Gov Scott...

[CBWx2]

Two things stand out in that article.

1. "Why the disparity given the high federal rate, which rises to 39% counting state taxes? Part of the answer is that big U.S. companies have become expert at hiding profits in tax havens overseas"

If the taxation rate was not so high why would they do this. Implement the fair tax and eliminate the tax altogether that money would be in the US.

You missed this part:

Between 2000 and 2005, U.S. corporate taxes amounted to 2.2% of the GDP. The average for the 30 mostly rich member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development was 3.4%.

That means that while these countries numerically have a lower income tax rate, they also have smaller economies. When comparing their taxes paid in relation to the percentage of GDP it accounts for, the rate is actually much higher than ours. And the reason they don't offshore their assets the way U.S. countries do is because in Europe, they actually enforce the laws that they have in place to prevent that. Here, we have half ass enforcement, mainly because these companies devote hundreds of millions of dollars a year to funding campaigns and making sure candidates win that will look the other way.

2.  "Such breaks are expected to cost the Treasury $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years"

Meanwhile, current Govt spending is expecting to increase the National debt by about 9 trillion during that time. Now please convince me somehow that the "lack" of taxation is the root cause of our problem and not the rate we are spending!

You know where most of that money goes to? Defense. You know who has spent more money on defense in the last 30 years between Republicans and Democrats? Republicans.

[cyberdude558]

Actually no...

The biggest government expenditure is Medicare/Medicaid at $793 billion per year. Second is Social Security at $701 billion per year. Third is defense which is $689 billion per year. Discretionary spending is 4th at $660 billion.

What really blew up was Medicare. When they passed that law it was calculated at the time that it would never go beyond $90 billion. So the government bought a program that cost much more money than they thought it would at the time. That's why lots of people are worried about Obamacare bankrupting us in 20 years.

[CBWx2]

Actually no...

The biggest government expenditure is Medicare/Medicaid at $793 billion per year. Second is Social Security at $701 billion per year. Third is defense which is $689 billion per year. Discretionary spending is 4th at $660 billion.

What really blew up was Medicare. When they passed that law it was calculated at the time that it would never go beyond $90 billion. So the government bought a program that cost much more money than they thought it would at the time. That's why lots of people are worried about Obamacare bankrupting us in 20 years.

First of all, that's Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Three separate programs. Secondly, this was only the case for 2010, as we are beginning to draw down our involvement in Iraq. In 2009, defense was the highest expenditure, and has been every year for quite some time. As for Social Security, federal income from Social Security receipts has always exceeded Social Security payments. In other words, the U.S. actually makes money from Social Security.

[cyberdude558]

Not anymore... current projections show that social security will go bankrupt in 2037.

[CBWx2]

Not anymore... current projections show that social security will go bankrupt in 2037.

Yes, by 2037. That's a long time from now. Not that I don't agree that something needs to be done about SS, because it does. But the fact is that the doom and gloom surrounding SS is based on future estimates. It has nothing to do with what is, or has happened with the program. SS has always and still is operating at a surplus. All you have to do is look at the receipts each year. For 2010, for example, Social Security payments totaled $701 billion, while Social Security tax receipts totaled $865 billion.

[cyberdude558]

Since when has the government ever been on target with their financial estimates? They always wildly underestimate everything.

 I assure you that this will go bankrupt much sooner than 2037.

Then you got some freakin morons on the left saying that illegal aliens should have social security along with their whole family. So that would bankrupt it even sooner.

[spartan]

You missed this part:

Between 2000 and 2005, U.S. corporate taxes amounted to 2.2% of the GDP. The average for the 30 mostly rich member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development was 3.4%.

That means that while these countries numerically have a lower income tax rate, they also have smaller economies. When comparing their taxes paid in relation to the percentage of GDP it accounts for, the rate is actually much higher than ours. And the reason they don't offshore their assets the way U.S. countries do is because in Europe, they actually enforce the laws that they have in place to prevent that. Here, we have half ass enforcement, mainly because these companies devote hundreds of millions of dollars a year to funding campaigns and making sure candidates win that will look the other way.

The rate will stay the same, this just means that Corporations pay more tax relative to the economy in those countries.

You won't get any argument from me about the enforcement. The tax code here simply begs for abuse.

Last but not least, with regards to SS, it might not be theoretically broke until 2037, but we don't actually have any of that money that is supposedly to be used to pay for it. Therefore it is paid with money that is coming in now and is a drain on revenues. A large one especially as we are now paying more money out than we take in in SS "contributions."

[cyberdude558]

Keep in mind also these projections are based on an economic recovery with low unemployment. If the country continues to struggle with employment issues, there will be less money going into the SS fund (less people working or making less money equals less tax revenue). And that less money ends up compounding over the years.

But as far as taxes, I think the only solution may be the "fair tax." Abolish the IRS and abolish the Federal Reserve. Did you read how the Fed recently gave tens of billions of dollars to foreign banks? And they wanted to keep that secret. The media had to sue in order to get that information.

This whole system is very, very broken.

[Biggs3535]

Liberals would take conservatives more seriously

What, kicked the crap out of them in an election?

Oh noes, the high-horse liberals don't take the knuckle-dragging conservatives seriously.

[John Galt?]

Actually no...

