Hey gonzomax, I see your back. Now that you are, could you answer the questions asked of you in Posts 103 and 104?
Thanks.
The IRS says your income tax is voluntary. that is because you compute it and then attest to it by signing it. If the IRS says it is voluntary, it must be.
Most U.S. Corporations Pay No Income Tax - The New York Times Two thirds of American corporations paid no taxes at all. How does that plunk your right wing heart strings"?
Were you being serious or sarcastic?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/12/us-usa-taxes-corporations-idUSN1249465620080812?sp=true
And here is a Reuters story saying the same thin.
PS The actual corporate tax rate is not 35 percent. It is 15 percent for the first 50 ,000 and gradually goes up to 35 percent at 18.3 million. But of course they avoid ever paying that horrible 35 percent that only exists in right wing sound bites.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01082010/watch.html
Here is a Moyer’s show on the problem. Goldman is paying 1 percent and probably is pissed about that.
The question to you was:
And you still haven’t answered this:
Here, let me make it easier for you:
- what percent do you think corporations should pay?
- Let’s say you’re happy with a real 35%, how would you handle the fact that other countries have a rate under half that?
- Did you watch 60 Minutes last night? Look at Switzerland, Ireland, Canada. How would you handle that?
Feel free to group #s 2 and 3 if you’d like. and this time, how about having what you type resemble an answer to the questions.
Oh, he’s serious. But let’s see how—or IF—he answers Post 146.
Curious. When I go to Target and buy a pair of pants, is it irresponsible for them to use the revenue from that purchase to buy more soda?
In general, governments and businesses have very little in common in a capitalistic society. But how to spend money in hand is not one of the differences: you put it to the best use you can. Perhaps the best use is to pay off debt. But to require it to be earmarked that way is economically irresponsible and inefficient.
If debt is a bad thing, the answer is simple: make loans illegal. Or is debt only bad for the government? What particular facet of debt makes it obviously correct for main street and wall street but not PA ave?
erislover
I’m not trying to put words in Shagnasty’s mouth but this is a ridiculous comparison. Target can obviously spend their money on whatever they wish and borrow as much as people will lend them. I would think that when Target was spending 40% of their revenue on interest payments they might decide they were doing something wrong before the bankruptcy proceedings. What’s your opinion?
Of course, the other big big difference is that Target isn’t going to be able to make ME pay their debt when they go bankrupt.
The problem with the government is that they are not trustworthy. If people agree to pay additional taxes to pay down the debt, there is no real certainty that the money will be used for that. The tendency would be to use the money for whatever crisis had their attention at the moment and let the debt pile up as an exercise for some future legislature.
Regards
Testy
My opinion is that the question of how to best spend revenues isn’t answered by decree, which was my beef.
Unless you’re employed by them, and your job is cut to trim down expenses? Or, wait. Unless your government is democratically elected, in which case you’re part of the “vote market”? Ah, why bother; the point of comparison was merely that the source of revenue and the use of that revenue have nothing to do with each other. Requiring it to be so is irresponsible. It is no less irresponsible for the government or for a corporation. Dictators—be they real or scribbles on paper—tend not to allocate resources efficiently.
I don’t see why there should be. It makes absolutely no sense. If the best use of tax dollars on cigarettes is a new stadium, then that’s the best use. Period. If the best use of revenue on khakis is a wider selection of Coke products, then that’s the best use. Period. A consumer group forming to demand that Target spend all revenue derived from khakis on more khakis is ridiculous. It’s no less ridiculous to suggest revenue from a new tax be spent only on… on anything.
erislover
I agree with you that money should be spent where it is most effective. That is obvious. Now, who gets to decide what that is? My opinion is that the most effective thing they could do right now is to pay off the national debt. What is your opinion on that?
The debt has to be fixed or there isn’t going to be any money for anything else. What are we up to now, 35% - 40% of income? Even dictators can figure out that they’ve screwed-up somewhere when that happens. Somehow, we seem to have missed that.
Austerity measures aren’t popular with anyone, least of all politicians. Austerity measures costs them votes come election time. There is an enormous conflict of interest here that no one seems to mention. A politician could wind up out of a job if he actually starts cutting costs and raising revenue.
No, unless they are forced to, they won’t actually fix the problem but will simply carry on as usual, spending money by the trillions that they don’t have because that’s what keeps them in office. It’s what they’ve done for the past however many years.
Look at all the progress they’ve made on a balanced budget. Everyone agrees that a balanced budget would be a fine thing but they all balk when it comes to actually cutting funding for their pet projects. Result? No progress.
I would only vote for someone to raise taxes to pay off the deficit under the following conditions:
a) The money is dedicated to this purpose. Completely. No borrowing from it to do something else.
b) There must be a balanced budget amendment signed into law, forbidding the government to run up any more deficits No weaseling, no exceptions. Otherwise we’ll pay off one debt only to be faced with a fresh new one.
c) The tax would be for a specific number of years with no provision to renew.
I don’t know about you but I can’t see the politicians of either party actually getting any of this done. So, the alternative is that they just have to do less. It might actually be a good thing. For example, the DEA might have to quit busting potheads due to budgetary constraints. There are a LOT of things I’d like to see the government unable to do.
I do not believe that politicians should be allowed to weasel out of this. They have caused the problem by continually spending money they don’t have, to keep their constituents happy and keep themselves in office. Now let them fix it. And who knows, maybe we’ll get some political types that can get elected without having to promise the world to the voters.
Maybe it is just cynicism on my part, but you seem to have a LOT more faith in the integrity of politicians than I do.
