We don’t have a spending problem. We have a revenue problem.
This part is what I was getting at–we’re spending more and getting less in terms of overall results.
Another issue, obviously is the military. There were three thousand-odd victims on 9/11, but our military response has led to an even larger death tally among our own soldiers, and, of course, who knows exactly how many Iraqis have been killed. In all the time since 9/11, there have been no successful attacks here although some have been fended off; and there have been a few attacks on a smaller scale in other countries. (I’m thinking here of the attack on public transit in Spain and the UK.) Spain withdrew from Iraq immediately following the attack there, while the UK continues to fight but on a smaller scale.
The way I look at it, military adventures aren’t terribly helpful in foiling terrorists; that’s more a a matter of investigation and other police work–or we might say espionage in some cases. (I think it’s safe to say that the underlying premise of espionage is to send a highly skilled operative to obtain a desired outcome far more efficiently and cheaply than is possible with a military attack.) Still, maybe it makes sense to ask if our presence in Iraq contributes significantly to the paucity of successful terror attacks in Europe and America. I don’t believe that’s true, but let’s suppose hypothetically that it is: in that case, Europe should have to pitch in more to suppressing terrorists in Iraq, so we can scale back our own military and start to take better care of our own people. But I doubt very much that’s the case, so it seems like yet another example of misspent resources. Since 3/11, Spain has spent, presumably, nothing on military actions in Iraq, but they’ve experienced zero successful Al Queda-originated attacks I’m aware of. Neither have we–so which country gets better value for the money spent, or lack thereof?
It doesn’t seem entirely irrelevant to me. $145K for a contract isn’t the same as the same figure as a salary with benefits added. Of course I’m sure it still equates to a high salary, but then it is Iraq after all. I would be surprised if Germany–to take an example of a country that has a few thousand soldiers in Iraq–doesn’t have a few Arabic translators in its military contingent, and they are probably very well compensated. But hey’re still able to provide routine access to healthcare for all of their people, and take care of their roads, streets, and rails.
In his speech on deficit reduction Wednesday, President Obama declared: “America’s finances were in great shape by the year 2000. We went from deficit to surplus. America was actually on track to becoming completely debt-free, and we were prepared for the retirement of the Baby Boomers.”
Is that an accurate picture of how things stood at the turn of the century? Actually, yes. In 2000, we had a budget surplus of $230 billion, and both President Clinton and President Bush expressed confidence that the U.S. national debt could be paid off in full by 2010.
Were we prepared for the retirement of the Baby Boomers? “We were in a better position to deal with the Medicare changes that were coming,” Stan Collender, a leading expert on the U.S. budget process who has run federal budget policy for two major international accounting firms told The Lookout. “Certainly the resources existed [thanks to the surplus] that don’t exist now.”
Of course, the budget gap widened quickly from there, starting with the $1.5 trillion Bush tax cuts of 2001, and continuing right up to the $787 billion Obama stimulus bill of 2009. Plenty of other budget-busting developments also played a role–including the Medicare prescription drug benefit, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the economic downturn and attendant hit to tax revenue.
All in all, Collender said, Obama’s assessment is “absolutely accurate.” So for the first time in the short history of Closer Look, we’re going to give this claim our highest accuracy rating: airtight.
We have a debt problem because George W. Bush cut taxes while starting two expensive wars he could not win. Then he ran the economy off the rail.
Now the Republicans in Congress are using Bush’s mistakes in order to cut popular domestic spending programs they never liked, because they do not want the government to help people who are not rich.
You guys have to make up your mind about Social Security. Either its a completely separate program funded by a dedicated tax with no effect on the budget, or it’s lumped in with the rest of the budget in which case every wage earner is paying Federal taxes.
Canada’s tax system is less progressive than America’s. Our top tax rate is 29%. Our corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, and dividend taxes are lower. We don’t have a mortgage interest deduction. We make up more of our revenue from sales taxes and sin taxes which disproportionally affect the poor.
Before you get Republicans to agree to more taxes on the rich, how about you tell us what you think a ‘fair’ percentage of the overall tax burden should be carried by the top 1%, top 10%, or top 20%? Should the top 1% pay 20% of all the expenses of government? 50%? 100%? What?
There are two big fallacies in America that screws up the economy: On the right, Republicans claim that you can fix everything by just cutting taxes and growing the economy. On the left, the Democrats seem to believe that there is no deficit that cannot be fixed by simply taxing the rich more.
