View Full Version : Can't Bernie and this writer both be right?
catherine
2-23-16, 12:15pm
Here's an interesting article (https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/dear-bernie-sanders-sorry-m-172647639.html) from Yahoo written by a guy who worked hard, expected no handouts in life, sacrificed lots of time, energy and money to become a successful entrepreneur, and who thinks Bernie is out to get him.
I personally think he's missing the point of Bernie's platform. In my mind, Bernie doesn't think that this man and others like him are the problem with America at all.
But I want to know what you guys think.
Along the way, I learned a lot. I created over 100 jobs. And in the end I helped build something useful for thousands of companies around the world. But when I hear Bernie speak, I feel like I'm the problem with America. I'm one of those millionaires he mentions who should pay more taxes. I'm the bad guy. I'm the white male who is only successful because everything was handed to me. I don't deserve the money I made. All the things I sacrificed don't matter. The additional stress I was under doesn't matter. The risks I took don't matter. According to Bernie, the world needs fewer people like me, and more people like the smart Yale student who majors in something useless, travels the world, and then graduates with $100,000 in debt that people like me should pay off via higher taxes.
If you combine Bernie's class rhetoric with President Obama's 'You didn't build that' exclamations, I think he's right on the money.
Even leaving the politics of envy out of the equation, I think what's problematic is that Bernie views the wealthy as the solution to our problems in terms of the resources he believes he can extract from them to fund his gaudy promises. There simply aren't enough rich people to squeeze to make his numbers work.
If we truly want to become a Danish-style welfare state, we will need a Danish-style system of taxation, which taxes everybody's income more heavily and imposes steep consumption taxes through a VAT. An honest revolutionary would be more upfront with the voters about that.
If we truly want to become a Danish-style welfare state, we will need a Danish-style system of taxation, which taxes everybody's income more heavily and imposes steep consumption taxes through a VAT.
Works for me.
Two things: First, I have no problem paying higher taxes provided rich people's taxes go up a lot more first.
Second, some of the reforms Bernie's advocating won't cost most people more. My employer currently contributes around $10K toward my health insurance, plus a couple thousand more that I contribute. If we have a single-payer system and my taxes go up several thousand dollars, but my employer is required to give me the $10K it is now paying toward my insurance in the form of a raise, I'm ahead of the game by a considerable margin because my health care is now free.
Yeah, I know--rationing, death panels, blah, blah, blah. These are the common arguments of those who don't like to look at facts, such as the fact that the US pays much more for worse healthcare outcomes. Single payer works fine in plenty of places, including the US--it's called Medicare.
Bottom line is, in a civilized country, healthcare should not be a for-profit activity, any more than roads, police and fire protection are. We would be horrified by the idea that a person's house should be allowed to burn down because they couldn't pay the cost of dispatching a firefighting crew to their house.
I have no problem paying higher taxes provided rich people's taxes go up a lot more first.
What percentage of a rich persons income are you entitled to before you pony up to the bar?
Ultralight
2-23-16, 1:17pm
What percentage of a rich persons income are you entitled to before you pony up to the bar?
Depends on how rich they are. But either way, it'd be a lot! I'd also like to factor in how the rich person made/makes their money.
Depends on how rich they are. But either way, it'd be a lot! I'd also like to factor in how the rich person made/makes their money.
Sounds complicated. What profession should pay the most, and the least?
I absolutely support a VAT tax. We're already paying a steep "tax" in the form of the ever-increasing profits built into manufactured goods. Might as well get something out of the deal.
Ultralight
2-23-16, 1:26pm
Sounds complicated. What profession should pay the most, and the least?
Could be complicated. But if it were up to me I'd say social workers, nurses, public school teachers, and firemen should pay very little.
I'd say corporate executives should pay a lot more. I mean a lot more! :devil:
The last company I started now has nearly 13,000 employees. We created hundreds of millionaires, and several billionaires, out of a few good novel ideas and a lot of hard work, making products that didn't exploit anybody. For 15+ years or so, it has consistently rated as one of the top 10 places to work in the USA on various surveys.
I don't do that sort of thing anymore. I hated being the enemy of society...
Could be complicated. But if it were up to me I'd say social workers, nurses, public school teachers, and firemen should pay very little.
I'd say corporate executives should pay a lot more. I mean a lot more! :devil:
Well, even though I'm a Bernista (I just made that up), I can't agree with you on that one. Who gets the job of putting the value on each person's contribution? Although I do think that Donald has a point with wanting to tax hedge fund managers and other Wall Street speculators.
