Slashdot Mirror

Well Arkansas receives more FROM the federal government than they pay TO the federal government, so maybe you should work on that before complaining about paying the feds taxes.

The taxes are $14/L for alcohol in the US I think.

Not sure where you got that figure, but from what I find, alcohol taxes on spirits vary from state to state ranging between $1.50 and $6.50 per gallon (of liquor, not actual alcohol content).

Wikipedia had some more data before, I would swear it... It may have been 5 years ago, however when the tax came up again... :) Anyway, another link. http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1168.html And yes, I confused 50 cents with 50 percent. But once you factor in all the other taxes, it works out to almost $2 a gallon in 2005, so not really that far off.

As for the sales tax, that varies by state. Buy in all they states I have shopped in recently, food components (beef, cheese, milk) have no sales tax, but prepared foods (McDonald's) does. This makes sense because if you can afford to eat out, you can more afford a tax. But in the case of fuel, you pay the same regardless of if it is for a joy ride, or to get to work.

And I am not saying oil is overly taxed. Just that it is not "subsidized." After all, they are public companies. If they are doing so well, why is the stock not much higher? Why is the ROI so low? And why are more people not worried that most of the new offshore drilling on the US coast is foreign companies in "Cuba?"

40 million people live in the NE and they account for 25% of GDP. There are 310 million people in the US. So 13% of the population is producing 25% of GPD.... You don't think having an efficient way to quickly move people and goods between major cities would increase productivity there or have any benefit to the whole country? What about the jobs created in Kansas to build and maintain tracks? What if Kansas becomes a major hub for the trains traveling across the continent? Kansas also falls into the "red state welfare" category of receiving more Federal dollars than they pay in (At least from 1982 to 2005)..... that money is coming from somewhere. I've lived in the US for 5 years now and I am still amazed at how prevalent the "How does this benefit my State?" attitude is. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeastern_United_States_(U.S._Census_Bureau) http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/22685.html

NH has two large airports (Manchester and Portsmouth [and several smaller ones]), a power plant (Seabrook), and is not likely to be attacked on it's on if it adopts a foreign policy of non-interventionism and free trade (you know, like America was INTENDED to) - in addition we see $0.71 worth of services for every dollar we ship to DC, 47th out of 50 in the country (source: Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2005 - http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html) - we no longer need the federal government and would do better on our own.

Top 10% pay only 70% of tax.
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

I can't find an irs link, but you didn't provide one either.

If the top 10% fled the country, their incomes would be given to other americans, who would then pay the same taxes.

It's not as if the rich are paying their fair share of taxes, and they haven't really since 1980. The United States has the same tax collection rate as Romania. So, you would expect it to have social services on par with Romania.

Once you get to the actual civilized world, like England and France and Germany, you see the rate in the high 30s or low 40s, because that's what it costs to build and maintain a civilization that takes care of the elderly, the disabled, and the mentally ill.

If you want to live in a place like Romania or Moldova, where the disabled and elderly are helped to die or filed away at the edge of town languishing until they are dead, that's fine. That's the road America has chosen right now. The wealthy have spent billions convincing the middle class that low taxes are great, but now we are seeing the results of that policy. They (the top 1%) have lowered their own tax rate from 34% to 23% between 1980 and now.

But they're not willing to budge on the military they use to forcefully open markets. They're not willing to allow the middle class to have a public option to lower the cost of health care. They're not willing to improve free access to education to make our economy stronger and our population more employable.

They want to keep depriving the US government of money until it breaks down, and then accept a much lower standard of government service so they can go for the 10 million dollar yacht instead of settling on the 7 million dollar model.

They are worthless fucks who don't care about their countrymen, and I'd rather them emigrate to Romania before they rob America of the rest of it's wealth. Not after.

