Slashdot Mirror

The US has on of the highest corporate tax rates in the world

Hogwash. This table shows otherwise. Unless you think every business in the U.S. is taxed at 35%, the U.S. corporate tax rate is somewhere in the middle to lower end of the scale. And that does not include VAT.

What you did was take the combined corporate tax rate in the U.S., not the range of taxes corporations pay.

Further, using The Tax Foundation's figure of combined rates (which is what you're using), they use the example of Sweden who has a lower combined corporate tax rate than the U.S. That's nice, except they fail to mention that in Sweden, if you use the combined personal income tax, the top rate is 60%. Way above anything we in the U.S. pay. Even the uber rich.

Corporations leaving the U.S. has very little to do with corporate tax rates. The biggest reason for relocating overseas is cheaper labor. There are very few Americans who want to work in a factory for $8/hour putting widgets together. If there were, food processors wouldn't be hiring illegal immigrants in droves.

You're a liar and/or a fool, and a sick, demented racist.

Federal expenditures go much more to states with the lowest minority populations in the country, because they're Republicans.

Blacks voted for the Democrat, just as they always do, even though the Democrat has never been Black before. That more voted this year, rather than staying home discouraged that Blacks aren't even represented proportionately in the Democratic Party, is not "95% of Blacks voted along racial lines".

Obama didn't promiose free houses and gas. That in fact was McCain, who promised to buy people's mortgages (most of whom of course are White) and not hold them to the contract. McCain was the one insisting on a "gas tax holiday", to further screw the government into debt while spending all that money on war in Iraq that has only raised oil and gas prices.

McCain wasn't despised among Republicans, he was the early winner of the Republican primary. There weren't enough non-Republicans voting in those primaries to make a difference.

You are a sick racist liar and a fool. Every single thing you posted is a racist lie, or just a straight-up lie.

I hope that the Republican Party continues to pander to your every whim. Then we will not have to see another Republican get any power. You sick lying fool.

got a link? not being sarcastic, genuinely curious as it seems you have some details I don't.

Sure. There's a lot out there, so just Google for it. "Barney Frank + Subprime" is a good place to start.

Here's a few links to get you started. The first is a transcript from Fannie and Freddie hearings in 2003 where he says flat out that he didn't see a problem with subprime loans:

Link One

The next is actual video of Congressional hearings in 2004 on Fannie and Freddie. Republicans called for much tighter regulations on both, while Frank, and various Congressmen not only flatly state that there was no crisis coming, but that the Republicans just wanted to keep poor people from owning their own homes. In particular, Maxine Watts repeatedly kissed the ass of Franklin Raines, the man who drove Fannie into the ground with subprimes.

Link 2

Lastly, here's a YouTube composite video called "Burning Down The House". It was made specifically to help Republicans in the elections, but the first half gives a brief but informed history of the subprime crisis, with screen shots of stories covering the history from name newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times, as well as graphs from major papers. Watch at least the first half of it. It's a really good jumping off point for further reading.

Link 3

There's plenty out there to read. One last thing... Frank was not only personally culpable in this crisis, he's a lying, two-faced bastard about it too. For years he repeatedly said "there is no problem", and yet two months ago he gave an interview to Money Magazine, stating that basically he'd seen this coming for years, and it was.... wait for it... all Alan Greenspan's fault. He takes absolutely no responsibility for this mess whatsoever. In fact, he basically adopted 90 percent of the very criticisms the GOP was making about Fannie and Freddie. He basically pretends he never ever denied there was a problem. Read this interview, and then go back to the video of his testimony before Congress. You'll never see a more two-faced man on Capitol Hill.

Money interview

Here US News and World Reports displays more of Frank's bald-faced lying: US&WR Article

Lastly, even honest liberals see his hypocrisy. Alec Baldwin calls Frank out over subprimes on Bill Maher's program. I'd link it, but it was pulled from YouTube on a DMCA complain from HBO... but here's the transcript:

Baldwin - "The, the thing we have to remember, a friend of mine who is very close to the financial community in New York pointed out that Democrats have a lot of the responsibility for this as well. I mean, it was Clinton who killed the Glass-Steagall, and it happened under a Democratic president. Barney Frank and his committee, they, they kept propping up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac saying everything's fine, everything's fine, everything's good. And it was his job to know everything wasn't fine. And Barney Frank let you down and let us down as well. And so, but I want to say there's blame to go both ways. But I will say, I want to, I maybe keep beating this to death, but I still think anyone in this Congress who voted to add $140 billion to that bill, they should be ashamed of themselves. That is a disgrace. It's a disgrace. This Congress is a disgrace, Democrat and Republican. "

Poor people are poor because they're stupid with their money. If or when the Democrats get control next week, we can see more money going down the poor people money pit

Before you get up on a high horse about income redistribution, maybe you should check to see if it's red states or blue states getting more federal money than they put in. And it's not just about population, the blue states contribute more per capita. So maybe you should let the people paying for those social programs make that call.