Ultralight
2-23-16, 1:37pm
Who gets the job of putting the value on each person's contribution?
Who puts the value on each person's contribution under our current "system?" And how is that working out?
What percentage of a rich persons income are you entitled to before you pony up to the bar?
I'd settle for reinstating the top marginal tax rates under that notorious socialist, Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Ultralight
2-23-16, 1:37pm
The last company I started now has nearly 13,000 employees. We created hundreds of millionaires, and several billionaires, out of a few good novel ideas and a lot of hard work, making products that didn't exploit anybody. For 15+ years or so, it has consistently rated as one of the top 10 places to work in the USA on various surveys.
I don't do that sort of thing anymore. I hated being the enemy of society...
Going Galt? lol
Depends on how rich they are. But either way, it'd be a lot! I'd also like to factor in how the rich person made/makes their money.
If we need to start weighing souls in the calculation of tax liability, the Tax Code will get a lot more complicated.
I don't do that sort of thing anymore. I hated being the enemy of society...
See, that's my point--The author of the article thinks that he is "the bad guy." I personally respect the guy--he worked, he saved, he took personal responsibility for his fate, and his work has paid off for him. That's great! And he's right--there are a lot of people who do take the easy way and expect a lot in return.
But he's making a caricature out of the people in this country. Nobody "hates" him for being rich. Not all rich people "earned" their wealth the way he did. Not all poor people are just lazy sons of guns with their hands out who could easily amass wealth if they just got off their a$$es like he did. Society is more nuanced than that, and it does all of us a disservice to reduce the citizens into a formula that he thinks should work for everybody, but in reality doesn't.
Going Galt? lol
About 15 years ago. Who knows how many 10s of thousands of additional jobs did not happen because of that, and how many billions of dollars of additional GDP didn't materialize? And how much tax revenue was lost as a result?
Who puts the value on each person's contribution under our current "system?" And how is that working out?
Millions of individual buyers and sellers. It's hard to imagine a bureaucracy doing a better job.
Ultralight
2-23-16, 1:45pm
About 15 years ago. Who knows how many 10s of thousands of additional jobs did not happen because of that, and how many billions of dollars of additional GDP didn't materialize? And how much tax revenue was lost as a result?
Good on you!
Ultralight
2-23-16, 1:46pm
Millions of individual buyers and sellers. It's hard to imagine a bureaucracy doing a better job.
Ah yes, money changers and consumers. haha
It is hard to imagine a bureaucracy doing any worse!
Ah yes, money changers and consumers. haha
It is hard to imagine a bureaucracy doing any worse!
How about the (former) Soviet Union? Or the current North Korea?
How about the (former) Soviet Union? Or the current North Korea?
Zimbabwe did pretty well with it, eh?
How about the (former) Soviet Union? Or the current North Korea?
Zimbabwe did pretty well with it, eh?
Or Cuba or Venezuela
I'd settle for reinstating the top marginal tax rates under that notorious socialist, Dwight D. Eisenhower.
I guess it would only be fair to go back to the same deductions as well, that kept the effective rate lower than todays rates. As long as the percentages are just a means of satisfying malcontents rather than a means to redistribute, I'm good with that.
I guess it would only be fair to go back to the same deductions as well, that kept the effective rate lower than todays rates. I could go for that.
Yup. The only way to honestly compare taxation between the two eras is to look at the *effective* tax rate. People who trot out the top marginal rates as their measure are usually either dishonest or misinformed.
Yup. The only way to honestly compare taxation between the two eras is to look at the *effective* tax rate. People who trot out the top marginal rates as their measure are usually either dishonest or misinformed.
The illusion commences with that famous 1950s top rate of 91 percent. Official rates matter, but so do effective rates, the percent of income that people actually pay in tax. The Internal Revenue Service reckoned that the effective rate of tax in 1954 for top earners was actually 70 percent. Or lower.
I'd settle for 70%.
Williamsmith
2-23-16, 3:00pm
I like Bernie in a sort of good entertainment way. It is nice to pretend that Hillary goes to bed at night asking Bill if he is sure the fix is in. Hes so far left he might have to go,to Europe to find a running mate. So somehow all these rich people are just supposed to stand still while Bernie reaches in their pocket and throws hundred dollar bills in the air on Main Street. The problem with progressive tax is that it is well....progressive, until finally there is no money left to pay. Trump wants to build a wall to keep people out and Bernie Sanders is going to have to build a wall to keep people in. Can the wall function for both? I'd like to save a little on construction.
