Charts about US budget & taxes

[SpeedRacer 1]

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/top-ten-tax-charts

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[airdvr 210]

Tax expenditures...gotta love that one. Why does everybody in the beltway think my money is really theirs?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[mnealtx 0]

Gotta love the way they present and comment the tables - nonpartisan, my ass.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

I'll buy the non-partisan part. They were honest enough to show what the GOP Congress did to the tax rate on the poor.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I'll buy the non-partisan part. They were honest enough to show what the GOP Congress did to the tax rate on the poor.

No, not really. They talk about the changes in income and don't show the actual decrease in tax rates. They don't show the change in tax burden (it WAS supposed to be about tax and not income, wasn't it?). They don't show that the US has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world (only beaten by Japan, and that only by 0.35%).

Their numbers may be accurate, but their presentation is slanted and misleading.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

They don't show that the US has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world (only beaten by Japan, and that only by 0.35%).

.

Funny how a gigantic corporation like GE gets away with paying almost nothing. Must be something to do with loopholes for the wealthy.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Gotta love the way they present and comment the tables - nonpartisan, my ass.

Why don't you point out the errors in the data instead of weaseling about the presentation.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,184]

Interesting insight on people's perception of the wealth distribution in the USA.

www.npr.org/2011/04/16/135472478/study-americas-wealth-not-widely-distributed

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,132]

Right now the top 1% hold about 40% of the wealth in the US. If everyone in the US saw a real increase in income of 1%, but the top 1% saw an increase in income of 10%, would you consider that a good thing or a bad thing overall?

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Right now the top 1% hold about 40% of the wealth in the US. If everyone in the US saw a real increase in income of 1%, but the top 1% saw an increase in income of 10%, would you consider that a good thing or a bad thing overall?

Extreme inequality in wealth is, in general, a bad thing and has a demonstrated tendency to lead to instability in societies that experience it.

Interesting result of the survey was what a huge % of those surveyed (a) did not know just how unequal the distribution in the USA is, and (b) thought the distribution as found in Sweden was better.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,132]

>Extreme inequality in wealth is, in general, a bad thing

OK, let's take that as a given.

Now - if everyone in the US saw a real increase in income of 1%, but the top 1% saw an increase in income of 10%, would you consider that a good thing or a bad thing overall?

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

>Extreme inequality in wealth is, in general, a bad thing

OK, let's take that as a given.

Now - if everyone in the US saw a real increase in income of 1%, but the top 1% saw an increase in income of 10%, would you consider that a good thing or a bad thing overall?

Good compared with everyone falling 10%

Bad compared with the rich getting 0.5% and everyone else 1.5%



So the answer is - "depends".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,132]

>Good compared with everyone falling 10%
>Bad compared with the rich getting 0.5% and everyone else 1.5%

Compared to _right_now_.

So, let's say tomorrow, everyone in the US saw a real increase in income of at least 1%, but the top 1% saw an increase in income of 10%, would you consider that a good thing or a bad thing overall?

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

>Good compared with everyone falling 10%
>Bad compared with the rich getting 0.5% and everyone else 1.5%

Compared to _right_now_.

So, let's say tomorrow, everyone in the US saw a real increase in income of at least 1%, but the top 1% saw an increase in income of 10%, would you consider that a good thing or a bad thing overall?

Depends. Where did this windfall come from?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,132]

>Depends. Where did this windfall come from?

The upswing of an economic cycle. Good thing or bad?

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

>Depends. Where did this windfall come from?

The upswing of an economic cycle. Good thing or bad?

OK, so there is an increase in GDP of 3.25% (since the 1% take 25% of US income, that's how it works out). Of that 3.25% increase in GDP, the top 1% of the population take 77%, and the 99% of the population that comprise the middle classes and poor get 23%.

Some may be grateful for this trickle-down, but I believe that over the long term it is bad for the nation that a tiny percentage takes an ever increasing fraction of the nation's wealth.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,132]

>but I believe that over the long term it is bad for the nation . . .

OK thanks for the answer.

That's where we differ. I think a 1% increase in real income for everyone is a good thing, and to me it doesn't matter if the upper 1% see the same 1% improvement or a 10% improvement. Overall I think what's important is improving income for everyone, and ensuring that some group doesn't get "too much" is something of a waste of effort IMO.

