Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › TAX TAX TAX and more TAX
- This topic has 765 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 2 months ago by
briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 22, 2010 at 11:28 AM #543096April 22, 2010 at 11:32 AM #542140
an
Participant[quote=gandalf]Wow.
So what you’re basically saying is Goldman Sachs has contributed lots of value to society.
AIG? Countrywide? Washington Mutual?
WorldCom? Enron? Peregrine?
Mexican drug cartels?
Good grief.
Wealth is loosely correlated to contributions to society, but more often, it correlates with power and ownership of capital and resources.[/quote]
Are you replying to me? If so, how did you make a leap from comparing two people, one working 2 jobs or overtime vs one who don’t, to
AIG? Countrywide? Washington Mutual?WorldCom? Enron? Peregrine?
Mexican drug cartels?
April 22, 2010 at 11:32 AM #542256an
Participant[quote=gandalf]Wow.
So what you’re basically saying is Goldman Sachs has contributed lots of value to society.
AIG? Countrywide? Washington Mutual?
WorldCom? Enron? Peregrine?
Mexican drug cartels?
Good grief.
Wealth is loosely correlated to contributions to society, but more often, it correlates with power and ownership of capital and resources.[/quote]
Are you replying to me? If so, how did you make a leap from comparing two people, one working 2 jobs or overtime vs one who don’t, to
AIG? Countrywide? Washington Mutual?WorldCom? Enron? Peregrine?
Mexican drug cartels?
April 22, 2010 at 11:32 AM #542731an
Participant[quote=gandalf]Wow.
So what you’re basically saying is Goldman Sachs has contributed lots of value to society.
AIG? Countrywide? Washington Mutual?
WorldCom? Enron? Peregrine?
Mexican drug cartels?
Good grief.
Wealth is loosely correlated to contributions to society, but more often, it correlates with power and ownership of capital and resources.[/quote]
Are you replying to me? If so, how did you make a leap from comparing two people, one working 2 jobs or overtime vs one who don’t, to
AIG? Countrywide? Washington Mutual?WorldCom? Enron? Peregrine?
Mexican drug cartels?
April 22, 2010 at 11:32 AM #542823an
Participant[quote=gandalf]Wow.
So what you’re basically saying is Goldman Sachs has contributed lots of value to society.
AIG? Countrywide? Washington Mutual?
WorldCom? Enron? Peregrine?
Mexican drug cartels?
Good grief.
Wealth is loosely correlated to contributions to society, but more often, it correlates with power and ownership of capital and resources.[/quote]
Are you replying to me? If so, how did you make a leap from comparing two people, one working 2 jobs or overtime vs one who don’t, to
AIG? Countrywide? Washington Mutual?WorldCom? Enron? Peregrine?
Mexican drug cartels?
April 22, 2010 at 11:32 AM #543101an
Participant[quote=gandalf]Wow.
So what you’re basically saying is Goldman Sachs has contributed lots of value to society.
AIG? Countrywide? Washington Mutual?
WorldCom? Enron? Peregrine?
Mexican drug cartels?
Good grief.
Wealth is loosely correlated to contributions to society, but more often, it correlates with power and ownership of capital and resources.[/quote]
Are you replying to me? If so, how did you make a leap from comparing two people, one working 2 jobs or overtime vs one who don’t, to
AIG? Countrywide? Washington Mutual?WorldCom? Enron? Peregrine?
Mexican drug cartels?
April 22, 2010 at 11:40 AM #542145afx114
ParticipantNate Silver at 538.com had an interesting post a while back regarding “Tax Freedom Day” He brought up some interesting points:
Tax revenues as a share of GDP by country:
Note that America isn’t the lowest, but we are fifth lowest and our share (28 percent, which includes state/local taxes) is 20 percent lower than the OECD average of about 35 percent.
He then goes on to break it down by type (income, corporate, excise, etc) and point out that federal taxes as a share of GDP in America have held steady since 1950 at around 20 percent.
Corporate and excise taxes, paid mostly by businesses and which conservatives complain are inefficient and simply passed through to consumers anyway, have gone down as a share of that 20 percent. What’s gone up are payroll taxes which fund programs like Medicare and Social Security that the same tea partiers were warning Obama and congressional Democrats not to touch in the same breath they were complaining about the socialist expansion of the healthcare system.
So what is it then that the tea bagger anti-tax brigade are against? The fact that we pay more taxes than Mexico and Turkey? Please enlighten me.
April 22, 2010 at 11:40 AM #542261afx114
ParticipantNate Silver at 538.com had an interesting post a while back regarding “Tax Freedom Day” He brought up some interesting points:
Tax revenues as a share of GDP by country:
Note that America isn’t the lowest, but we are fifth lowest and our share (28 percent, which includes state/local taxes) is 20 percent lower than the OECD average of about 35 percent.
He then goes on to break it down by type (income, corporate, excise, etc) and point out that federal taxes as a share of GDP in America have held steady since 1950 at around 20 percent.
Corporate and excise taxes, paid mostly by businesses and which conservatives complain are inefficient and simply passed through to consumers anyway, have gone down as a share of that 20 percent. What’s gone up are payroll taxes which fund programs like Medicare and Social Security that the same tea partiers were warning Obama and congressional Democrats not to touch in the same breath they were complaining about the socialist expansion of the healthcare system.
So what is it then that the tea bagger anti-tax brigade are against? The fact that we pay more taxes than Mexico and Turkey? Please enlighten me.