No, California's economic problems stem from a number of factors:

• The largest percentage of illegal immigrants (most of whom don't pay taxes) of any state in the U.S. (Source: statemaster.com)
• One of the largest homeless populations per capita of any state in the U.S. (due principally to climate)
• A history of significant imbalance between dollars sent to the federal government and dollars gotten back. (Source: taxfoundation.org) Note that the state is doing better than break-even this year, as is every other state, but decades of losses add up.
• A massively broken U.S. health care system that is causing every state in the nation to bleed.
• Severe unemployment in historically strong sectors.
• The bursting of much bigger housing bubbles than nearly anywhere else in the country, resulting in a sudden and dramatic drop in property tax revenues.
• Over-reliance on sales tax revenue that took a dive due to the recession.
• Decades of stupid politicians with no financial sense who spent every penny the state brought in. This is basically a fundamental problem with having 90% of your government officials be lawyers; most lawyers have never dealt with tough economic times, so most do not know how to live within their means.

There are probably plenty of other things that I'm not thinking of right now. Notice that none of these have much, if anything, to do with California's constitution.

Just to be clear here... "Fair" does not mean more. The rich are already paying a higher percentage of their income (28-35%) than the poor (10-25%.) (Arbitrary line drawn by me) You can see by the first chart:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
that even after adjustments, the rich still pay over 17% (up to 23%) where the "poor" pay under 15% (as low as 2.59%.)

I think what you are referring to as "Fair" is the rich being taxed so much that they can only afford minimally more than the poor. This is only "Fair" if you think that net income (after taxes) should be equal. Or that "Fair" constitutes a specific standard of living and anything above that is "excess." The problem with that is that it's only fair until you cross the line where it's now, "not fair" that they are taking more of your income than your neighbor who doesn't work as many hours or have as much responsibility as you.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on what you are thinking.

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

That's just it, there is no such animal as a small government type, in government. Whatever they were before they got into government, once they are there, they are for "big government." Republicans do not want a small government, they just want to do away with the parts they don't want (social programs, regulatory agencies, pork for other states) and increase the parts they do want (farm subsidies, the military, pork for their state.) If Republicans wanted small government, they could have it. Al they would have to do is stop taking federal money taken from the taxes of the rich, blue states. They could have their small government quite easily.

Take a look at who pays, and who receives. Poor Republican states are leaching off the rich Democratic states. If Republicans wanted small government and fiscal responsibility, they would pay their own way in their own states.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

Funny thing is, the states that vote Democrat tend to pay more in federal taxes than they receive in federal spending. It is the poor rural red states that are the leaches off of the rich blue states. The Democrats "base" tend to be more educated and affluent than the Republican base. The Republican base are the ones actually receiving entitlements like farm subsidies, and "homeland defense" for small towns of 400 who get more money than New York City.

Read this report on taxes versus spending per state. Note which states receive more federal spending than they pay in taxes, and which pay more than they get. Republicans should stop accusing others of being leaches, when all the evidence shows that they are leaching off of the very people they call leaches. Must be nice living in a Red state, getting all the dirty liberal commies to pay for your farm subsidies and other benefits, and still getting to believe that you are the productive citizen and they are the leaches. Denial is alive and well in America.

In China this would be pointless because why would the government care what their people thought?

The Chinese government cares a lot about what their people think, that's why they have a lot of censorship. The Chinese government is well aware of history and of what happened to previous Chinese governments. Piss off too many (e.g. the peasants) and you die.

FWIW, a lot of the Chinese people support their own government (just look at the patriots out in full force during the Olympics).

Why?
1) The censorship and brainwashing. Control what people see and that affects what they think, and that's how you keep them supporting you.
2) Because there have actually been significant positive changes. Railways and highways have been built, many of the poor have benefited from those. Sure there's lots of bad stuff happening, but they can just look at a lot of other countries and go "We're doing better" or "we're doing pretty good given the hand we've been dealt".
3) They can see that at least some parts of the Government are trying to improve things for China, and not just a corrupt few. They're in the process of building very many nuclear reactors so that they don't have to burn so much coal and have so much pollution.