Millions of individual buyers and sellers. It's hard to imagine a bureaucracy doing a better job.
Then why do we have a central bank setting interest rates?
ApatheticNoMore
2-23-16, 3:34pm
Yes but so what? Why should society be setup purely for people of his uh I don't know personality type? (I could say "people like him" but folks would read stuff into that that was certainly never intended (like demographics or something - which do matter but not the point I was making).
Overall people are happier in societies with more of a social safety net - overall, plenty of research shows that. Doesn't that matter? And some of the things he sacrifices are things shown to be vital for human happiness: like relationships with other human beings, sacrificing that is not even a psychologically healthy model. Are our models of social success, even healthy for human beings? On what basis? Basic human needs ...
He also sacrifices living his life for any ideal but money, oh the lie is everyone who doesn't live for money is lazy, because why wouldn't everyone pursue money as their reason for living, but of course that is untrue, people do live and work hard for other ideals, although of course some people are lazy. If you lack a strong inner sense of purpose, the pursuit of money or laziness is the social default, of course. And how many people must suffer for society to be setup to his preference? (and the suffering is often quite real if one lives in dire poverty etc., the amount of very real not just super privileged suffering out there is great). How much real suffering for his ideal? I know the idea is that anyone can be him, but it's plainly nonsense, there's so many reasons it's not so. But also why should anyone WANT a society in which they have to be almost inhuman (sacrificing relationships etc.)? If a few oddballs choose that path, so be it, such there has always been, and that's ok, let them do it for love of science or something rather than love of money though, but it's not even what most people want.
Then why do we have a central bank setting interest rates?
That's a fair question. I suspect for the same reason some people thinks it's a good idea for government to try to influence the price of cheese. The Fed was established in 1913, and has a "dual mission" to maintain stable prices and full employment. Since 1913, the dollar has lost something like 90% of it's value.
Teacher Terry
2-23-16, 3:49pm
Why should your average millionaire be in a lower tax bracket then an average trucker making $43k a yea?. This kind of crap makes me sick.
Ultralight
2-23-16, 3:52pm
Why should your average millionaire be in a lower tax bracket then an average trucker making $43k a yea?. This kind of crap makes me sick.
Terry! Come on! Millionaires in the US all earned that money by the sweat of their brow and/or the keen intelligence they got courtesy of the genetic craps game/or their own initiative to learn!
That trucker is probably a lazy bum!
Have to say that this thread is a delight to read with smart thoughtful if witty responses to difficult challenges. There is no easy solution but J Public wants a neat tidy one that doesn't cost them. In Canada, we just are throwing money at the problems going into huge fiscal debt to do so. Down the line, each Canadian resident will pay dearly for the quick fixes that are happening now to keep everyone 'happy'. Not sure which is worse right now, the Canadian "Be Happy" or the deep thought and expression of the fears going on in the US. I personally prefer the openness of the US even including the melodrama. It is not all bad what is going on with the strong opinions being openly expressed.
Teacher Terry
2-23-16, 3:58pm
UL: you are so right!!
Why should your average millionaire be in a lower tax bracket then an average trucker making $43k a yea?. This kind of crap makes me sick.
But is this kind of crap actually true?
Is the average millionaire actually in a lower tax bracket than someone pulling down $43K? I suppose there may be cases of a high net worth individual deriving all his income from municipal bonds, perhaps. But on average?
Yes but so what? Why should society be setup purely for people of his uh I don't know personality type? (I could say "people like him" but folks would read stuff into that that was certainly never intended (like demographics or something - which do matter but not the point I was making).
Overall people are happier in societies with more of a social safety net - overall, plenty of research shows that. Doesn't that matter? And some of the things he sacrifices are things shown to be vital for human happiness: like relationships with other human beings, sacrificing that is not even a psychologically healthy model. Are our models of social success, even healthy for human beings? On what basis? Basic human needs ...
He also sacrifices living his life for any ideal but money, oh the lie is everyone who doesn't live for money is lazy, because why wouldn't everyone pursue money as their reason for living, but of course that is untrue, people do live and work hard for other ideals, although of course some people are lazy. If you lack a strong inner sense of purpose, the pursuit of money or laziness is the social default, of course. And how many people must suffer for society to be setup to his preference? (and the suffering is often quite real if one lives in dire poverty etc., the amount of very real not just super privileged suffering out there is great). How much real suffering for his ideal? I know the idea is that anyone can be him, but it's plainly nonsense, there's so many reasons it's not so. But also why should anyone WANT a society in which they have to be almost inhuman (sacrificing relationships etc.)? If a few oddballs choose that path, so be it, such there has always been, and that's ok, let them do it for love of science or something rather than love of money though, but it's not even what most people want.