Neither claim is true, but both have the benefit of allowing politicians to promise bread-and-circuses to the mass of population while claiming they won’t have to pay for any of it.
The dirty secret is that the rich do not have the kind of money that can pay for endless benefits for the middle class. If you need big revenue, you have to collect if from a large percentage of the population. But no one wants to admit it.
This is a misleading statistic (big shock considering the source, I know) because it fails to take into account province vs. state income tax. Canadian province taxes are higher and more progressive than state income taxes, with the end result being a more progressive system .
And why do conservatives (at least up until the Ryan plan) focus almost exclusively on non-defense discretionary spending and cutting taxes?
First of all, take your ‘considering the source’ ad-hominem and shove it. Or take it to the pit and prove it.
Second, the reason I didn’t include provincial and state taxes is because they vary widely, and because we’re comparing U.S. FEDERAL taxes against Canadian FEDERAL taxes. This whole thread has been about federal taxes. So you’re the one who’s engaging in spin, while smearing me as the one engaging in spin.
But if you want to bring the provinces and states into it, fine.
Alberta has no provincial sales tax, and we have a small, flat provincial income tax. So in the case of Alberta, your claim is not true. I don’t believe it’s true for Ontario, either. But of course, if we’re adding in provincial taxes, you have to add in state taxes, and those also vary widely. Hawaii, for example, has an 11% surtax on incomes over $200,000, and collects an average of $5,600 in state taxes per resident.
In comparison, provincial income taxes in Alberta were 2,387.38 - less than half the state tax in Hawaii. And we have a flat income tax. British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and BC have LOWER provincial per-capita taxes than Alberta - primarily because per-capita incomes are lower, I imagine.
The other thing you have to remember is that, while the provinces generally collect a fair bit of tax in Canada, they collect it in large part through high sales taxes, which are NOT progressive.
Overall, the U.S. has a highly progressive tax system. According to the OECD, the U.S. in fact has the MOST progressive tax system of OECD nations:
In the U.S., the top 10% of taxpayers pay 45.1% of all taxes. Of the other OECD nations, Only Italy has the top 10% paying over 40%. Canada? 35.8%.
Of course, the top 10% in the U.S. makes a larger percentage of the nation’s income than the top 10% elsewhere, so the OECD also looks at the ratio of income vs taxes for the top 10%, which is a good representation of progressivity.
The numbers for the top five most progressive countries (bigger means more progressive - more taxes her dollar earned):
U.S. - 1.35
Australia - 1.29
Netherlands - 1.28
Ireland - 1.26
Canada - 1.22
Note that these numbers are from the mid-2000’s, after the Bush tax cuts. If those tax cuts are expired, the U.S. will have dramatically more progressivity in its federal tax system than any other OECD country.
Another interesting thing to note about the U.S. is that the top 10% don’t earn as big a share of the national income as do the top 10% in Italy or Poland, and the U.S. top 10 are within 5% in income share of the top 10% in at least five other OECD countries - including Canada.
I don’t need to take it to the pit because you proved it right here:
Uh you said:
Gee I’m shocked. Who would have thought that you would cherry pick statistics to prove your point. I’m sure you just happened to pick Hawaii, with the highest income tax rate in the States, and Alberta with the lowest in Canada. Here are the top tax rates for the 4 biggest provinces in Canada with their % of population
Ontario (38.7%) - 11.6%
Quebec (23%) - 24%
BC (13%) - 14.7%
Alberta (11%) - 10% (flat rate)
And the top 6 of the States
California (11.9%)- 9.3%
Texas (8%) - No income tax
New York (6%) - 9%
Florida (6%) - No income tax
Illinois (4%) - 5% (flat rate)
Pennsylvania (4%) - 3% (flat rate)
The OCED did not do this nor did they claim anywhere that the U.S. has the most progressive tax system in the world. Look for yourself warning pdf. Nowhere on page 112 does the OECD make the claim he cites.
This is what I mean when I talk about shocks and misleading statistics.
These numbers don’t pass the smell test. Am I really to believe that Belgium, Iceland, Norway, Poland, and Switzerland have regressive tax structures? Considering the blogger already made up stuff once, I am inclined to file these numbers in the bullshit folder.
I suppose when you talk about comperable tax rates between America and Canada, you correct for the health care and safety net Canadian taxes get them. Subtract the money we spend on medical care and health insurance and the numbers are more realistic.
It is nice not to live in fear of a catastrophic illness bankrupting your family.
No, that can’t be it – because all of the other industrialized countries make that work.