I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

Raising Taxes Will Not Balance The Budget

Hits: 5424 | Rating: (2.4) | Category: News & Politics | Added by: 5Cats
Page: 1 2 3 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
Stormwolf
Female, 40-49, Western US
 74 Posts
Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:16:24 PM
Something else no one seems to consider is Charities. You see, a lot of rich people don't donate out of the goodness of their hearts (though some DO), but rather the health of their bank accounts. A sales tax would completely wipe out ANY incentive the rich have to donate, thus again screwing the poor, and many of the flat tax systems I've seen proposed will also remove a lot of these deductions.

Unfortunately, taxing the rich more has historically never worked. They are too attached to their money, and will go to any extreme to keep it. This includes things like getting rid of employees if they own a business, to cutting back hours or pay rate for their in-home domestic help.

Yes, rich people -should- give out of sheer human compassion, but the reality is that, often, the richer you are, the more you want to keep what you have. Charities and low-rung employees are the first to suffer when the pressure is put on the rich. That's the sad fact.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24910 Posts
Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:57:03 PM
@CrakrJak: "flat tax" and "sales tax" are completely different!

Also: In Canada we're paying about 12% Sales tax on MANY common items, including foods...
The Conservative Party lowered it by 2%! Hooray!

Trying to fund the ENTIRE US Government (which is what @Shelworth seems to be saying) with a mere "sales tax" is insane... it would need to be about 30% and apply to virtually EVERY item sold.
The poor would pay a HUGE % of their income on sales tax, the rich? Tiny %... Just like now! Only worse!

And "gasoline tax"... zomg! Even worse in terms of "harm the poor"... (I think we agree on that though).

@OutWest: "flat tax" could work... but then again it could backfire completely. It would require honest <politicians> to work, and how many of THOSE are around these days?

OutWest
Male, 50-59, Western US
 548 Posts
Saturday, November 17, 2012 9:24:15 AM
I think if we are all honest, raising taxes has nothing to do with increasing revenue for our government.

Do any of you, that are for raising taxes proportionally higher on those that make more than you, really believe that is fair taxation?

If so, then your logic is they have more so let's take more to make the outcome of our income fair? Rather than let's be fair and all pay the same proportion of our income to a shared community.

krw888
Male, 50-59, Canada
 152 Posts
Saturday, November 17, 2012 9:12:38 AM
Although I believe simplifying the tax code will benefit everyone, the rest of his argument doesn't make sense.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 16953 Posts
Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:32:39 AM
5Cats: This is where I disagree with you Steve Forbes shown years ago a 15% flat tax, with an exception for food stuffs and the poor, those getting food stamps, is not a bad idea.

It's easier to collect, kills the income tax completely (except for FICA), massively reduces the size and bureaucracy of the IRS, and since the rich and corporations buy more they'd have to pay more without any loopholes to dive through.

LillianDulci
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
 2696 Posts
Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:28:09 AM
Nerd_Rage, way to show absolutely no compassion for your fellow man. I guarantee there are tons of poor people who have worked way harder than you ever will.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24910 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 8:17:22 PM
@Nerd_Rage: Allow me to expand on my point AND enlighten your trolly-brainz.

The Poor: the 50% of the USA who earn less than the other 50%.

Got it? It's REALLY simple!

If HALF the population SUFFERS Disproportionatly? It's probably a BAD idea!

But what about "The Rich" you ask. Don;t they pay more too?

Yes, the TOP 20% (aka: "The Rich") DO PAY more! But on a percentage basis it's a FRACTION of what the poor pay!

(Hint: the 30% in between "rich" and "poor" is the "Middle Class" eh? Percentages vary accoring to Nation and Political System of course...)

SO: A 20% sales tax HARMS the Poor, is IGNORED by the Rich and the Middle breaks even, at best.

Sounds good to you?

With said Tax: the poor pay a HUGE % of their income ON TAXES just to pay the daily bills.
Get it? Percentage paid on things you need to SURVIVE...

Nerd_Rage
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 426 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 7:12:33 PM
@5cats
The poor are where they are because that's where they want to be. End of story. Not my fault you slacked, not my fault you'd rather continue working at burger king than make a resume and try to find a better job. And you reap all the benefits, you get social benifits, exemptions, credits, and other "entitlements" that you so desperately need. Get yourself a clue and get another job and stop complaining about rich people.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24910 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 5:27:41 PM
replace the income tax with a 20% sales tax...

