http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704608104575217870728420184.html?mod=rss_opinion_main Never topped 20%, even with a marginal tax rate ranging from 28-91% between 1950 and 2007. Don't try to blame this on any specific administration. Stop spending already and tax increases aren't worth jack.
I feel rather special for being singled out in the title. I feel a little annoyed, though, so many seem to have such a dim view of the capabilities of the American entrepreneur vs those in, say, Germany. Germany has a much higher tax burden and far greater regulatory issues. They've even got a more grim GDP/National Debt ratio, and even owes much more of its debt to foreign countries than we do. Yet there are people just like me over there who have no problem making a buck. However, they are sitting on a pretty enviable 6% unemployment rate. They do a much better job of investing in things like education, health care and infrastructure, especially in the good times, and it's helping them get through these rough times. Maybe I'm just less whiny than the US Chamber of Commerce, but I just don't feel like regulation or tax rates make that much difference in my day-to-day business. If my customers have jobs and can afford my products, I make money. If they don't, I don't. It doesn't take complicated arguments about revisions in health care policy or the ability of the top .5% to accumulate capital to fund investment in growth sectors to understand why I will or won't make a buck. I've got plenty of access to capital. I worry about health care, of course--a hell of a lot more than the typical German small businessman. But I'm in the same boat as everyone else. If my health care costs or finance costs or costs for conforming to some regulation or another rise, well, it's probably true for my competitors too. We all jack our prices a little and none are really that much better or worse off than the others. But if you take jobs away from my customers, especially in this current economy, well, I'm fucked. If the customers have no money, I have no business. Corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars in cash right now, too afraid to spend it because there's no point in investing if there ain't consumer demand. I am sitting on a very small nest egg too for the self-same reason. The only entity in the US that does have the wherewithal to cut massive checks in this economy is the federal government. Meanwhile, we've got infrastructure problems all over the place. I'd like to see our government: 1. Implement some new tax brackets for those making, say, more than $1 mil and $10 mil. 2. Vastly simplify the tax code for everyone, eliminating almost all deductions. Just a nice simple progressive system with space for obvious keepers like 401ks and college savings plans. Other than taxing the top .5% of the US more, it's otherwise revenue neutral. The focus is really simplicity, not raising revenues. 3. A long-term plan for Medicare/Medicaid/SS that puts it on the path to stability. I'm ok with raising ages, "death panels" (lol--I prefer the term "advanced care planning consultations", but whatever) and means testing. 4. Short-term investment in a major infrastructure stimulus plan focused on ports, highways, power grid, rail, etc. Also invest more in science/NASA, but the real dollars are actually quite minor. 5. Pulling out of Iraq/Afghanistan. Honestly, I think if Americans had an up or down vote on the above, I'd be shocked if it didn't pass with massive overwhelming support. It's a moderate, middle-of-the-road roadmap that sadly only makes sense in the real world and not the political world. So of course it has no chance of happening.
Ooo I don't want to post something short that would seem disrespectful mook. I've been in that position before where I make a long-winded argument only to see some punk complain, and post one line as a retort. You've almost put me in that position though, lol. I'll just stick to my side discussion, but just a few years ago the States seemed to be doing just fine. No matter what you feel is right only complex economic formulas matter, not feelings or emotions. Greece could be a perfect counterpoint to your example, and Germany is just one European country whereas many were devastated by the 2008 financial crisis. I don't think the point of Social Security is to get back more than what you've earned. The Department of Labor and Education are worthless and inefficient. This country is pretty big too, something you haven't considered. Spain and Peru are also larger, so is California. Germany does not seem analogous given that context. The federal government has different priorities and goals than local governments.
What makes "sense" doesn't matter. What matters is what produces results. The eye test and feel test are inadequate replacements for real political progress. People have to make real cuts if they want to get out of the debt crisis and save our credit rating.
You're just being blatantly dishonest here, with the $10/year garbage. A business will either be paying property tax or rent (which then has tax paid on it) just to remain in business, even without making any profit. A business that is paying those taxes, but just breaking even is not putting a drain on the economy while also keeping jobs.
Here's a pretty good piece by (of all people) David Frum: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/01/frum.debt.republicans/index.html I'll crop it down drastically, but I encourage everyone to read it:
One size does fit all, though. That "size" being whatever the Tea Party says it will be. All three branches of government have to conform to what a minority of one half of the legislative branch says (Tea Partiers in the House of Representatives), or they will no longer fund our government. If you really look at what's happening, it's blatantly un-democratic. Tea Partiers have the ability to go out and win elections on the platform of limited government. They can run Senate and Presidential campaigns based on that platform. If they win, they should have the power to dictate things like whether we pay our bills or not. But they haven't won those elections. They won one round of elections in the House of Representatives, and are leveraging that one win into dictating how the rest of our government behaves. Their strategy is "My way or nihilism." It's insanity. It's gimmicky. It's against the will of the majority of the American people (most Americans actually favor tax increases and much less drastic cuts to entitlements.) Sorry, I'm not really replying to your particular point. I'm just really frustrated that a group of people who represent maybe 20% of America are holding a gun to the rest of us and saying, "I will save you if you follow my plan, but if you don't I'll blow your head off." Go win some more elections if your ideas are so great. When you do, you'll have America on your side and I'll have no reason to complain.
