Forum Replies Created

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 22 total)
  • Author
    Posts
    • Wed, Jul 06, 2011 - 02:05pm

      #14
      Useyerloaf

      Useyerloaf

      Status Member (Offline)

      Joined: Mar 08 2011

      Posts: 22

      count placeholder0

      goes211 wrote:Useyerloaf

    [quote=goes211]

    [quote=Useyerloaf]

    Seeing how there has been nothing but tax cuts since the 1960’s, I can’t see how you think there is not a revenue problem. The top rate was 91% in the early 1960’s, it’s now down to a little more than a third of that now.

    [/quote]

    Are taxes supposed to punish success or generate revenue?  If the answer is generate revenue, then how are the rates much of an indicator of anything as long is revenue is increasing at least proportionate to the economy.  However, it can still be a spending problem if spending is increasing at a faster rate than tax revenue or the economy at large.

    [/quote]

     

    It should be obvious to anyone that after 40 years of tax cuts that when towns are forced to lay off teachers, firemen, policemen, and turn off street lights there is indeed a revenue problem. The same goes for the country at large. Anyone who’s now paying 35%  before deductions who used to pay 91% is certainly not being punished.

    • Mon, Jul 04, 2011 - 10:03pm

      #12
      Useyerloaf

      Useyerloaf

      Status Member (Offline)

      Joined: Mar 08 2011

      Posts: 22

      count placeholder0

      dshields wrote:I do not

    [quote=dshields]

    I do not think we have a revenue problem, I think we have a spending problem.  I have never heard of the Fed Gov having a spending decrease after a revenue increase.  For many years the Fed Gov has always spent more than they have taken in.  At some point we have to draw a line and say we are not going to keep spending more and raising taxes more forever.  At some point if you keep raising taxes there will be an implosion as fair percentage of the people will no have enough money to meet their current obligations.  I think we should draw the line now.  We need to see real spending decreases.  For instance. the Dept of Education does not educate anybody as far as I know.  Why do we need a Fed Dept of Ed at all ?  If it actually does have some few useful functions, save those and cut the rest.  Free all the people back to the private sector where instead of being overhead they can be productive.  Stop the crazy wars.  That would save a aircraft carrier of money.  We can do it.  We just have to elect politicians with back bone.  Fed Gov spending could be cut say 25% without causing a revolution if we focus on stuff we really do not need.

     

     

    [/quote]

     

    Seeing how there has been nothing but tax cuts since the 1960’s, I can’t see how you think there is not a revenue problem. The top rate was 91% in the early 1960’s, it’s now down to a little more than a third of that now.

    • Wed, Mar 30, 2011 - 03:45pm

      #287
      Useyerloaf

      Useyerloaf

      Status Member (Offline)

      Joined: Mar 08 2011

      Posts: 22

      count placeholder0

      Tax solutions?

    [quote=littleone]

    Henry George , author of Progress and Poverty, observed that the growth of industry seemed to worsen poverty…and here is why…

    The taxes paid by the poor or the rich is not the only factor in inequity. Wealth ultimately comes from resources/land. Only land owners should pay taxes because they have access to the resources.  Land taxes should not include improvements made to the land, just a basic tax on the raw land. For this to work properly, all other taxes on labor and sales would need to be eliminated. This shifts the focus from sheer profit to responsibility…and also does not over-burden those who do not have access to resources/land. Think….what if all the corporations had to pay taxes on all the land they occupy?

    I am curious what others think of this idea.

    -littleone

    [/quote]

     

    Then the corps would just “sell” the land to some post office box corporation in the Cayman Islands and “rent” it from themselves, then claim it as a business expense at tax time.

    • Wed, Mar 30, 2011 - 03:41pm

      #286
      Useyerloaf

      Useyerloaf

      Status Member (Offline)

      Joined: Mar 08 2011

      Posts: 22

      count placeholder0

      Sucks not to be part of the corporatocracy

    [quote=xraymike79]

    [quote=Useyerloaf]

    [quote=dshields]

    [quote=safewrite]

    Okay, back to Wisconsin.

    Here’s more new from Reuters. The WI senate republicans basically said, “In your face!”