I agree with you, ANM. The other aspect of this article is--is his ladder up the right wall, as Stephen Covey would say? There is a lot of service, innovation and creativity in building a business to be sure, so I'm not disputing that, but what about the teacher who pays for school supplies out of her own paltry paycheck while putting in long hours in the classroom and at night correcting papers and preparing lesson plans? Is it OK that maybe the government forgives her student debt to make up for the sacrifice she's made in maximized income?
But is this kind of crap actually true?
Is the average millionaire actually in a lower tax bracket than someone pulling down $43K? I suppose there may be cases of a high net worth individual deriving all his income from municipal bonds, perhaps. But on average?
Taxes are so complicated that I tend to think even the politicians don't understand some of the changes they propose, and I most certainly don't get everything. But as I understand supply side economics and the some of the conservative proposals, keeping money in the hands of the wealthy, even if it's through actually lowing their tax burden, will unleash some sort of massive economic stimulus. Which then would provide more income and income tax to make up for tax cuts.
Take Rubio's tax cuts that would eliminate all tax on investment income. Then take a very wealthy guy like Mitt Romney, who gets a huge chunk of his income from capital gains. He could essentially pay zero "income" tax. Already, capital gains taxes are well below ordinary tax rates. So yes, I can see how the wealthy could routinely pay less tax as a percent of all income streams than the middle class. And I would strongly suspect there are other tax loopholes or advantages available to the wealthy, but it isn't because of the progressive tax structure on ordinary income, but other methods.
As another example, say you work for Acme Broom company and earn a standard payroll tax. Another guy with more money goes out and buys an apartment complex and has rental income. I'd leave up to the experts to decide who would pay the more in taxes, but there are a list of tax advantage to rental income.
But is this kind of crap actually true?
Is the average millionaire actually in a lower tax bracket than someone pulling down $43K? I suppose there may be cases of a high net worth individual deriving all his income from municipal bonds, perhaps. But on average?
Football teams! yeah, football teams are tax exempt. What's that all about? And all those stadiums paid for with tax payer money. Churches, again tax exempt. Shouldn't be. if churches paid taxes, then we could feed and educate all the poor kids in the US. Big oil doesn't need subsidies. They don't. Israel doesn't need aid (which, let's be honest, is really just a bribe to keep them from starting sh*t over there) Especially in light of the fact that they have universal health care and education, what we deny our own citizens. Guess who's paying for that! Our military is big enough, than you very much, despite the 'call' from every right leaning politician to 'make it bigger, stronger' (whatever that means)
Now, as to this guy in the article, if he doesn't hide his wealth in overseas accounts to avoid taxes, then Bernie isn't talking about him. If he paid his workers fairly, with decent benefits, instead of slave wages, then Bernie isn't talking about him. If he understands the value of a healthy, educated workforce, and doesn't actively work against that, then Bernie isn't talking about him.
I know many don't want to understand Democratic Socialism, or don't want the 'unwashed masses' to understand it, but the fact is, it isn't hard. We already have a social Democratic system in that we have federal highways, schools, libraries, police and fire protection, SS, medicare, military, and other programs. That is what Democratic Socialism is. Period. it is WE The People. Government by and for the people. it isn't against wealthy people, as long as they obtained their wealth honestly, and pay fairly for the benefits they gain by having this wonderful country in order to build that wealth.
And yes, the guy in the article didn't build that. he didn't build the roads he uses to move his product, he didn't educate the workforce to build his crap, whatever it is, he didn't build the fire and police force that protects his business, or ensure clean water, food and air for his workforce. (and I doubt he worked 5000times harder than the people working for him)
No, a Social Democratic system has nothing against the wealthy. But that wealth needs to come from people willingly buying his stuff, whatever he is selling, and not through tax paid subsidies and bribes.
Talk to me about raising taxes sometime after we decide to stop spending more on our military than the rest of the planet put together, while giving away our national forestry and mineral resources to private industry for pennies on the dollar, while allowing polluters to despoil our watersheds and air. Oh, and while you are at it, maybe don't lock up so many people in prison.
iris lilies
2-23-16, 5:57pm
Talk to me about raising taxes sometime after we decide to stop spending more on our military than the rest of the planet put together, while giving away our national forestry and mineral resources to private industry for pennies on the dollar, while allowing polluters to despoil our watersheds and air. Oh, and while you are at it, maybe don't lock up so many people in prison.