Huh? According to this reference http://www.fairtaxblog.com/20060524/who-pays-taxes-in-the-usa the top 5% pay over 50% of the taxes in this country. And according to this reference http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/250.html the top 5% pay over 60% of the federal income taxes in the US. Can you give me a reference that backs your claim that the bottom 95% pay the majority of the taxes?

60% of taxes of paid by the top 5% of earners, true.

But 90% of total wages are earned by the top 1%.

Combine those two statistics and you see that very rich people are not paying their fair share of taxes.

The inequality of the tax structure pales in comparison to the inequality of earnings in this country. In a fair economy, the tax curve and wage curve should be similar if not identical. I'm happy that at last, one presidential candidate seems to understand this.

Where are you morons getting your numbers? Do you just pull this crap out of your ass? If you want to make a cohesive argument of higher taxes on the rich, please do so. But don't make shit up to support your viewpoint.

The top 1% make just over 21% of the total wages. look it up.

The point that IS relevant, to me at least, is that already about 60% of our taxes are paid by the top 5% of wage earners. Over a third of all wage-earners pay no income tax at all. How is this remotely fair? No, what isn't fair is that the top 5% earn 60% of the income.

That's not true. Those top 5%, paying 60% of the taxes, actually only get about 36% of the income. I've even got references.

The top 1% of income earners made 22% of the income and paid 40% of the federal income taxes.

The top 5% earned 37% of the income and paid 60% of the taxes.

The top 10% earned 47% of the income and paid 71% of the taxes.

The top 25% made 68% of the income and paid 86% of the taxes.

The top 50% made 87% of the income and paid 97% of the taxes.

The bottom 50% made 13% of the income and paid 3% of the taxes.

Looks like the rich are taxed too much. source

I'm not a tax preparer, but something seems wrong with your numbers. I'm not sure if "my taxes have gone up" means "my absolute amount paid in taxes has gone up" or "my tax rate has gone up", but if it's the former then the obvious reason for that is that your income has increased (as it normally does over a person's career).

If you make less than $50K a year primarily on earned income from work, that probably puts you in what is currently a 25% bracket. That bracket (adjusting for inflation) was at 28% in 1986, and has only dropped since then.
Read for yourself: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

The other place you may have seen a tax increase is in FICA, but that rate (7.65%) has been in place since 1990.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=227

The only other explanation I can think of is that your income is primarily on investments rather than working.

Hate to break it to you, but that's not redistributing wealth. That's basically known as paying one's fair share, The wealthy pay more in taxes yes, but they also get more benefit as well. They stand to lose far more than I do were civil disorder to break out and all possessions be smashed.

Silly argument. Yes, this is the reason government was formed - to protect one's shit. But obviously the role of government has evolved into much different role - an opposite role, to be exact - actually taking your shit away and giving it to someone else. This would be called stealing, but not when the government does it. This is now the government's chief function, considering that of its $3T budget, 60% of its expenditures are on entitlements. So the US government's chief role is now redistribution of wealth. Obama just wants to make it worse.

So while hypothetically government "protects" the wealthy, I'd imagine they'd lose a lot less money by taking their chances with no government stealing from them and building a moat. Meanwhile, the "working poor" take $8 in services for every dollar paid (Heritage Foundation - you want a source, you Google it). So no, the wealthy do not get more for their tax dollar. They get a lot less.

"Fair share" is everyone paying the same flat rate (the poor and middle class would still pay less, but the same proportion). But when the bottom 50% of wage earners only pay 3.6% of the taxes, there is something very unfair about that. At some point, people in the bottom third not only pay no taxes, but get net checks from the government. Is this still fair by your world view? At what point does it get unfair?

At some point, a huge portion of the country doesn't pay taxes, and becomes a "gimme" class instead of a "do something for your country class." Too many in the wagon, not enough pulling. I think all citizens, unless *temporarily* out of work, need to be invested enough in the country that they are outside if the wagon, pulling, and being contributing citizens to the state. Otherwise, they are not fully participating in being citizens.

If you've got more wealth, property etc., you're getting more for your tax dollars and as such should be paying more.

You're getting more because you earned it, not because the government took it from someone else and gave it to you. That's like saying rapists get more sex than married guys. Yeah, technically true, but...

And it would be nice if you didn't go mischaracterizing mr. Buffett's comment. He's well known to oppose the sort of careless tax policies you're advocating. He has definitively stated that he doesn't believe he should be paying a lower tax rate than his employees do.