Heh. No size fits all, not "one size." And vote counting (like the Whips do, like they do at board meetings, etc.) is one of the oldest things about democracy. This is nothing new or special. In the 40s and 50s, the Democrats had to deal with the Southern bigot types while trying to integrate the military, etc.
I don't care if there's a (D), (R), (Tea) or (I) after your name...if you don't think that spending is massively out-of-control, then your head's in the sand. These "massive cuts" that the compromise calls for seem utterly ridiculous. Really? We had to go to the brink of default for our lawmakers to compromise on the need to cut 5% of the projected overrun of the next decade? WTF is that? The deficit is a symptom of America's problems. Namely, that we've become a social-welfare state without thinking through how to actually do it. We didn't set our country up like Norway (or even France or Germany) and are now wondering why we can't pay for things that Germans and French get for free. We finally took the mantle of becoming masters of our own geopolitical destiny and now seem shocked that ships and planes and tanks and soldiers actually cost money (forget that military spending has gone from ~15% of GDP to <5% in the last 50 years). Joe and Jane American (in the words of Mark Hertsgaard, who I generally disagree with) "are barely aware of their own history, much less anyone else's." I was too young to understand what Carter and Reagan and Bush I were doing, other than what I saw on TV. I didn't have time to read up on the intricacies and politics of the Clinton Administation, and I spent much of the Bush one at sea. I don't have the energy or feel the need to "assign blame" to people of the past (including the first 18 months of the Obama administation) except to analyze the facts. But what I'm seeing from our lawmakers in the last year or so is making me a bit sick. I imagine the greybeards here will tell me that it's "business as usual", but how the hell can (assumingly) smart people, elected by millions, be unable to comprehend a profit/loss sheet (or, failing that, a checkbook register)? How can people think that a "SuperCongress" or backroom bribing to get people to cross the party lines for an unpopular vote are the right way to do things? I'll repeat this, since some don't seem to be acknowledging it...you could remove the entire Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, and NASA and still have a budget overrun of $600B. If you want to "compromise" and say "sure, keep DoD/DHS (with some small cuts here and there) but make sure you bring home every soldier, ship and plane from Iraq and Afghanistan", you have only shaved ~$150B...or <10% of the federal overrun. We aren't set up to be an entitlement state. Nowhere was Social Security supposed to support people for the last 12-15 years (on average) of their life. Medicare taxes weren't calculated to be able to support the costs and quantity of all the care people are using it for. We haven't set up a tax to cover the interest of the debt we're piling up, which is causing more overruns (~200B this year, or ~20% of all income tax receipts...and rising). The compromise can't be this tepid. If you want to push against Hauser's law (which I've only recently learned about, so excuse me if I used that the wrong way) to raise taxes in the belief that it'll be beneficial, then fine. But I can't fathom how our lawmakers feel that there doesn't need to be a concomitant cut in our spending (which DoD has already implemented, and is looking at more) or a reason to ensure that budgets going forward cannot add to the debt problems. looking forward to the tl;dr's like with the last medicare/caid post
Not all businesses pay rent or own property. For example, if you were a "consultant" you probably wouldn't pay any additional property tax, although you might avoid paying some income tax by claiming your daughter's bedroom as an office. So, you continue to avoid the question: is it fair/reasonable/good policy that profitable businesses subsidize unprofitable businesses? barfo
And the "consultant" like you're suggesting wouldn't have many expenses, making most of their revenue profit... thus they would pay tax on it. The example of using the daughter's bedroom as a write-off is illegal. I didn't know you had changed the debate to: "should we enforce current tax law?". You're trying to find one-off examples instead of the majority, and it is pretty boring. Your question isn't applicable, so I'll ask an equally inapplicable question: Should frogs be taxed per mile that they fly? Don't avoid the question.
I didn't. That comment was just for color. I favor takeoff and landing fees rather than a per-mile charge. Why do you claim my question is not applicable? The US has a tax policy at present to tax corporate profits, you implied that you favor that policy versus taxing revenue. I'm just asking why. It's not a difficult question. barfo
Apparently barfo isn't up-to-date on the tax ramifications of running your own LLC. Plus, you can't write off your daughter's bedroom, but it is legal to write off a home office, although that really doesn't mean much in terms of actual tax obligations. Hint - my taxes are much more than he paid at his cushy union job.
You are hilariously incorrect on that score. That one you actually got right. One for three. I kind of think you don't have any idea about that. But, feel free to post how much tax you paid, and I'll let you know whether you were right or not. barfo