    “(Reuters) – Wisconsin Republicans said on Friday a measure stripping state public employees of most collective bargaining rights was now in effect after it was published by a legislative agency despite a judge’s order against publication.

    The move looked certain to stir fresh controversy over the legislation, which in recent weeks sparked huge demonstrations and ignited a national struggle over efforts by several budget-strapped state governments to rein in union power.”

    Read the article. It was done on a technicality, but then so was the restraining order. WHAT I SEE COMING is a test of the “separation of powers.” The legislative branch just challenged the judicial branch of our government.

    I’d say that was long overdue.

    [/quote]

    Yes, yes, and yes.  This is all pretty simple.  There is not enough money to pay for the gov services we have become accustomed to having.  The gov has to be cut at all level.  The different local, state, and fed govs will take different paths and use different methods but the end result is cutting.  Big cuts.  Costs have to be brought in line with revenue.  It is just that simply.  While I politically disagree with unions in the gov, it does not really make any difference.  It just makes for some interesting side shows because the cuts have to be and will made – union or no union.

    A legal show down will be interesting.  But, it will not make any difference.  The cuts are coming no matter what.

     

    [/quote]

    The money is there, it’s just not being paid by big corporations:

    the 10 worst corporate income tax avoiders.

     

     1)      Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009.  Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

     2)      Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

     3)      Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

     4)      Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

     5)      Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

     6)      Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

     7)      Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

     8)      Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

     9)      ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

     10)  Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

    [/quote]

    Useyerloaf,

    What they mean is that there is not enough money to maintain social services for the general public while keeping the entrenched practice of corporate tax dodging in place. Someone’s gotta pay and it won’t be the crony capitalist corporations, so it’s gotta be the lowly minions. Sucks not to be part of the corporatocracy. And if you question this then you must be anti-capitalist, but realy you’re anti-crony capitalist.

    [/quote]

    That’s not what’s being claimed, what’s been said for the most part in the media and forums like this is the debt is the fault of unions, social programs, earmarks etc. While runaway expansion of programs does contribute to the debt, the biggest problem has been an accumulation of years of corporate tax avoidance and big subsidies to business’s that are already profitable.

    • Wed, Mar 30, 2011 - 03:04am

      #281
      Useyerloaf

      Useyerloaf

      Status Member (Offline)

      Joined: Mar 08 2011

      Posts: 22

      count placeholder0

      yes, yes, and yes…

    [quote=dshields]

    [quote=safewrite]

    Okay, back to Wisconsin.

    Here’s more new from Reuters. The WI senate republicans basically said, “In your face!”

    “(Reuters) – Wisconsin Republicans said on Friday a measure stripping state public employees of most collective bargaining rights was now in effect after it was published by a legislative agency despite a judge’s order against publication.

    The move looked certain to stir fresh controversy over the legislation, which in recent weeks sparked huge demonstrations and ignited a national struggle over efforts by several budget-strapped state governments to rein in union power.”

    Read the article. It was done on a technicality, but then so was the restraining order. WHAT I SEE COMING is a test of the “separation of powers.” The legislative branch just challenged the judicial branch of our government.

    I’d say that was long overdue.

    [/quote]

    Yes, yes, and yes.  This is all pretty simple.  There is not enough money to pay for the gov services we have become accustomed to having.  The gov has to be cut at all level.  The different local, state, and fed govs will take different paths and use different methods but the end result is cutting.  Big cuts.  Costs have to be brought in line with revenue.  It is just that simply.  While I politically disagree with unions in the gov, it does not really make any difference.  It just makes for some interesting side shows because the cuts have to be and will made – union or no union.

    A legal show down will be interesting.  But, it will not make any difference.  The cuts are coming no matter what.

     

    [/quote]

    The money is there, it’s just not being paid by big corporations:

    the 10 worst corporate income tax avoiders.

     

     1)      Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009.  Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

     2)      Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

     3)      Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

     4)      Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

     5)      Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

     6)      Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

     7)      Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

     8)      Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

     9)      ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

     10)  Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

    • Sun, Mar 27, 2011 - 12:57am

      #42
      Useyerloaf

      Useyerloaf

      Status Member (Offline)

      Joined: Mar 08 2011

      Posts: 22

      count placeholder0

      Healthcare costs went up

    [quote=docmims]

    Healthcare costs went up because it because the consumer never got the bill.  it got paid by insurance or the government, therefore there was no price feedback to decrease use of services.