Buffett might be a good investor, but he is being foolish for his clients and being dishonest about his income. First off, doubling the capital gains rate, as Obama wants to do, would dramatically hurt his clients (both by stifling economic growth, and thus hurting BH's share price, and personally for his clients on tax day). If I owned Berkshire Hathaway at $30K+ per share, I'd be furious Buffett said this.

Secondly, Buffett is rich because he holds stock in his own investment fund. In other words, he doesn't even pay himself a salary. So while it is unlikely, it is possible he could pay less income taxes than his secretary - even while he likely paid tens or hundreds of millions in capital gains taxes. And his income tax rate is higher than his secretary. He just doesn't earn income - he earns capital gains. Nice subterfuge though.

The reality is that businesses are flocking to Ireland, which has a corporate tax rate one half that as the US. Now that's a careless tax policy.

1. That the wealthiest actually do pay the higher taxes.

It's simply not true as long as off shore "shelters", tax incentives and tax credits combine to erase the debt, or create a negative balance.

You are misinformed

First, I don't think any sane person thinks the government is the "main blame" for the subprime crisis. I feel the "main blame" goes to those who made loans and purchased MBSs/CMOs without an accurate risk model (specifically, what happens if home prices start to go down?). However, the government did make things worse.

80% of the loans which were fully or largely outside CRA jurisdiction

But many were. Specifically, after 1995 changes in the CRA banks were pressured to take low-income CRA loans. Don't take my word for it, read what the Comptroller of the Currency said:

Letter states that financial institutions may receive favorable CRA credit for investing in a middle income housing down-payment assistance program if the investment is a "qualified investment" under the CRA regulation...Interagency CRA letter stating that an investment in an MBS bond that is specifically tailored to an institution's CRA requirements appears to be a "qualified investment" under the CRA regulations...purchases of obligations of certain special purpose vehicles backed by affordable housing mortgages...

Again, part of the problem, not all of the problem. Government also enhanced the housing bubble in general through mortgage interest deduction as well as zoning regulations.

Throw in unregulated ratings agencies

You may want to Wikipedia Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization, recognized by the SEC to determine whether securities are "investment quality" or not for regulatory bank and broker-dealer net capital requirements. Years ago people in the investment area started suspecting the NRSROs were screwed up (thus all the Credit Derivative Swap insurance policies), but the SEC didn't do much to reform.

You can blame Bush all you want, but lets also remember Democrats were pushing the GSEs to take on additional alt-A and subprime loans in the name of "affordable housing". They are still talking about bailing out individuals who took out unsustainable loans. I don't think we should bail out Wall Street firms or individuals, lest we reward all of their bad risk taking.

Like all great disasters, there were lots of people and problems contributing to the problem.

What we do know is that the 70,000 pages of new banking regulations published every year did not stop it.

One can argue how taxes should or should not be used, but I think we can mostly agree taxes should not be used to redistribute wealth to the wealthy.

Why not? They're the ones paying most of the taxes. It certainly seems more fair than redistributing it to the poor.

Not to say that income redistribution is ever a good thing, but if you're going to do it...

Tell Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns that the sky isn't falling.

You Republicans should just get the hell out of the way as the cleanup squad comes around once again to save your ass along with everyone else, the way it does once a generation after Republicans have stolen everything there was to steal.

Oh, and tell all the Red States getting subsidized by all the Blue States that the Blue States are somehow living off the gravy of paying the Red States to live. Because that has indeed worked for decades now to get Red States to vote Republican, since it does work to rip off Blue States beneath those total lies.

Now give me a "But Clinton..." for old times sake.

Well, in that case...we need to stop sending all that tax money to the Federal govt., and start keeping it to ourselves to fund our needs and rebuilding zones.

And...one big help for LA, would to be to just take posession of all those nice oil rigs/drilling operations and leases for sure from the Federal govt. and keep all that lease and royalty money for ourselves, rather than having it go into the US general funds. With that, we could MORE than take care of our rebuilding problems.

Don't be so sure. Since 1984 Louisiana has been a beneficiary of Federal spending, receiving more than $1.20 per tax dollar contributed since 1988. Source http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html (Flash app linked. Base PDF available from http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ftsbs-timeseries-20071016-.pdf). I'm not sure if the leases from oil rigs is accounted for in this research, but according to the state's DNR page (http://dnr.louisiana.gov/min/petlan/petlan.asp) there's a whole office division dedicated to tracking such leases. Further, according to the Federal Bureau of Land Management, http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls98/98PL1-3.PDF, 744,782 acres (or only 2.6%) of Louisiana is Federally owned as of 1996. I don't imagine that changes much, so the relative age of the document shouldn't be of concern. Perhaps The Fed is hoarding the most lucrative part of the state... According to http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls02/pls3-17_02.pdf, only 65,161 acres are in a "Producing" status. Huh. There are thirteen other states that have more Federal Lands in a Producing status...