@Shelworth: That is the DUMBEST thing I've hear in AGES!

A "sales tax" is MASSIVELY disproportionat! It harms the POOR and the rich barely notice it!

Please buy a clue before saying such stupid poo...

inversegrav
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 768 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 4:27:36 PM
wouldnt it be nice if all taxes were simple and had fewer loopholes like the soc. sec. tax?

Oh, i just got the point of the video.

Shelworth
Male, 50-59, Western US
 326 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 4:11:41 PM
replace the income tax with a 20% sales tax and a balanced budget amendment. Everybody pays the same percentage = fairness. Spend a lot, pay a lot, save your money, and you keep it.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 3:51:33 PM
So you are somehow under the impression that any president is responsible for the decline of corporate taxes?

Nope - not at all. I was careful to label everything as (President)-era. I purposefully stated that the taxes were only in the era of that President.

therefore you're being intentionally misleading to make your neo-con point.

Yep - though I am not a neo-con.

That's stooping rather low, don't you think?

Probably, but I see liberals (and neo-cons) doing it all the time and I enjoy doing it to them as well. I don't believe in the whole "take the high road" nonsense.

that mega-corporations have gained so much power in our society that they have been able to game the system to lower their tax burden

I agree; they should not be able to lobby, period.

chalket
Male, 50-59, Southern US
 2481 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 3:36:03 PM
an opportunity to take a shot at Obama and his supporters.

So you are somehow under the impression that any president is responsible for the decline of corporate taxes? I do believe you are smarter than that, therefore you're being intentionally misleading to make your neo-con point. That's stooping rather low, don't you think? My only point was (as I stated in a different thread) that mega-corporations have gained so much power in our society that they have been able to game the system to lower their tax burden at the expense of us natural (ie."non-corporate") people. Yet another of their successful ploys to externalize their costs to you and me.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 3:34:25 PM
Why not go back a bit further?

Also, what are you trying to accomplish by showing that EVERY administrative-era post-1940 taxed corporations more than the Obama-era, as a percentage of GDP?

You do realize that you are helping me take a shot at the anti-corporation/pro-Obama crowd right? Seriously, your numbers just show that corporations have been taxed the least during the Obama-era years!

I thank you for your assistance, but I was doing just fine. =)

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 3:06:50 PM
Cherry pick much? Nice try, but why did you start at 2005? Didn't Bush tax policies start a bit earlier?

Yes I did - purposefully. I was (still am?) using these numbers as an opportunity to take a shot at Obama and his supporters.

By the way, thanking you for including the other Bush-era years:

2001 - 1.5
2002 - 1.4
2003 - 1.2
2004 - 1.6

Did you notice that they are still higher than the Obama-era years? This means that, during Bush's presidency, as a percentage of GDP, corporations were taxed more than during the Obama-era years.

Sorry if that wasn't clear enough.

It was perfectly clear; again, taking a fun shot at the anti-corporation but pro-Obama crowd.

Why not go back a bit further?

Because comparing the Obama-era years and the Bush-era years is so much more effective in upsetting the liberals among us.

chalket
Male, 50-59, Southern US
 2481 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 2:42:38 PM
@HumanAction
Cherry pick much? Nice try, but why did you start at 2005? Didn't Bush tax policies start a bit earlier? (At least we're using the same chart. That's a step in the right direction, eh? )
2001 - 1.5
2002 - 1.4
2003 - 1.2
2004 - 1.6

I wasn't insinuating anything, I came right out and stated my conclusion: corporations are shouldering less of the total tax burden year after year. Sorry if that wasn't clear enough.