    [/quote]

    Balls, healthcare ends up costing more because a treatable disease is not treated in its early stages. Why? because the sick can’t afford to go to the Doctor and end up in emergency wards. Using your logic medical costs in the USA should be the cheapest in the world.  Lots of consumers are getting the bills, medical bills are one of the largest causes of bankruptcy in the USA.

    • Fri, Mar 25, 2011 - 12:44pm

      #28
      Useyerloaf

      Useyerloaf

      Status Member (Offline)

      Joined: Mar 08 2011

      Posts: 22

      count placeholder0

      third world?

     

    [/quote]

     

    But it’s a big country – maybe not all areas are growing. But you can’t judge the entire country just because you stopped in some crappy podunk town that has seen flight to the cities because there aren’t jobs there anymore.

    [/quote]

     

    First off I’ve got no political reason to make a statement regarding the decline of cities in the USA, I don’t even live there. Second, 1500 miles from the northern border of the USA to the gulf of Mexico is not one “Podunk town”, it’s good swath through the bulk of the eastern USA. When one gets off the interstates you see more of this decline, secondary roads, roads that were pavement are now gravel. This decline is even more apparent. As a resident you would not notice a gradual decline near as much as some one who has not been in the country in 10 years. You might find that upsetting, but then the truth often is…

    • Thu, Mar 24, 2011 - 12:49pm

      #9
      Useyerloaf

      Useyerloaf

      Status Member (Offline)

      Joined: Mar 08 2011

      Posts: 22

      count placeholder0

      Harper selling out Canada

    [quote=SteveW]

    [quote=Useyerloaf]and are now the first party in the history of the country to be charged with being in “Contempt of Parliment”.

    [/quote]

    I’ve been travelling and missed this report.

    [quote]

    “This contempt report — a first in the history of Canada and the Commonwealth — is the result of the Harper regime’s abuse of power,” Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said in a statement. He added that the finding undermines the credibility of the federal budget that is set to be delivered Tuesday, because the government can’t be trusted.[/quote]

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/03/21/pol-privilege-contempt.html

    First time ever in any English type parliamentary system. Ignatieff hits the nail on the head “the government can’t be trusted”. They break the rules of parliamentary privilege and there is yet another case of a minister misleading [parliamentary speak for lying] parlament.

    [quote]

    Oda stands accused of misleading Parliament about the insertion of the word “not” on a funding proposal by the aid organization Kairos, thus ending the group’s federal funding.[/quote]

    The contempt report or the budget should bring down the government by next week. 

    [/quote]

    I think their true stripes came out for all to see during the G8/G20 this past summer, Hypocrits. They bitched for years about money spent for daycare, woman’s shelters and Canadian taxpayers rights, then turned the lagest city in Canada into an armed camp, blowing two billion for two days of pretending to be a world power.

    • Wed, Mar 23, 2011 - 01:17am

      #21
      Useyerloaf

      Useyerloaf

      Status Member (Offline)

      Joined: Mar 08 2011

      Posts: 22

      count placeholder0

      apples and oranges

    [quote=soulsurfersteph]

    [quote=Useyerloaf]

    With all due respect,  the economies of scale, low minimum wage laws, lack of unions means things should be cheaper to run in the USA.  As for military spending Canada, with a population of only about 34 million, ranks 13th in the world. Canada also has one of the most cosmopolitan populations in the world due to immigration, which runs at about 250,000 a year. What we do have is higher taxation, social programs, healthcare and a “Locked box” old age pension system.

    Canada went through a similar situation back in the early 1990’s that USA currently finds itself. The country was on the verge of default, spending was cut, BUT taxes were raised. By 1996/97 the budget was in balance and produced a surplus every year until the Conservatives got in.  Against all advice they cut a sales tax by 2%, increased spending and brought on yearly budget deficits.