Perhaps by upping the property taxes (5th lowest in the country), you could better cover the real cost of living there. http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/31.html

For what it's worth, I know full well that my state of residence (Alaska) is also a beneficiary of the Union, on parity with Louisiana.

Well, in that case...we need to stop sending all that tax money to the Federal govt., and start keeping it to ourselves to fund our needs and rebuilding zones.

And...one big help for LA, would to be to just take posession of all those nice oil rigs/drilling operations and leases for sure from the Federal govt. and keep all that lease and royalty money for ourselves, rather than having it go into the US general funds. With that, we could MORE than take care of our rebuilding problems.

Don't be so sure. Since 1984 Louisiana has been a beneficiary of Federal spending, receiving more than $1.20 per tax dollar contributed since 1988. Source http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html (Flash app linked. Base PDF available from http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ftsbs-timeseries-20071016-.pdf). I'm not sure if the leases from oil rigs is accounted for in this research, but according to the state's DNR page (http://dnr.louisiana.gov/min/petlan/petlan.asp) there's a whole office division dedicated to tracking such leases. Further, according to the Federal Bureau of Land Management, http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls98/98PL1-3.PDF, 744,782 acres (or only 2.6%) of Louisiana is Federally owned as of 1996. I don't imagine that changes much, so the relative age of the document shouldn't be of concern. Perhaps The Fed is hoarding the most lucrative part of the state... According to http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls02/pls3-17_02.pdf, only 65,161 acres are in a "Producing" status. Huh. There are thirteen other states that have more Federal Lands in a Producing status...

Perhaps by upping the property taxes (5th lowest in the country), you could better cover the real cost of living there. http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/31.html

For what it's worth, I know full well that my state of residence (Alaska) is also a beneficiary of the Union, on parity with Louisiana.

Well, in that case...we need to stop sending all that tax money to the Federal govt., and start keeping it to ourselves to fund our needs and rebuilding zones.

And...one big help for LA, would to be to just take posession of all those nice oil rigs/drilling operations and leases for sure from the Federal govt. and keep all that lease and royalty money for ourselves, rather than having it go into the US general funds. With that, we could MORE than take care of our rebuilding problems.

Don't be so sure. Since 1984 Louisiana has been a beneficiary of Federal spending, receiving more than $1.20 per tax dollar contributed since 1988. Source http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html (Flash app linked. Base PDF available from http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ftsbs-timeseries-20071016-.pdf). I'm not sure if the leases from oil rigs is accounted for in this research, but according to the state's DNR page (http://dnr.louisiana.gov/min/petlan/petlan.asp) there's a whole office division dedicated to tracking such leases. Further, according to the Federal Bureau of Land Management, http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls98/98PL1-3.PDF, 744,782 acres (or only 2.6%) of Louisiana is Federally owned as of 1996. I don't imagine that changes much, so the relative age of the document shouldn't be of concern. Perhaps The Fed is hoarding the most lucrative part of the state... According to http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls02/pls3-17_02.pdf, only 65,161 acres are in a "Producing" status. Huh. There are thirteen other states that have more Federal Lands in a Producing status...

Perhaps by upping the property taxes (5th lowest in the country), you could better cover the real cost of living there. http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/31.html

For what it's worth, I know full well that my state of residence (Alaska) is also a beneficiary of the Union, on parity with Louisiana.

"You've already got the largest home default rate in the first world"

First [citation needed], second, we've got the largest hoe ownership rate in the fist world, so the largest default rate would kind of go hand in hand. Last, so what? what is that a measure of besides the easy availability of credit for home ownership?

"one of the highest tax rates on low income earners "

The lowest earners pay nothing in taxes. Zero. How, exaclty would you suggest we make them pay less than zero (and no, that is not a small amount of people either, it was about 1/3rd of the population in 2006 http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html)

"shitty government spending on education and health care per capita even when compared to many third world nations"

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_pri_sch_stu-spending-per-primary-school-student

Which of Denmark, Switzerland and Austria are third world countries? Those are the only ones that are above the US in primary school spending per student.

So what about secondary school?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_sec_sch_stu-spending-per-secondary-school-student

It appears now it's only Switzerland and Austria. I'm sure they'll be surprised to know they're third world...

So what about healthcare spending then? Ar eyou really going to try and make the case that the US, well know for spending more on healthcare than anyone by far, is behind a third world country?

Well, you'd be wrong.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_spe_per_per-health-spending-per-person

#1. What else is there to say?

I don't like taxation any more than you do, but nothing you said there was true to the facts.

If you buy an investment and it actually does return money, you get taxed on that even though the company that issued the bond or stock pays revenue and profit taxes or that you're paying property taxes on real estate investmenats.

