| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/06/2012 08:54:16 AM · #351 |
Some insight from Woodward
Always good to get a peek behind the curtain. |
|
|
|
09/06/2012 12:58:39 PM · #352 |
| This thread has really gotten taken over... I'm still waiting on a rebuttal addressing my post from over a week ago. |
|
|
|
09/06/2012 01:24:50 PM · #353 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
This thread has really gotten taken over... I'm still waiting on a rebuttal addressing my post from over a week ago. |
Here's an interesting question I don't know the answer to. We always hear complains from the left about the low effective tax paid by the super rich compared to other countries. What about our middle class compared to other countries? Is our effective tax equivalent? higher? lower? This might be a more difficult question because I'd be interested in a total tax paid (including sales, VAT, property, income, payroll, etc. etc.)
I'm curious where we stand. |
|
|
|
09/06/2012 02:23:07 PM · #354 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
This thread has really gotten taken over... I'm still waiting on a rebuttal addressing my post from over a week ago. |
Here's an interesting question I don't know the answer to. We always hear complains from the left about the low effective tax paid by the super rich compared to other countries. What about our middle class compared to other countries? Is our effective tax equivalent? higher? lower? This might be a more difficult question because I'd be interested in a total tax paid (including sales, VAT, property, income, payroll, etc. etc.)
I'm curious where we stand. |
I don't know how to find class-specific data on other countries, but the overall tax burden borne by the total US citizenry as a percentage of GDP is ridiculously low given the degree of complaining heard from billionaires ...
Originally posted by CIA World Factbook:
Country Comparison :: Taxes and other revenues
This entry records total taxes and other revenues received by the national government during the time period indicated, expressed as a percent of GDP. Taxes include personal and corporate income taxes, value added taxes, excise taxes, and tariffs. Other revenues include social contributions - such as payments for social security and hospital insurance - grants, and net revenues from public enterprises. Normalizing the data, by dividing total revenues by GDP, enables easy comparisons across countries, and provides an average rate at which all income (GDP) is paid to the national level government for the supply of public goods and services.Taxes and other revenues:
51.6% of GDP (2011 est.) Sweden — country comparison to the world: 16
49.9% of GDP (2011 est.) France — country comparison to the world: 21
43.4% of GDP (2011 est.) Germany — country comparison to the world: 33
40.8% of GDP (2011 est.) United Kingdom — country comparison to the world: 46
46.6% of GDP (2011 est.) Italy — country comparison to the world: 28
15.3% of GDP* United States — country comparison to the world: 193 *note: excludes contributions for social security and other programs; if social contributions were added, taxes and other revenues would amount to approximately 22% of GDP (2011 est.), and the ranking would go to about 145th. |
Complete list of rankings here |
|
|
|
09/06/2012 03:31:27 PM · #355 |
| You're changing the subject... but a quick look shows me that again it's a cultural difference. Sweden has a deep seeded trust for government. They trust that the government knows best. The United States was built on a deep distrust of government. Sweden's goal is to create a welfare state. The United States puts more emphasis on individual freedoms and the value of individual success. Plus, based on the Constitution, the federal government of the US is limited in scope by design. |
|
|
|
09/06/2012 03:48:45 PM · #356 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
You're changing the subject... but a quick look shows me that again it's a cultural difference. Sweden has a deep seeded trust for government. They trust that the government knows best. The United States was built on a deep distrust of government. Sweden's goal is to create a welfare state. The United States puts more emphasis on individual freedoms and the value of individual success. Plus, based on the Constitution, the federal government of the US is limited in scope by design. |
Did you miss that the US is 193rd in the world? I don't think all of the other 192 other nations trust their government's "welfare state" all that much more than we do ... plus I think you'll find that Swedes are quite as "free" as we are, including being free to go to the doctor when they need to ...