    [/quote]

    With all due respect, the America you describe (streetlights turned off, shabby parks, fast food signs luring people to ghost towns) is not the America I live in. I recently drove halfway across the country and experienced nothing of the sort. I also live in an area (Austin) where there are ample bike lanes, lovely parks, and new freeways being built – the only problem with this is the planners can’t keep up with all the new traffic from the new people moving here.

    Back in Los Angeles, we had beautiful beaches, lots of parks, including one of the largest urban parks, lots of places to hike, and all street lights working. OK, there are bad areas but as I’ve said, there are bad areas in Vancouver too. Los Angeles also built an entire subway system while I was living there. It could still be expanded but it is a very nice system and each station has unique art decorating it.

    And I’ll bet your mere 250,000 immigrants per year are screened and therefore more likely to be educated when they get to Canada…versus the 750,000+ *illegal* immigrants we have coming to America (for a total of 11 million), not to mention an additional 1 million + legal immigrants…

    The total population of Canada is what…35 million? The total population of California alone exceeds that at 37 million.

    I don’t have anything against Canada, but comparing a large country, whose population is less than California, to America is to me comparing apples and oranges. It’s kind of a pet peeve of mine, like when people compare European countries that are the size of small American states to the United States and then blast the US for not having the same benefits. Well, we’re a lot bigger, it’s not as easy to do. Not to mention, we don’t have centuries of infastructure and cute old buildings to make us look “quaint” and pretty like Europe does.

    And those European states wouldn’t be half as cozy if the big U.S. wasn’t shielding them with our military and providing worldwide economic stability. Once our military inevitably weakens (because it costs too much) and the European socialist policies become untenable (already happening in France, Greece, UK, Portugal) don’t be surprised to see more civil unrest and possibly outright war in Europe.

    There are certain things I don’t like about America – strip malls, for example – but to make it out like it’s falling apart is a bit much. It does depend on the area – of course some small towns may not be as vibrant as other areas, but I suspect Canada has some places like that too.

     

     

    [/quote]

     

    If you didn’t get out of the country you wouldn’t notice it as much as someone who had been away for 10 years and returned, just ask any expat back for a visit and they’ll tell your the same ” what the hell has happened to this country”.  I can only report what I saw driving in the 1500 miles from USA from upper New York  to Panama city Florida, which is a good swipe of the country from north to south.

     

     

     

    • Wed, Mar 23, 2011 - 12:22am

      #19
      Useyerloaf

      Useyerloaf

      Status Member (Offline)

      Joined: Mar 08 2011

      Posts: 22

      count placeholder0

      It’s a spending problem!

    [quote=rhare]

    [quote=Useyerloaf]Another is inflation, on can’t compare costs from 20 years ago with the current situation due to inflation and the devaluation of the dollar.[/quote]

    Ahh, but the education figures were per student!  So they are increasing.

    Inflation is a different issue.  Let’s see, if we didn’t have the Fed printing money to prop up the ever growing government, then we wouldn’t have inflation.  It’s because the money supplied is screwed with that we get the inflation – which is a substantial tax on the consumer.  I would much prefer direct taxation, of course politicians like inflation since it’s not directly obvious the cause.  That way they can spend much more and make promises that could never be met and would not be tolerated if they actually had to tax people to cover the costs.

    Anyway, on your population growth:

    1990 – 249.4 million     Outlays: 1.253T   Revenue:  1.031T

    2011 – 308.0 million     Outlays: 3.82T     Revenue:  2.17T

    • Population:  +  23.5%
    • Outlays:        + 204.9%
    • Revenue:     + 110.5%

    So aren’t things supposed to get cheaper the larger you get, you know economies of scale, or does it work opposite for government?  Sure you want to continue saying it’s because of that population increase?  Off the cuff, that looks like about 7% inflation for the last 20 years (70/20) shown in the spending portion. and 3.5% inflation in the revenue portion.

    Source(s):

     

    [/quote]

    How much of the deficit outlays for 2010/11 are related to 2- 1/2 wars and the continued bailing out the financial markets? 

    Not all inflation is related to monetary policy, a great many food commodities have increased in price because of the increased energy input costs. Cost per student also increases because of inflation, as an example,  if it cost $6500.00 per student in 1990 dollars would take $11,006.10 in 2011 dollars to pay for the same student.

    http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 22 total)