So, people who work for a living pays an income tax but those who collect dividends and interest on stocks and bonds pay none?

This really only scratches the surface. If everything was a simple, one-step tax, people would be horrified at the amount they pay.

Actually if the federal government stopped doing extra-constitutional things then taxes wouldn't need to be so high. This year Tax Freedom Day was 23 April, that means it took 3 months to pay this year's taxes.

Falcon

I will continue to whine buddy. We pay extra taxes above and beyond the ones I stated for booze and cigaretts as well as you Canards. These are additional taxes politicians love because "sin" taxes are easy to pass. Here in Chicago, we pay an extra $2.53 per pack of cigarettes for "sin" tax which nearly doubles the pre-tax cost of cigarettes. And of course we pay more for taxes on alcohol.

Chicago has extra sales tax charges of up to 20% for a variety of items like car rentals, hotels, soft drinks, etc as well. The rates and applications of sales tax are so complex in Chicago that without computers, no human being would be able to compute them. I can't even list all the categories they have extra taxes.

Hell, in Chicago we even pay additional taxes for DRINKING WATER !!!

Can you beat that Canada ?!?

Not to mention that our sales tax is in addition to state income taxes and federal income taxes. Oh, and don't you Canadians actually get something for your taxes.... like free health care?

Actually, the "lazies" you're talking about are the "Red States", which all get more money back from the Federal government than they send it in Federal taxes. The "Blue States" like New York pay to prop up those Welfare States by sending more taxes to DC than we get back.

Well, there's a textbook logical fallacy for ya. Just like those nationwide red/blue election maps that make it look like 90% of the country voted for Bush.

Big cities pay more taxes because they have more people, and big cities tend to vote Democrat. Those two data points aren't necessarily related, and without showing that they are, your entire argument falls apart. Come back when you have some "laziness per capita" figures.

Actually, the "lazies" you're talking about are the "Red States", which all get more money back from the Federal government than they send it in Federal taxes. The "Blue States" like New York pay to prop up those Welfare States by sending more taxes to DC than we get back.

There are a few notable exceptions. New Mexico is the poorest state, with the most tribal population, and lots of large Federal military bases and labs, so its welfare goes mainly to big Federal contractors who don't spread it around the state much. Hawaii is another state with a lot of poor people, many of them tribal, and lots of large Federal military bases. Maine gets a little more than it pays, but again is overall pretty poor. Texas, that "Republican Paradise", is taxed and feeladen every which way, in a giant ripoff, getting just a little less than it pays. Florida is right near the breakeven, but at least it's paying to prop up a system it was #1 in ushering in with its 2000 election. New Hampshire somehow gets screwed, too.

But other than that, the other 44 states all demonstrate that voting Democratic does get you taxed to redistribute your wealth to the rest of the country - even when the redistributors are a Republican controlled Federal government. The list also demonstrates the myth that "the West is independent": other than NM and TX, all those Western states are subsidized by the rest of the country, as they have been since they were colonized.

That list represents the most valuable wealth redistribution programme ever undertaken. Run by Republicans, at the peak of their power. Even as those Republicans cut Federal taxes while running up the Federal expenses, both in record amounts. But evidently spreading the benefits along more or less strict Party lines.

These use taxes have never been challenged in court and if states push much harder, I'm betting they will be.

Sure they have. The whole "physical presence" thing comes out of caes like Bellas Hess and Quill Corp. v. North Dakota

I know whining about taxes is as American as apple pie, but the issue here is not whether states can impose taxes, but whether they can make merchants collect them.

Virginia (the Old Dominion, a bastion of conservatism) has a use tax. It's surprising to me that New York, which has a higher tax bite doesn't. Of course, the problem with use taxes comes in collecting them, and that's why most states collect sales tax from the seller.

And for all of the smug idiots who think they are paying for me to live in what should be a swamp, you don't think my tax dollars go to benefit you in any way? I pay my own way just like you do.

Not really. Louisiana receives $1.78 in federal funds for every $1.00 collected in federal taxes So the other states are taking care of you. In fact, LA is the 4th most leechy state.

Your expectations of FEMA were unreasonable. Maybe if you and your fellow citizens held your local and state goverment to higher standards you wouldn't have had a problem.

"If South Carolina seceded again, but instead of putting up a military, they just stopped paying the feds and accepting help and whatever else they'd have to do...

S. Carolinians would lose $0.35 for every Federal tax Dollar their residents paid. Please go ahead and secede S. Carolina, make my day...

you mistake correlatiom for causation. The high cost of living in CA, NY, DC, NJ, etc do not necessarily cause high salaries, though they are correlated to high salaries.

It's tangential to my argument. When I'm speaking casually I don't necessarily go through a big effort to make the distinction, but I don't mistake the two.