Ever hear the phrase "you get what you pay for"? If we want to pay second-rate taxes, then we should expect second-rate highways, levees that breach, bridges which fail, and in general a second-rate government ... |
|
|
|
09/06/2012 04:03:28 PM · #357 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I don't know how to find class-specific data on other countries, but the overall tax burden borne by the total US citizenry as a percentage of GDP is ridiculously low given the degree of complaining heard from billionaires ...
|
I don't know how to find that data either, but I think it's important. There are two centrist arguments I think that can be made from this data:
1) While you correctly point out that billionaires have little to complain about given the 193rd ranking, I'm speculating these low collection rates reach to the middle class as well. Perhaps there is something to the argument that we ALL need to increase our giving to the government, especially if we want to maintain the service level we currently have. This leads to argument #2...
2) Just collecting more taxes doesn't guarantee anything. I see Spain and Greece in the 30s and 60s and far above us. The equation clearly has more variables and the level of government spending is important as well.
To me the obvious truth, the elephant in the room, is that we have only maintained our level of government spending and our level of tax collection at the same time only by borrowing. This is unsustainable. Either we need to collect more or spend less or both. No politician that I've seen will fess up to this. Nobody. One day these facts will simply not care who is in office and will change our lives and nobody will be able to do one thing about it. I just don't know when that day will be. I honestly fear for it. Human nature, being what it is, does not typically respond well on days like that. |
|
|
|
09/06/2012 04:34:19 PM · #358 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
You're changing the subject... but a quick look shows me that again it's a cultural difference. Sweden has a deep seeded trust for government. They trust that the government knows best. The United States was built on a deep distrust of government. Sweden's goal is to create a welfare state. The United States puts more emphasis on individual freedoms and the value of individual success. Plus, based on the Constitution, the federal government of the US is limited in scope by design. |
Did you miss that the US is 193rd in the world? I don't think all of the other 192 other nations trust their government's "welfare state" all that much more than we do ... plus I think you'll find that Swedes are quite as "free" as we are, including being free to go to the doctor when they need to ... |
Here's a good link for you. Really listen to what this guy is saying. Sure you can go to the doctor, but you have to wait in line... and don't expect any medical breakthroughs there. Healthcare has unlimited want, but limited resources. So what's the limiting factor - money or waiting in line. There's no perfect system, only different approaches based on cultural mindsets. //www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbTEzhaXZ3w
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Ever hear the phrase "you get what you pay for"? If we want to pay second-rate taxes, then we should expect second-rate highways, levees that breach, bridges which fail, and in general a second-rate government ... |
It's more of a question of what SHOULD we be paying the government for. Public safety, defense, common welfare (roads, bridges), NASA, judicial systems, all fine!... But the argument is over where we draw the line... and how we deal with tax income limitations dictated by the economy.
The reason government cannot be trusted is because there is no competition. Competition is what drives better quality, not necessarily more money. Governments have no competition, so we get inefficiencies like the DMV, Social Security, Welfare... they are not competing for profit... all they do is spend money and they are really good at wasting it! Really the only thing reigning them in is budget control... which the US has basically lost control of. It's a simple difference of philosophy... with a business, extra money is reinvested... with a public sector, extra money is spent or lost. This somewhat goes back to the Sweden argument. Look where healthcare advances are coming from - the US? or Sweden.
Recessions are natural (and important) business cycles because during times of prosperity, companies get lots of revenue, reinvest it in the company, grow the company, budgets get larger, etc. Cost cutting is not #1 because the companies are making good profits. During recessions companies do not get as much revenue, and have to cut back. They take a critical look at what is important to the business, where they need to retain progress, and cut excess fat. They get more efficient. So the cycle of investing for growth and then focusing on efficiency is normal and important to a competitive business.
Our government is trying to ignore this recession (cut) side of the cycle. We grow our federal budget every year like clockwork, these recession years are no different. Our government doesn't know how to cut the fat.
Read up on Hauser's Law when it comes to the net effect of US income taxation... sure there are rebuttals, but it doesn't mean that the observations are not historically true. So as a result, the US government should be about 18% of the GDP, no matter the taxation.
Message edited by author 2012-09-06 17:01:25. |
|
|
|
09/06/2012 05:23:13 PM · #359 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
One day these facts will simply not care who is in office and will change our lives and nobody will be able to do one thing about it. I just don't know when that day will be. I honestly fear for it. Human nature, being what it is, does not typically respond well on days like that. |
I hereby nominate Jason for the Woe Party candidate.