April 22, 2010 at 11:40 AM #542736afx114
ParticipantNate Silver at 538.com had an interesting post a while back regarding “Tax Freedom Day” He brought up some interesting points:
Tax revenues as a share of GDP by country:
Note that America isn’t the lowest, but we are fifth lowest and our share (28 percent, which includes state/local taxes) is 20 percent lower than the OECD average of about 35 percent.
He then goes on to break it down by type (income, corporate, excise, etc) and point out that federal taxes as a share of GDP in America have held steady since 1950 at around 20 percent.
Corporate and excise taxes, paid mostly by businesses and which conservatives complain are inefficient and simply passed through to consumers anyway, have gone down as a share of that 20 percent. What’s gone up are payroll taxes which fund programs like Medicare and Social Security that the same tea partiers were warning Obama and congressional Democrats not to touch in the same breath they were complaining about the socialist expansion of the healthcare system.
So what is it then that the tea bagger anti-tax brigade are against? The fact that we pay more taxes than Mexico and Turkey? Please enlighten me.
April 22, 2010 at 11:40 AM #542828afx114
ParticipantNate Silver at 538.com had an interesting post a while back regarding “Tax Freedom Day” He brought up some interesting points:
Tax revenues as a share of GDP by country:
Note that America isn’t the lowest, but we are fifth lowest and our share (28 percent, which includes state/local taxes) is 20 percent lower than the OECD average of about 35 percent.
He then goes on to break it down by type (income, corporate, excise, etc) and point out that federal taxes as a share of GDP in America have held steady since 1950 at around 20 percent.
Corporate and excise taxes, paid mostly by businesses and which conservatives complain are inefficient and simply passed through to consumers anyway, have gone down as a share of that 20 percent. What’s gone up are payroll taxes which fund programs like Medicare and Social Security that the same tea partiers were warning Obama and congressional Democrats not to touch in the same breath they were complaining about the socialist expansion of the healthcare system.
So what is it then that the tea bagger anti-tax brigade are against? The fact that we pay more taxes than Mexico and Turkey? Please enlighten me.
April 22, 2010 at 11:40 AM #543106afx114
ParticipantNate Silver at 538.com had an interesting post a while back regarding “Tax Freedom Day” He brought up some interesting points:
Tax revenues as a share of GDP by country:
Note that America isn’t the lowest, but we are fifth lowest and our share (28 percent, which includes state/local taxes) is 20 percent lower than the OECD average of about 35 percent.
He then goes on to break it down by type (income, corporate, excise, etc) and point out that federal taxes as a share of GDP in America have held steady since 1950 at around 20 percent.
Corporate and excise taxes, paid mostly by businesses and which conservatives complain are inefficient and simply passed through to consumers anyway, have gone down as a share of that 20 percent. What’s gone up are payroll taxes which fund programs like Medicare and Social Security that the same tea partiers were warning Obama and congressional Democrats not to touch in the same breath they were complaining about the socialist expansion of the healthcare system.
So what is it then that the tea bagger anti-tax brigade are against? The fact that we pay more taxes than Mexico and Turkey? Please enlighten me.
April 22, 2010 at 12:05 PM #542150meadandale
ParticipantYeah but that 28% tax rate doesn’t include payroll taxes, which add another 7.6% for the individual and another 7.6% for the employer. That means that our tax rate is AS HIGH as the OECD average you posted.
As someone who sympathizes with the tea party point of view but hasn’t actually gone to any rallies: it is clear that based on the trillion dollar deficits that Obama is projecting for at least the next decade that taxes WILL have to go up…and substantially, to pay for all this borrowing and deficit spending at some point. I can’t get behind this kind of reckless governing.
If that makes me a ‘teabagger’ then so be it.
April 22, 2010 at 12:05 PM #542266meadandale
ParticipantYeah but that 28% tax rate doesn’t include payroll taxes, which add another 7.6% for the individual and another 7.6% for the employer. That means that our tax rate is AS HIGH as the OECD average you posted.
As someone who sympathizes with the tea party point of view but hasn’t actually gone to any rallies: it is clear that based on the trillion dollar deficits that Obama is projecting for at least the next decade that taxes WILL have to go up…and substantially, to pay for all this borrowing and deficit spending at some point. I can’t get behind this kind of reckless governing.
If that makes me a ‘teabagger’ then so be it.
April 22, 2010 at 12:05 PM #542741meadandale
ParticipantYeah but that 28% tax rate doesn’t include payroll taxes, which add another 7.6% for the individual and another 7.6% for the employer. That means that our tax rate is AS HIGH as the OECD average you posted.
As someone who sympathizes with the tea party point of view but hasn’t actually gone to any rallies: it is clear that based on the trillion dollar deficits that Obama is projecting for at least the next decade that taxes WILL have to go up…and substantially, to pay for all this borrowing and deficit spending at some point. I can’t get behind this kind of reckless governing.
If that makes me a ‘teabagger’ then so be it.
April 22, 2010 at 12:05 PM #542833meadandale
ParticipantYeah but that 28% tax rate doesn’t include payroll taxes, which add another 7.6% for the individual and another 7.6% for the employer. That means that our tax rate is AS HIGH as the OECD average you posted.
As someone who sympathizes with the tea party point of view but hasn’t actually gone to any rallies: it is clear that based on the trillion dollar deficits that Obama is projecting for at least the next decade that taxes WILL have to go up…and substantially, to pay for all this borrowing and deficit spending at some point. I can’t get behind this kind of reckless governing.
If that makes me a ‘teabagger’ then so be it.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.