But, even if we accept your premise that there is no problem here because the differences are due to the progressive tax system... would it not then follow that federal "aid" to these areas should also be higher, since the cost of providing services in those areas is higher?

The whole point of a progressive tax system is to put a disproportionately higher burden on the wealthy, so it doesn't necessarily follow.

Let's look at some numbers. Going by http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html we see that Connecticut was one of the "best" states in 2005, paying $11522 and receiving $8795 per person. Arkansas was one of the "worst" states, paying $5030 and receiving $7364 per person.

So you are right, there does seem to be some effort to make up for cost of living differences, since Connecticut receives more aid per person than Arkansas. Let's see if it's enough.

According to this report, the average salary in Connecticut is $47k versus Arkansas with $26k.

Tax revenue increase is 138% (11522 vs. 5030), but the average salary increase is only 80% (only, heh). The lovely progressive tax system at work.

Anyway, if we use a cost-of-living calculator, we see that the cost of living difference is even less. This tool suggests that $26k/year in Arkansas is about $36k/year in Connecticut, for an average cost of living increase of only 38%. So tax revenue increase is definitely far outstripping COLA.

Connecticut's aid is only 19% more per person than Arkansas, so that doesn't quite make up for cost of living. But it's clear (to me anyway) that the majority of Connecticut's "federal tax deficit" is legitimate since they get *almost* the same amount of aid (cost-adjusted) even though they have 80% higher salaries (58% higher cost-adjusted) on *average*.

Now in reality, the top 10% of Connecticut tax payers probably pay more than the rest of the state combined. In any case, according to this Java tool, a single person who earns $47k (Connecticut's average, remember) pays $6700 in federal income tax (not $11k, Connecticut's average). So the average Connecticut person is still getting a net positive from federal tax spending. (Paying $6700 in tax and getting $8750 back.) This supports my original argument that comparisons between states are pretty much meaningless. The average person in each state benefits. The poor benefit even more.

Also, if the numbers were easily available, I would dig into how that aid is broken down between welfare and wasteful projects versus things that actually improve the state (business development, infrastructure, etc). I would wager that Connecticut receives a higher proportion of "good" aid and that Arkansas receives more welfare aid that, while helping some people, isn't going to do much for Arkansas in the long run.

Which describes almost every "red" state in the Union.

Citation needed. Badly.

Okay, here's a link to a special report by the Tax Foundation (a very conservative anti-tax organization, btw). Line up the states by the ratio of federal spending to taxes paid. The highest ratios? New Mexico, Alaska, Mississippi, Alabama, the Dakotas, Virginia, West Virginia, Montana, Idaho. The lowest ratios? New York, California, Minnesota, Illinois, New Jersey, Connecticut, Mass. The correlation isn't perfect (e.g. Texas is receives slightly less in federal expenditures than it pays in taxes, and obviously, it's pretty durned red. Iowa is the reverse), but it's pretty strong. A little googling will reveal a number of additional citations.

citation.

Most of the "red" states receive more Federal money than they pay in taxes, versus most of the "blue" states that pay more in taxes than they get back.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html

I Googled this, then just took a quick look at places like Alabama, Mississippi and Kentucky. Pretty self-explanatory.

Check the federal funds report (latest data is 2006, published early July). Note that Louisiana and Mississippi figures are abnormal compared to historical data due to Katrina, and this only covers expenditures, not federal taxes paid from the state in question.

If you want to see balance of payment figures, check this link out. New Jersey (my home state), for example, only receives $0.61 for every dollar remitted to the federal government.

Here's a nice slideshow that shows 25 years of historical BOP rankings for each state (flash required).

The correlation between "red state" and "high ranking in funds received vs. remitted" is extremely strong... I'd seen a map of red/blue states where the data was plugged in that made it ridiculously apparent, but couldn't find the link quickly & can't be bothered to do the same myself right now. I'm sure it's around somewhere if you care to spend some time googling.

Funny, though, how it's primarily due to the higher incomes in the blue states and the progressive tax system... and the Republicans are the ones against a progressive tax system that benefits their states. Just goes to confirm that the rural poor in the US vote against their own economic interests.

Here's an obnoxiously laid out page that shows many dollars a state received per dollar paid out in 2005. I'm sure you can find a red state/blue state map somewhere and do the comparison yourself.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

Actually, if you would compare that to the 2004 election and post red/blue totals, that would be great.

Actually, this is much better, and has an interesting map to boot. http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf (PDF)

Here's an obnoxiously laid out page that shows many dollars a state received per dollar paid out in 2005. I'm sure you can find a red state/blue state map somewhere and do the comparison yourself.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

Actually, if you would compare that to the 2004 election and post red/blue totals, that would be great.