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

>but I believe that over the long term it is bad for the nation . . .

OK thanks for the answer.

That's where we differ. I think a 1% increase in real income for everyone is a good thing, and to me it doesn't matter if the upper 1% see the same 1% improvement or a 10% improvement. Overall I think what's important is improving income for everyone, and ensuring that some group doesn't get "too much" is something of a waste of effort IMO.

If it's a general increase in national prosperity, it is grossly unfair that the top 1% get the lion's share of the additional benefit when they already have such a huge share of the national wealth. It is such unfairness that leads to revolutions.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

>but I believe that over the long term it is bad for the nation . . .

OK thanks for the answer.

That's where we differ. I think a 1% increase in real income for everyone is a good thing, and to me it doesn't matter if the upper 1% see the same 1% improvement or a 10% improvement. Overall I think what's important is improving income for everyone, and ensuring that some group doesn't get "too much" is something of a waste of effort IMO.

If it's a general increase in national prosperity, it is grossly unfair that the top 1% get the lion's share of the additional benefit when they already have such a huge share of the national wealth. It is such unfairness that leads to revolutions.

Its a good thing for them.. that they can afford to hire companies like Blackwater then. Do we need to mention how much of a police state we are living under more and more??

The police are not there to protect "us" they are there to maintain order for those who actually own them.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

They don't show that the US has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world (only beaten by Japan, and that only by 0.35%).

.

Funny how a gigantic corporation like GE gets away with paying almost nothing. Must be something to do with loopholes for the wealthy.

It's good to be the "Jobs Czar" - they're exempt from the recent CO2 stuff from the EPA as well, if I recall correctly.

But as for the taxes...

***GE had plenty of earnings last year -- just not in the United States. For tax purposes, the company's U.S. operations lost $408 million, while its international businesses netted a $10.8 billion profit.

That left GE (GE, Fortune 500) with no U.S. profit left for Uncle Sam to tax. Corporations typically face a 35% federal income tax on their earnings. Thanks to its deductions and adjustments, GE reported an actual U.S. federal income tax rate of negative 10.5%. It got to add a "tax benefit" of $1.1 billion back into its reported earnings.

[DaVinci 0]

Funny:

Quote

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy organization working at the federal and state levels on fiscal policy and public programs that affect low- and moderate-income families and individuals.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

If it's a general increase in national prosperity, it is grossly unfair that the top 1% get the lion's share of the additional benefit when they already have such a huge share of the national wealth. It is such unfairness that leads to revolutions.

It is "unfair"???? I thought we were supposed to learn that life is not "fair". Do you grade your students on results, or do you give everyone an "A" to be "fair"?

Quote

It is such unfairness that leads to revolutions.

Good luck with that once you have made sure no one has the weapons to stage a revolt.

[dreamdancer 0]

the demonstrators in egypt didn't have weapons...

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

But as for the taxes...

***GE had plenty of earnings last year -- just not in the United States. For tax purposes, the company's U.S. operations lost $408 million, while its international businesses netted a $10.8 billion profit.

That left GE (GE, Fortune 500) with no U.S. profit left for Uncle Sam to tax. Corporations typically face a 35% federal income tax on their earnings. Thanks to its deductions and adjustments, GE reported an actual U.S. federal income tax rate of negative 10.5%. It got to add a "tax benefit" of $1.1 billion back into its reported earnings.

Remind me again how much tax you pay on $0 income, perfesser?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

But as for the taxes...

***GE had plenty of earnings last year -- just not in the United States. For tax purposes, the company's U.S. operations lost $408 million, while its international businesses netted a $10.8 billion profit.

That left GE (GE, Fortune 500) with no U.S. profit left for Uncle Sam to tax. Corporations typically face a 35% federal income tax on their earnings. Thanks to its deductions and adjustments, GE reported an actual U.S. federal income tax rate of negative 10.5%. It got to add a "tax benefit" of $1.1 billion back into its reported earnings.

Remind me again how much tax you pay on $0 income, perfesser?

Uh, did you really just ask this question? The discussion about corporations paying no taxes has long talked about how profits "get offshored" in order to avoid taxation. GE has been the best at it.