The government could take ALL our money and they would spend 150% of it, with 50% of that being just plain waste. That's just their nature. The waste is so bad and so immense that they treat it like it's own pool of funds that they can divert to newly proposed programs. CUT spending, THEN raise taxes if necessary, but first SIMPLIFY the tax code. |
|
|
|
09/06/2012 05:27:19 PM · #360 |
| You can be my VP Art. Together we can limp along until Armageddon! |
|
|
|
09/06/2012 05:28:06 PM · #361 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You can be my VP Art. Together we can limp along until Armageddon! |
Woot! Woot! Woot! Mayan calendars for everyone!
eta: I can see Armageddon from my back yard.
etaa: Nevermind. That IS my back yard. :/
Message edited by author 2012-09-06 17:30:14. |
|
|
|
09/06/2012 05:53:05 PM · #362 |
| James, forget the piddly stuff. Give me your opinion on this. Defense, social security, health care. What % do we cut of each? If you really want kudos, you can tell me what or how you would cut each. You have 30 seconds. Go! |
|
|
|
09/06/2012 06:02:48 PM · #363 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
James, forget the piddly stuff. Give me your opinion on this. Defense, social security, health care. What % do we cut of each? If you really want kudos, you can tell me what or how you would cut each. You have 30 seconds. Go! |
Considering what you spend on defence, that might be a starting point. You might also consider revisiting some of your social programs.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/06/2012 06:28:00 PM · #364 |
| Uh, I was doing exactly that! |
|
|
|
09/06/2012 11:19:14 PM · #365 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
James, forget the piddly stuff. Give me your opinion on this. Defense, social security, health care. What % do we cut of each? If you really want kudos, you can tell me what or how you would cut each. You have 30 seconds. Go! |
I wish it were that simple. But to play your game, the numbers say that we would need to cut approximately 40% across the board on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Defense, and Discretionary buckets (the others are mandatory) in order to balance the budget.
Obviously that wouldn't fly. You'd have mobs of poor and old people storming the capitol.
On the converse, to actually balance the budget by raising taxes (for a very short term), you would have to raise taxes by 60% (including corporate tax, SS, and income). This would result in nearly immediate economic stagnation.
The only way to balance the budget is a long-term approach. The core of the path of fiscal responsibility is through growing the economy. As I linked to earlier, Hauser's Law states that the US revenue is loosely 18% of the GDP no matter the tax rate (or at least has been that way for the past 7 decades). Along with growing the economy, we have to have planned decreases in our federal budget (as opposed to the standard planned budgetary increases every year that are normal operating procedure).
Fast reactions are not good for the economy... slow well-laid-out methodical changes have to be set in place.
I will be honest, I do not know enough or have enough data right now to really think through and lay out the framework for such a plan. Mainly because most of it is based on macroeconomic theory. However, I know that is basically the only option we really have. Economic and tax policy to grow the GDP + slow and systematic spending cuts and social reform. Nothing else seems to add up.
I'm willing to listen to any other reasonable proposals.
Message edited by author 2012-09-07 07:48:16. |
|
|
|
09/06/2012 11:43:48 PM · #366 |
I like your answer. It was honest. I wasn't expecting you to have the solution, but I am happy to see you realize the magnitude of the craphole we find ourselves in.
I am pessimistic. I think we will not get out. It will only end with bloodshed. That's why I head up the Woe ticket. |
|
|
|
09/06/2012 11:58:15 PM · #367 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I am pessimistic. I think we will not get out. It will only end with bloodshed. |
Regardless of what you mean by the "bloodshed" comment, rest assured that those paying the piper in that respect will NOT be part of the 1%.
I am not an American and would wager good money that there were more members of my family that served in the US military than did individuals (or their offsprings)coveting the highest office of the land.
Some things never change, the lower classes are always called upon to defend the elite and should your projection come to fruition, the same scenario will come back to the forefront.
Ray
|
|
|
|
09/07/2012 11:10:01 AM · #368 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Some things never change, the lower classes are always called upon to defend the elite and should your projection come to fruition, the same scenario will come back to the forefront.