Actually, this is much better, and has an interesting map to boot. http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf (PDF)

Here's an obnoxiously laid out page that shows many dollars a state received per dollar paid out in 2005. I'm sure you can find a red state/blue state map somewhere and do the comparison yourself.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

Actually, if you would compare that to the 2004 election and post red/blue totals, that would be great.

Are there any other taxes for cell phones in the US which are directly charged to the consumer?

Yes there are various excise taxes levied on cell phone bills. The federal government as well as state and local government each levy their own taxes on wireless communications. This is a slightly outdated listing of taxes by state. For the most part it is a "because we can" sort of tax courtesy of our elected officials.

We can start buy cutting out all of the pork and then work from there

Again, what exactly is pork? Everybody seems to think that something is pork..... unless it's being spent in their own hometown, in which case it's "economic development". Why do you think that Congress as a whole has a 18% approval rating but most of the bastards are still re-elected over and over again? (Well, to be fair gerrymandering has something to do with that too but I think you get my drift)

That was a typo. Meant to say lower taxes in general.

Ok, so you aren't a heartless bastard :) My mistake for jumping on you like that but that's how it read and I've seen my fair share of right-leaning trolls that would make a statement like that....

Of course this will be spun as a tax cut for the rich since they are the only ones who pay taxes

Where do you get this idea that they are the only ones who pay taxes? This study says that in 2004 the top 20% paid 52.8% of Federal taxes. That suggests that the bottom 80% are paying almost half. You might argue from a philosophical standpoint that you find that unfair -- the counter-argument to that is that the richest 1% of this country holds 33% of the wealth and the richest 20% holds 51% (source).

Don't worry - this is just /. making sure the facts don't get in the way of a good scare story.

The actual law in Japan requires a waistline above the specified figures and a weight related ailment. See link and link

If someone is fighting fit and as a result has built body mass causing a larger waist, they're still not going to see any penalty unless they develop a weight related condition of some sort.

That is not the issue. If a NY resident buys something they are subject to NY tax, no matter where they bought it or how it was shipped to them, by truck or by wire. The sale takes place wherever the buyer lives.

There's links to cases in this article which say exactly the opposite. If I drive to NY, buy something at a B&M store, I don't have to pay sales tax to PA. The sale occured where the merchant received payment, AFAICT. Now, instead of leaving, I do the same thing online. My card is charged by a server in NY. The SC has clearly said as much.

I don't think anything in the constition says that I have to pay sales tax to my home state for a transaction which took place outside the state border. I've never heard of such a thing, and to date everything I have seen has said this is absolutely not allowed. People are not citizens of any one state, they are citizens under the Federal government.

Tax Freedom Day, the day where our tax obligations would be met if the taxes were collected 100% until met is April 23rd of this year.

It is hard to beleive that since the inception of the Union, that the income tax rate has gone from 1% (with only 1 in 10 claiming any income) to everyone paying around 30% (Prior to 1913 taxing income was questionable.) What went from a measure enacted in 1913 to tax the rich has turned into a measure that taxes the poor better than it does the rich.

New York can very constitutionally tax goods that are used in New York. And it can reach Amazon to enforce it because Amazon has "purposefully availed" itself of the New York market by advertising there and shipping orders there. See the case Asahi Metal.

To put your data into the proper perspective, the top 10% collect 46.44% of the income (2007). So if your data is correct, they represent 40% of taxes paid, that doesn't sound so bleak.
  http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Anyway, to stay on topic those who want to watch OTA tv get your rebate coupons and buy the digital tuner from a reputable dealer.

No, the story is simple. You Republicans are incredibly divisive, as anyone honest will tell you. Your problem is that you're claiming that forcing Americans to stop killing each other is "divisive", and that somehow I claimed I would never divide dangerous people from the people we need to protect. By your "logic", putting any criminals in jail is "divisive".

You and your faithy ilk want to get subsized by government handouts, but never pay the taxes. You're driving those trucks with gunracks around land your grandpappy stole from the tribes who lived there, after the government paid the army to break their nations, and you don't ever want to pay any bills.

I mean, you'll even ignore how Republicans controlled the Federal government the last time a nationwide credit scam destroyed the economy, creating the Great Depression (and the land handouts that created the Dust Bowl), to somehow blame it on the Democrats who finally ended it.

There's no "moral" in your story. You're a liar and a cheat defending the stupidest policies that have most blatantly destroyed so much that Americans worked to create for generations. You're not even amusing while you do it: you're as predictable as a "Left Behind" sermon on abortion.

So my work here is done. Goodbye.

"It's not impossible that a universal healthcare solution could actually reduce the amount of money most people spend on healthcare."

