do that then we can compare the > corporate tax receipts from varying presidencies. > Other than that you’re like a politician making > statements without proper context. Zesty, aren’t the individual tax receipts affected by inflation and economic activity? Aren’t the overall tax receipts affected by inflation and economic activity? It’s a simple fact, the proportion of the income tax burden shouldered by corporations increased under GWB. It doesn’t matter if they are 2007 dollars, 1945 dollars or 3037 dollars (if the dollar will still exist then), corporations were paying a larger portion of the pie that everyone was paying into using the same dollars. The same data source projects that President Obama’s tax policies will result in an even larger average transfer of the tax burden to corporations. Is that a function of inflation and economic activity too? Won’t democrats argue that the increased burden on corporations is the administration’s way of helping out the poor and middle class by making big, bad companies pay their fair share? BTW, I am not an accountant and never said that I was, not that there is anything wrong with accountants.
Just eliminate the corporate income tax altogether. It all flows to the personal level. Tax it once and be done with it.
I could go with a flat tax rate…but unfortunately too many paper pushers would go out of business and their lobbyists wont have that. Also we would have to make significant cuts to the defense and related budgets.
@higgmond; Firstly, I’m not a Dem (just so you understand that I’m not in some political back and forth with you but rather espousing the importance of putting things in their proper context). Assuming uniform effects of economic activity between individual income taxes and corporate taxes, you would be correct. But this is not the case. As we see today, increased economic activity can increase corporate revenues disproportionately to individual income. Adjusting for inflation is significant because it could be that it’s a greater percentage but a much smaller “real” number. Can you directly compare someone’s salary today to their salary 20 years ago? No, you have to adjust for inflation. Why, you ask. Well as inflation increases, earnings (historically speaking) increase as well. Therefore, someone in 1980 making $20,000 and paying $5,000 in taxes may be making $35,000 in 1995 and paying $7,000 in taxes. These are the “nominal” figures. Therefore, if we want to compare the two we need to use the “real” figures which are adjusted for inflation.
@Zesty - You bring up an interesting point, but I don’t think that is the argument that Higgmond was making. Simply put, corporations under GWB paid a higher percentage of the total tax receipts than under Obama, Clinton, etc. since evidently 1970. Whether the US Tres takes in $100 billion in 1970 or $100 trillion in 2010 is irrelevant since it is all on a common size basis. There was no discussion about the absolute amounts paid, only the relative contribution to the overall.
BValGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Zesty - You bring up an interesting point, but I > don’t think that is the argument that Higgmond was > making. > > Simply put, corporations under GWB paid a higher > percentage of the total tax receipts than under > Obama, Clinton, etc. since evidently 1970. > Whether the US Tres takes in $100 billion in 1970 > or $100 trillion in 2010 is irrelevant since it is > all on a common size basis. There was no > discussion about the absolute amounts paid, only > the relative contribution to the overall. Thanks BVG. That is exactly the primary point I was trying to make. In fairness to Zesty, I did note that the actual dollar amount in 2007 was the highest dollar amount ever, so inflation is important there and I did not adjust for it. The amount, however, was 79% higher than the amount in Clinton’s last year. I don’t think inflation produced a 79% increase in 7 years.