Regards
Testy
And yet in 2010, it cost 164 billion in interest payments to service the debt, representing 4.6% of spending.
To put this into perspective, it’s like a family who spends $50,000/ year on all llving expenses, and paying just under $200/month in interest payments for their car, credit cards and lines of credit.
I’m not sure if it’s as much of a crisis as you seem to think.
If the choice was to pay down debt, or make investments which expect to yield future revenues capable of at least maintaining interest payments, I’d probably suggest we invest.
Servicing debt can be expensive. Not investing in the future can also be expensive. I don’t believe I have the information available, or access to the right people to advise me, on which is more important. My personal uncertainty suggests, in my own life, I’d probably work to pay down principle. But I wouldn’t cancel my internet connection to do it.
There’s a very good reason for that. Debt can be an amazingly good thing. Sure, I could save up for years to buy a car. But I could increase my earning potential (by reaching more, better jobs) by having a car now, and paying it off in the future.
I have no problem with (c), but disagree with (a) and don’t know what, exactly, you mean by a “balanced budget.” Do you mean no deficit spending? Do you mean no additional deficit spending? Neither of these seem particularly wise to me.
Frankly I think it’s great when a population is happy, but I understand there are those that disagree.
Oh, that’s definitely getting fixed.
I don’t believe politicians have any more integrity than anyone else.
Euphonious Polemic
We can say it isn’t a problem if we want but many people disagree. I disagree myself.
Regards
Testy
Investing is great, I’m all for it. Which investments investments are going to show a return? My own opinion would be little better than a thoughtful guess. I’m not sure others can predict it either.
We agree on this. That would be my choice as well. Truly, I believe that there are a LOT of things the gov should be investing in. My own opinions don’t seem to track well with Washington’s.
Sure, in the instance you mention, debt is just dandy. I don’t really think that’s what we’re talking about though. In the case of the gov, it’s more like having a half dozen cars already and just wanting one that’s fancier,
By balanced budget, I mean no deficit spending. Just what it says. I’m sorry they don’t seem wise to you but I don’t think the gov can be trusted to control themselves.
OK. Was I snarky at you somewhere? I’m all for people being happy. I just don’t think it’s the government’s place to make them that way.
With any luck at all and if the various representatives listen to what people are telling them.
Well, I guess we aren’t too far apart then. You think they’re the same and I think they are only a little lacking in that aspect.
Seriously though, without some sort of legal restrictions, why do you think Washington will reign themselves in?
Regards
Testy
I didn’t say it wasn’t a problem. I myself don’t pay any interest on credit cards - they’re paid in full every month.
I said it wasn’t a crisis.
OK, gotcha. I am the same as you with the credit cards.
Testy
Such “I dunnos” are why small investments like public radio and publicly funded research happen. Yet these are exactly what people want to cut. While China gears up for space, what are we doing? Cutting budgets. Maybe that’s wildly responsible. I doubt it, but maybe. Thankfully we live in a society where we can vote to try and guide politicians.
In some cases, sure. Sure! Why take on debt to get a master’s degree when you have a perfectly good bachelor’s? Marginal benefits are a bit “if by whiskey.” It’s easy to see the benefits of a national highway system. Harder to see the benefits of expanding the number of lanes, or improving infrastructure in other ways. It’s hard to see what happens when we gut education, because the effects take years to materialize.
Thankfully, America has recognized that there are enormous benefits to specialization, so we have created a class who specialize in trying to understand these issues. They’re about as perfect as anything else we do.
I see. Using your criteria as a guide, would anyone buy a company? A house? An education? A car? You’ve offered specific numbers to demonstrate the idiocy and wild irresponsibility of our government. How do these work as criteria?
Hmm. But we probably shouldn’t raise taxes because it’d make people unhappy?
I doubt we are very far apart at all.
I’m not convinced anything needs reigning in except defense spending and tax cuts. I haven’t seen anything since the Bush administration’s wars and the creation of Homeland Security and TSA that I thought was ridiculously irresponsible.
We are very much in agreement on a lot of things. I loathe it when NASA’s budget gets cut and think that dropping out of the space race is one of the most short-sighted things we can do. I’m in favor of basic and applied research in almost any area you want to mention. OTOH, not funding NPR is no big loss. I like it well enough but it isn’t worth much to me on a practical basis.
I take your point on investment, even if it requires debt, occasionally being a good thing. I am less convinced that the people incurring the debt understand what they are expecting to get as an ROI and whether the investment will eventually pay for itself.
Yes, destroying the education system is amazingly short sighted but is done because the guy that pushed for it isn’t going to be in office when the results happen. That’s why education gets hit.
I think there is a difference here. If I buy a company or a car or a cat, and incur debt by doing so, I know that I will have to repay that loan eventually. I cannot borrow more money to repay the first debt and then continue to do this. That is where I think the disconnect is. You and I may incur debt for a specific purpose but you and I will also have to repay that debt. This is not the case with the elected representatives. The repayment is sometime in the future when they may not even be in office. The other point of course is that it’s not their money.
I’m sorry. Do you mean what would happen if the gov had no debt? I have no idea what would happen. I think trying it would be a fine thing.
Well, it would certainly make ME unhappy. Seriously, avoiding pissing-off the voters is no bad thing.
Well, as far as reigning-in or preferably just abolishing TSA and DHS we are in agreement. Both organizations are intrusive, occasionally abusive, and don’t deliver the results they were created to supply. As far as the wars go, I was and am all in favor of the one in Afghanistan but still can’t figure out what the hell we’re doing in Iraq.
Reigning-in defense spending might be a good thing. It depends on how much and in what areas. I like the idea of having a very powerful military.
Regards
Testy