Please read my reply again. What I am concerned about is the fundamental violation of my rights and the rights of my neighbors and fellow citizens. I am being told that I am less and less entitled to the fruits of my labor. Last year, Tax Freedom Day fell on April 30th. That basically means that, if you started on January 1st and put all of your labor toward taxes, you would have to keep doing that until April 30th before you would be free to get 100% of your income for the rest of the year. With universal healthcare, this date will surely come later in the, each year.


"You're already paying for healthcare for everyone (if you spend anything on healthcare) in the form of high costs that have built in the assumption that something like 40% of the patients will never pay."

Thank the government for the situation we are now in. If the market were free to function of its own accord (as it can and always will despite the public's irrational fears), competition would lower costs. But competition has been eradicated. The government granted tax exemption status to certain insurance companies (Blue Cross / Blue Shield), which then gained a monopoly. They were then able to modify the definition of insurance to include not only emergencies, but routine medical visits. This, combined with tax-breaks for employer-sponsored insurance, has minimized incentives for customers to comparison-shop for medical services, and also minimized incentives for doctors and hospitals to compete on price.

When people learn that the government should keep its claws out of money altogether, we'll stop getting these idiotic solutions that are only proposed in order to stir up support from voters, but end up having devastating effects that last well beyond the candidate's political career.

No, your gasoline has been driven UP artificially by the taxes on it. How much tax are you paying on a litre of gas? On a three dollar gallon here in Illinois (it's about $3.20 right now but was $2.85 just two weeks ago), there's $.184 per gallon (roughly four litres), and a state tax of $.201. However, if I didn't have to pay for medical insurance and health care, I wouldn't mind paying what you guys pay.

I blame Bush and Cheney, the oil men who now inhabit the White House (two more reasons for the world to be angry at us). Gasoline here costs three times what it did when they took office; it was a buck a gallon then. I firmly believe that the true reason for the Iraq war was to destabilise the middle east to drive up oil prices so Bush and Cheney could reap the benefits.

I spent a few weeks in WI this summer, and was completely blown away by their state fair.

Glad you liked it. It's typically thought of a pretty good fair.

Every food booth there sold beer along with food.

Hmmm... It's been too long since I've been to the state fair. I can say for things like SummerFest, there are big beer stalls pretty much everywhere that you buy beer from. I don't recall the food vendors selling beer. I'm kind of surprised that food vendors at the state fair do that, only because fairs tend to like to keep things streamlined.

In Oregon, you have to have a fenced off area, with guards manning the entrance, ID'ing everyone that wants to walk in.

That's not much different than Wisconsin. The state fair might not have fenced off beer gardens but most city festivals will have one with the same ID policy. Heck, in Madison we call those beer gardens "bars".

My cousin couldn't enter the beer garden, because her 1 year old son was with her in a stroller, and they wouldn't let her in

Too bad the police where the ones having to give you cousin some common sense.

she might give alcohol to a minor!

A likely story. I think the cops are probably smart enough to know that a 1-year old kid in a stroller in a packed beer garden full of stumbling inebriated beer bellies is probably not the "safest" place for a child and had to dumb it down for your cousin. Of course, if you've seen YouTube lately, it shouldn't be too surprising to see parents give their 1-2 year old beer, pot, or other drugs. Of course, I think there's policies all over Wisconsin that bar things like strollers in beer gardens. Though, if the parent wants to get a beer, it's Wisconsin law that minors can be in bars (and even drink) if accompanied by their parent/guardian. Though, the bar tender doesn't *have* to server you if he doesn't want.

Nice to know that Oregon is there to Protect you from yourself!

Sounds like your family needs it.

The grass is always greener. You're welcome to have our "beer policies" if we trade our tax burdens as well.

Those costs will end up in corporate coffers which are largely untaxed.

What utter BS! Corporations pay much higher taxes than normal people! Most large corporations pay 35% taxes. In fact, the three largest oil companies paid $44.3B in taxes in 2005. In comparison, the bottom half of all income tax payers combined was only $28.7B in 2005!

The US you live in is payed for by corporations and rich guys. And you wonder why they end up with all the power?

Those costs will end up in corporate coffers which are largely untaxed.

What utter BS! Corporations pay much higher taxes than normal people! Most large corporations pay 35% taxes. In fact, the three largest oil companies paid $44.3B in taxes in 2005. In comparison, the bottom half of all income tax payers combined was only $28.7B in 2005!

The US you live in is payed for by corporations and rich guys. And you wonder why they end up with all the power?

Here's another treat: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/486.html Not sure how much to trust this organization, but they seem to lay out where the get the numbers. Looks like we're not so heavily taxed as states go. I'm curious as to why our federal tax burden is so much higher than other states. Perhaps it's because of the limited deductibility of sales tax coupled with relatively higher income? That would certainly do it.

I was going off of this, and factoring in the increase we saw last year. I think the fact you CANNOT find a consistent answer to the taxation paid is scary enough!