The biggest government expenditure is Medicare/Medicaid at $793 billion per year. Second is Social Security at $701 billion per year. Third is defense which is $689 billion per year. Discretionary spending is 4th at $660 billion.

What really blew up was Medicare. When they passed that law it was calculated at the time that it would never go beyond $90 billion. So the government bought a program that cost much more money than they thought it would at the time. That's why lots of people are worried about Obamacare bankrupting us in 20 years.

First of all, that's Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Three separate programs.

Exactly, 3 separate programs to do the SAME THING. 3 entirely different sets of bureaucracies chewing up much of the money before it gets to sick person #1.

But the good news is BHO fixed that with Obamacare. Yep now we will have FOUR different and separate bureaucracies all stepping on each other trying to do the same damn thing.

Secondly, this was only the case for 2010, as we are beginning to draw down our involvement in Iraq. In 2009, defense was the highest expenditure, and has been every year for quite some time.

Quite some time??

I'll give you since the 2003 budget-which was the first one after 9/11

As for Social Security, federal income from Social Security receipts has always exceeded Social Security payments. In other words, the U.S. actually makes money from Social Security.

Remember Al Gore rattling on and on about a "lock-box"?

He was absolutely right. He just did such a craptastic job of explaining it, he doomed it and his campaign.

[spartan]

Actually no...

The biggest government expenditure is Medicare/Medicaid at $793 billion per year. Second is Social Security at $701 billion per year. Third is defense which is $689 billion per year. Discretionary spending is 4th at $660 billion.

What really blew up was Medicare. When they passed that law it was calculated at the time that it would never go beyond $90 billion. So the government bought a program that cost much more money than they thought it would at the time. That's why lots of people are worried about Obamacare bankrupting us in 20 years.

First of all, that's Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Three separate programs. Secondly, this was only the case for 2010, as we are beginning to draw down our involvement in Iraq. In 2009, defense was the highest expenditure, and has been every year for quite some time. As for Social Security, federal income from Social Security receipts has always exceeded Social Security payments. In other words, the U.S. actually makes money from Social Security.

Not any more they don't. Plus they used it as a slush fund/zero interest loan. If they had invested it, you might have been right.

[John Galt?]

Well its pretty simple really. .. Either the people in this country gets off the government's tit or it will collapse into economic ruin.

Your choice. Florida needs to cut $5 billion out of it's budget just to get our head above water again. The Federal government needs to cut $1.5 TRILLION to get out of the red.

We can't continue with this welfare state. It's simple math. We don't have the money.

If conservatives were serious about cutting the deficit they would raise taxes. Cutting spending while simultaneously cutting revenue is a wash. It's simple math.

No it is not simple math. Cutting taxes does not necessarily mean cutting Revenues and raising taxes can reduce revenues. All depends on which tax and by how much. Raise Income Taxes, especially on the 3rd and 4th Tiers ($33k--$171K) will greatly reduce consumer spending and investment, contracting the economy. Raising Corporate taxes on the bottom 4 tiers ($0-$335k Net Income) would result in Job losses, which means less personal income tax revenue.

Now excise taxes have much less of an economic impact because the tax is applied AFTER the money is spent.

Corporate Taxes right now are a mess. Here is the 2009 Corporate tax rate




The highest marginal rate is on companies making between $100k-$335K. That group includes a lot of mom&pop local restaurant, local contractors, local biz types. Why are they taxed higher than the $10 million plus corps??? What would make sense and raise revenues is to cut the rate on the 5 lowest income tiers and raise it on the $10 million+ tiers (most of those are publicly traded Corps, so the ultimate tax would be to the shareholders so it would be spread out over tens or hundreds of millions of shares).

The most effective way to balance the budget is by measures (whether tax cuts or spending) that create jobs. Remember, for every job created you have one more tax payer and one less welfare/unemployment recipient. That attacks the problem from both ends.

How to do that seems to be one of the big failures.

[CBWx2]

Liberals would take conservatives more seriously

What, kicked the crap out of them in an election?

Oh noes, the high-horse liberals don't take the knuckle-dragging conservatives seriously.

Conservatives won the House after not being in charge of ANY branch of elected government. Good job on your comeback. 

[CBWx2]

Since when has the government ever been on target with their financial estimates? They always wildly underestimate everything.

 I assure you that this will go bankrupt much sooner than 2037.

Then you got some freakin morons on the left saying that illegal aliens should have social security along with their whole family. So that would bankrupt it even sooner.

Those were not estimates. Those were the actual 2010 figures. While it's posible that SS could go into the red prior to 2037, all it would take is a slight adjustment or two to keep it solvent for hundreds of years. But aside from that, you aren't going to get much argument from me regarding SS. Both parties are culpable for the crisis. Although Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II abused the fund, so did Bill Clinton, and so far, Obama has not been proactive in changing the status quo either.

[Biggs3535]

Liberals would take conservatives more seriously

What, kicked the crap out of them in an election?

Oh noes, the high-horse liberals don't take the knuckle-dragging conservatives seriously.

Conservatives won the House after not being in charge of ANY branch of elected government. Good job on your comeback. 

Right. Your liberal buddies had complete control for a whole 2 years before they got their arses ran out of the building.  They do good work.

I'm curious, do you think you are actually making good points on this board?  You're getting the crap kicked out of you by multiple posters on multiple issues.