Why not go back a bit further? Like maybe one of our biggest boom times, the 50s and 60s?
1952 - 6.1
1953 - 5.7
1954 - 5.6
1955 - 4.5
1956 - 4.9
1957 - 4.7
1958 - 4.4
1959 - 3.5
1960 - 4.1
1961 - 4.0
1962 - 3.6
1963 - 3.6
1964 - 3.7
1965 - 3.7
1966 - 4.0
1967 - 4.2
1968 - 3.3
1969 - 3.9

Get corporate taxes back to the 4-5% range, and excise taxes back to 2.5-3% and that would be a huge step towards getting back on financial track.

peakingo
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 687 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 2:39:54 PM
watched about 20 seconds and realized this guy is freaking Canadian. Stopped watching immediately.

foursixty3
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 30 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 2:01:36 PM
How does his lecture lead us to the conclusion that a simpler tax code is the solution to tax arbitrage? This economist needs a lesson in exposition: never introduce new material in your conclusion

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10238 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 1:53:57 PM
and his charts are misleading because they consider Social Security tax to be revenue.


This statement is even more misleading.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 1:16:38 PM
[quote">This shows corporations have been consistently shouldering less of the total tax burden year after year, and his charts are misleading because they consider Social Security tax to be revenue.[/quote">
Interesting, let's look into Corporate Tax rates as a percentage of GDP by year:

2005 - 2.2%
2006 - 2.7%
2007 - 2.7%
2008 - 2.1%
2009 - 1.0%
2010 - 1.3%
2011 - 1.2%

I shall be so kind as to provide the source: Table 2.3

Based on this data and your comments, aren't you insinuating that you prefer the Bush-era way of taxing corporations compared to the Obama-era ways?

chalket
Male, 50-59, Southern US
 2481 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 12:22:21 PM
Using his chosen years:
1954: personal tax (PT) was 7.8% of gdp, corporate tax (CT) was 5.6%, social insurance (SI) was 1.9%, and exise tax (ET) was 2.6%. The official total was 18.5% of gdp.

1964: PT was 7.6% (small drop), CT was 3.7% (much larger drop), SI was 3.4% (an increase that seemingly offsets those drops) and ET was 2.1% (another small drop). Official total of 17.6% of gdp.

In 1984, PT rose back to 7.8%, CT dropped tremendously to just 1.5% which was again "offset" (in his numbers) by SI climbing to 6.2%. ET dropped to just 1.0% for an official total of 17.3% of gdp.

Now jump to 2011. PT dropped a bit to 7.3%, CT dropped to 1.2%, SI dropped to 5.5%. ET dropped to 0.5% for an official total of 15.4% of gdp.

This shows corporations have been consistently shouldering less of the total tax burden year after year, and his charts are misleading because they consider Social Security tax to be revenue.

patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5708 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 12:11:06 PM
...So yes, Obama saying they will get more money from tax increases to the rich could be inferred as him implying the concept of "always" just as this guy does. It still doesn't validate what this guy is saying, though.

patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5708 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 11:49:13 AM
specific enough?

Easy there, I sense I've got you in full-on rage here and I'm just trying to be calm and logical about this. You are correct in that he didn't say that exactly, but after talking about his many data points that show a negative correlation, he is making the argument that lowering taxes increases revenue, without at all saying that this is not always so. Regardless, I didn't spend much time beating that horse because it wasn't really the point I was making.

So Obama says MORE REVENUE will be gained by raising the tax rate on "the rich"... and you're saying he's not saying that?

That's not what I said at all. He's talking about this instance, not always. The point is that Obama (in the context of what I just quoted you saying) would be guilty of the same thing this guy is, ergo my comment about two wrongs not making a right.

markust123
Male, 40-49, Western US
 3784 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 11:46:42 AM
I'm actually for this imaginary "fiscal cliff" the conservatives have created a story line for. The tax cuts will expire then the Senate will send their already approved bill to extend the cuts for the middle class down to the House where they will be forced to sign.

markust123
Male, 40-49, Western US
 3784 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 11:44:13 AM
Obama does not want to raise taxes he wants to let the tax breaks expire for families that make over $250,000 a year. These people will be fine. What can't be done while we are still pulling out of the recession is to let the tax breaks for the people below the $250,00 line expire. A lot of people depend on these breaks to survive. Once the recession is over we'll need to let those breaks expire also. The only way to lower the debt is a balanced approach of raising taxes and cutting spending like Clinton did. We could try the George Bush method again of cutting taxes and raising spending but that didn't work out so well. The biggest thing Clinton did to reduce the deficit is he kept us out of major wars. The military spending is ridiculous in this country.

Page: 1 2 3 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.