In my immediate world, the people who are locked up in prison get out too fast and are soon back on my street, breaking into my car, stealing stuff. . Also many of the badnicks don't make it there to begin with. So no, I can't say that I agree with that.
ApatheticNoMore
2-23-16, 5:57pm
The only way to stop giving resources away to private industry, and the despoiling of natural resources, and the prison industrial complex and some of the MIC is to stop the corporations whom this benefits from buying our government officials (ok and private prisons shouldn't even be legal period but again that's only achieved by preventing them from buying the government).
The military spending is a little more involved than that, as it also creates jobs and so has a natural constituency there, and the U.S. empire benefits more corporations than just those involved in the MIC itself. Even prison spending creates some jobs. But the others are much more direct straight give-aways directly to certain corporations by our bought and paid for politicians. There is no we deciding, they aren't giving away resources on the cheap because it's what most people want, well maybe the Bundy bunch who enable nothing good, but not many. It's straight quid pro quo.
Football teams! yeah, football teams are tax exempt. What's that all about? And all those stadiums paid for with tax payer money. Churches, again tax exempt. Shouldn't be. if churches paid taxes, then we could feed and educate all the poor kids in the US. Big oil doesn't need subsidies. They don't. Israel doesn't need aid (which, let's be honest, is really just a bribe to keep them from starting sh*t over there) Especially in light of the fact that they have universal health care and education, what we deny our own citizens. Guess who's paying for that! Our military is big enough, than you very much, despite the 'call' from every right leaning politician to 'make it bigger, stronger' (whatever that means)
Now, as to this guy in the article, if he doesn't hide his wealth in overseas accounts to avoid taxes, then Bernie isn't talking about him. If he paid his workers fairly, with decent benefits, instead of slave wages, then Bernie isn't talking about him. If he understands the value of a healthy, educated workforce, and doesn't actively work against that, then Bernie isn't talking about him.
I know many don't want to understand Democratic Socialism, or don't want the 'unwashed masses' to understand it, but the fact is, it isn't hard. We already have a social Democratic system in that we have federal highways, schools, libraries, police and fire protection, SS, medicare, military, and other programs. That is what Democratic Socialism is. Period. it is WE The People. Government by and for the people. it isn't against wealthy people, as long as they obtained their wealth honestly, and pay fairly for the benefits they gain by having this wonderful country in order to build that wealth.
And yes, the guy in the article didn't build that. he didn't build the roads he uses to move his product, he didn't educate the workforce to build his crap, whatever it is, he didn't build the fire and police force that protects his business, or ensure clean water, food and air for his workforce. (and I doubt he worked 5000times harder than the people working for him)
No, a Social Democratic system has nothing against the wealthy. But that wealth needs to come from people willingly buying his stuff, whatever he is selling, and not through tax paid subsidies and bribes.
But does any of this answer my question? Is the average millionaire in fact in a lower bracket than the average truck driver as claimed?
I found this information from the National Taxpayers Union that would seem to indicate that they are not:
http://www.ntu.org/foundation/page/who-pays-income-taxes
I would also challenge your claim that "if churches paid taxes, then we could feed and educate all the poor kids in the US." Do you have any information to substantiate that, or were you just on a rhetorical roll?
Teacher Terry
2-23-16, 6:15pm
The prisons are full of drug users that would be cheaper and better to treat then to lock up or let them be addicted. If we let out all the drug users not dealers we would see a big reduction. Actually I am for legalization of drugs. The war on drugs is a big failure and we could put the $ for treatment for those that want it. You can't make someone recover until they want too.
But does any of this answer my question? Is the average millionaire in fact in a lower bracket than the average truck driver as claimed?
I find politifact is often helpful. It's complicated.
A "large proportion" of millionaires pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than a "significant proportion" of moderate-income taxpayers, said the report, which defined moderate-income as taxpayers with taxable income below $100,000.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/jan/25/tammy-baldwin/middle-class-pays-higher-tax-rates-millionaires-se/
I find politifact is often helpful. It's complicated.
A "large proportion" of millionaires pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than a "significant proportion" of moderate-income taxpayers, said the report, which defined moderate-income as taxpayers with taxable income below $100,000.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/jan/25/tammy-baldwin/middle-class-pays-higher-tax-rates-millionaires-se/
I'm sure it's complicated, and the above is a much less extravagant claim than Terry made. But in the age of Trump and Sanders, extravagant claims seem to be especially thick on the ground.