Ray |
Unless they are too busy trying to slit their throats. See 1776.
Message edited by author 2012-09-07 11:10:24. |
|
|
|
09/07/2012 11:31:42 AM · #369 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I like your answer. It was honest. I wasn't expecting you to have the solution, but I am happy to see you realize the magnitude of the craphole we find ourselves in.
I am pessimistic. I think we will not get out. It will only end with bloodshed. That's why I head up the Woe ticket. |
The biggest issue I see is the growing interest. The treasury has been projecting that for quite a while though.
This should be mandatory for all taxpayers to read before submitting their tax returns: //fms.treas.gov/fr/11frusg/11guide.pdf |
|
|
|
09/07/2012 01:26:11 PM · #370 |
| After today's jobs data the major networks have officially called the election for Romney. All hail the new chief! |
|
|
|
09/07/2012 01:44:21 PM · #371 |
It's impossible to predict what will happen to the debt. The strong economy of the 90's erased a huge deficit. That could happen again.
It's not that hard to go through the budget and make it balanced. It's not even that hard for two people with different ideologies to do it. The hard part is getting hundreds of people in two parties and two chambers to do it. |
|
|
|
09/07/2012 01:46:57 PM · #372 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
After today's jobs data the major networks have officially called the election for Romney. All hail the new chief! |
To add insult to injury, Bain Capital is a private company so there's no Halliburton-like stock wave to ride when he gets into office. |
|
|
|
09/07/2012 03:51:50 PM · #373 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
It's impossible to predict what will happen to the debt. The strong economy of the 90's erased a huge deficit. That could happen again. |
Agreed, only because it's nearly impossible to understand how the economy will react to policy. It's all a game of theory, and you must take into account multiple models. However, they all tend to agree that we have yet to fix our budgetary issues... the biggest issue being the ever-rising interest on debt. In every non-partisan projection I have seen, it shows a runaway system due to interest.
Originally posted by posthumous:
It's not that hard to go through the budget and make it balanced. It's not even that hard for two people with different ideologies to do it. The hard part is getting hundreds of people in two parties and two chambers to do it. |
Points well made, but I still argue that it is not even that simple for two people to go through it. Our budget has runaway from our tax income so far, and our economy and people are expecting so much assistance from the government, that the necessary actions will not be popular or easy. We as a country, an economy, a people, must ween ourselves off of government money - our current path is not sustainable.
And I implore you all to look into and find the real root issues. The root issue is not necessarily low taxation. Taxation changes have proven to only perturbate the tax income in the short term. We need to look at longer term answers and solutions. Welfare reform must take place. Budgets must get trimmed. The problem lies in congress... where the majority of members refuse to see past their next election. Even if they do have enough foresight, it needs to be something of a paradigm shift in the way we handle our federal expenses. |
|
|
|
09/07/2012 04:26:23 PM · #374 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
It's not that hard to go through the budget and make it balanced. It's not even that hard for two people with different ideologies to do it. The hard part is getting hundreds of people in two parties and two chambers to do it. |
Difficult but not impossible. It's been done before. What makes it nearly impossible now is that half the participants have colluded to sabotage and bring down the president and have thereby sabotaged the economic recovery; and half of that half are Tea Party hysterics who don't know the first thing about how an economy works and aren't interested in learning. |
|
|
|
09/07/2012 04:35:22 PM · #375 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by posthumous:
It's not that hard to go through the budget and make it balanced. It's not even that hard for two people with different ideologies to do it. The hard part is getting hundreds of people in two parties and two chambers to do it. |
Difficult but not impossible. It's been done before. What makes it nearly impossible now is that half the participants have colluded to sabotage and bring down the president and have thereby sabotaged the economic recovery; and half of that half are Tea Party hysterics who don't know the first thing about how an economy works and aren't interested in learning. |
Party wonk blathering.
My kids are 12 and 9. They fight and bicker. When I'm giving them a talking to all Caden wants to do is tell me about Laine and all Laine wants to do is tell me about Caden. You sound like my kids. |
|