In my immediate world, the people who are locked up in prison get out too fast and are soon back on my street, breaking into my car, stealing stuff. . Also many of the badnicks don't make it there to begin with. So no, I can't say that I agree with that.
I'm fine with locking up the actual bad ones....
The problem with progressive tax is that it is well....progressive, until finally there is no money left to pay. Trump wants to build a wall to keep people out and Bernie Sanders is going to have to build a wall to keep people in. Can the wall function for both? I'd like to save a little on construction.
http://i1.wp.com/www.youngcons.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/wallcartoon.jpg?resize=600%2C429
It might be interesting if the day ever comes to see what percentage of his income Trump contributes to the operations of government. Relative to the middle class.
frugal-one
2-23-16, 8:12pm
Could be complicated. But if it were up to me I'd say social workers, nurses, public school teachers, and firemen should pay very little.
I'd say corporate executives should pay a lot more. I mean a lot more! :devil:
Some corporate execs make less than firefighters and teachers. Should they be taxed more based on their occupation?
Talk to me about raising taxes sometime after we decide to stop spending more on our military than the rest of the planet put together, while giving away our national forestry and mineral resources to private industry for pennies on the dollar, while allowing polluters to despoil our watersheds and air. Oh, and while you are at it, maybe don't lock up so many people in prison.
yes, yes and yes!
catherine
2-24-16, 11:38am
yes, yes and yes!
And I'll second that!
Some corporate execs make less than firefighters and teachers. Should they be taxed more based on their occupation?
I suppose it depends on the definition of corporate exec. After all, I could form a corporation that sells services, such as dog poop pickup. As the founder and sole owner I could call myself CEO and unless dog poop pickup services costs a lot more than I expect it does I doubt I'd make more than firefighters and teachers. But most execs of corporations with at least a few dozen employees probably do in fact earn more than firefighters and teachers. I assume these are the people UA was referencing.
I suppose it depends on the definition of corporate exec. After all, I could form a corporation that sells services, such as dog poop pickup. As the founder and sole owner I could call myself CEO and unless dog poop pickup services costs a lot more than I expect it does I doubt I'd make more than firefighters and teachers. But most execs of corporations with at least a few dozen employees probably do in fact earn more than firefighters and teachers. I assume these are the people UA was referencing.
Ah, but it's all a matter of bookkeeping, isn't it. There is personal income and corporate income. You can have quite a low personal income, subject to the higher tax rate, and really high corporate income, which is pretty low now and destined to be lower, or non-existent if republicans get in charge. Add to that depreciation, costs, etc...and all the other tax perks corporations get, and you end up with a G.E. or other huge corporation who pays no taxes.
It's all in bookkeeping.
Ah, but it's all a matter of bookkeeping, isn't it. There is personal income and corporate income. You can have quite a low personal income, subject to the higher tax rate, and really high corporate income, which is pretty low now and destined to be lower, or non-existent if republicans get in charge. Add to that depreciation, costs, etc...and all the other tax perks corporations get, and you end up with a G.E. or other huge corporation who pays no taxes.
It's all in bookkeeping.
While the US has among the highest top corporate tax rates in the industrial world, that's not the same as saying that US corporations pay more than their foreign competitors. It also doesn't mean, as many on the left claim, that US companies use nefarious legal and accounting jiggery-pokery to pay virtually nothing. When we consider effective tax rates, which take into account actual post-jiggery tax liabilities, the US corporate tax burden is only slightly higher than global averages.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2015/03/25/the-truth-about-corporate-tax-rates/#13aabc5a20a5
Much like America, other nations are reluctant to make their own firms less competitive by taxing them too heavily. They rely instead on higher individual income and consumption taxes to fund higher levels of social spending. That and lower defense spending, which will prove out to be prudent or tragic for them based on how history shakes out.
Williamsmith
2-24-16, 1:24pm
I do struggle with the military part of it. One side of me thinking once the companies that supply hardware to the military get attached to the teat of government funded contracts, they never let go and insiders get bloated contracts.......and the other side of me that says if we ever really need to defend ourselves (not this petty meddling in others sovereign business) but an attack or threat from a real rogue country......well I d like to have the best to keep that from happening. It's just that since Korea....including Vietnam, some other minor incursions, Iraq...Afghanistan..Lybia and Syria. I'm kinda sick of tipping my hat and opening doors for young veterans with their legs, arms and brains scrambled for no good reason. And my tax money paid for it. As conservatives.......shouldn't we be a bit more conservative with our military?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.