As for accountability: a number of high ranking officials actually get executed for corruption or screwing up big time[1]. Sure maybe at the very top there are untouchables, but is it really so different in the US or other countries? And how high up is this US guy anyway: http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20101104/NEWS/101109939/1078&ParentProfile=1062
They're possibly even slightly afraid of the people, they abolished the agricultural tax: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-03/06/content_422126.htm
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1274.html

It's not that rosy, there are lots of problems and it could fall apart: http://www.china.org.cn/china/2010-01/21/content_19282590.htm
That "houses are way too expensive" problem does exist in many other countries too though.

You can see that many of the Chinese leaders are trying though. Wish my Government (in Malaysia) was even trying to improve the country- so far they've been doing a lot of stupid/bad things. The guy at the top says lots of nice stuff, but so far it's just been talk, whereas his underlings say and do pretty bad stuff.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/09/AR2007070900689_pf.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10535226
http://www.newkerala.com/news/world/fullnews-87512.html

Some 2008 tax numbers for you to chew on:

The top 1% of income earners ($380,354) pay 38% of income taxes.
The top 10% of income earners ($113,799) pay 70% of income taxes.
The top 25% of income earners ($67,280) pay 86% of income taxes.

Tell me again how the rich don't pay any taxes?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Thank FSM tax burdens never change in five years!

In 2008 (the most recent data), Florida (7.4%), Wyoming (7.0%) and Nevada (6.6%) were lower than NH (7.6%). http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/336.html

Most people I tell are shocked when I tell them that the income tax rates on individual income over $200000 was 92%, according to this Tax Foundation pdf file. This would be the equivalent of taxing millionaires at 92% today. The interesting thing is that the period from 1945 to 1963 was one of profound middle class economic security. When I read about Mr. Balmer's income tax shenanigans, I am reminded how much times have changed.

And even though nobody on this site wants to hear this, that would be the highest earners who paid the most.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/341.html

But I doubt anyone wants to REALLY see what the tax break down is, and WHO actually paid the most for the space station. That would completely ruin their arguments of how THEIR money was wasted.

I used that link because it references the IRS for its data, and the pdf that they used.

All of Utah's territory was taken from the nations who lived there before, largely by the Federal government. So Utahans' claim to the land isn't really compelling.

Besides, that Federal land is given to Utah corporations for free or cheap ranching and mining/drilling, without paying taxes on owning it.

Corrupt is in the eye of the one paying the bill. Since I pay for Utah to get back 7% more than it pays (and as much as 45% more, in 1987) from Federal spending in the state, as my state loses 21% net, I can see where the real corruption lands.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/151.html

The top marginal tax rate in the early '60s was 91%.

Under Reagan it went from 70% down to 50%.

Following the Bush tax cuts, the maximum marginal tax rate is 35%.

Fiscally speaking, the lunatics have been in charge of the asylum for 20 years, which is why I have a hard time taking 'high tax' talking points seriously. Budget deficits and continually increasing income inequality, anyone?

My favorite chart : http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html

Of the 42.5 million tax returns that pay no income taxes, 52.9 percent received some form of a refundable credit...

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Federal taxes only.
It shows part of what you are saying-- the wealthy pay more than their share of the federal tax bill.

In 2008, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 38.0 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 20.0 percent of adjusted gross income, compared to 2007 when those figures were 40.4 percent and 22.8 percent, respectively.

The top 5 percent earned 34.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes.

However, not so fast.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
uses the same data to produce different results.
Reason- the wealthy successfully hide their income in capital appreciation, holding stocks which they do not realize profits on, equity in businesses which they are not taxed on and trusts.

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%,
Also...
in 2008, only 19% of the income reported by the 13,480 individuals or families making over $10 million came from wages and salaries. See Norris, 2010, for more details.)
---

And none of the above addresses SStax. A 15% tax on most of us but not on the top 5%.

Doesn't address state tax. That's a separate PDF that I saved -- google it yourself- "tax rates by state". it breaks out all 50 states and the rates people pay. typically the wealthy pay .03 to .05% while the bottom 20% pay about 10 to 12 % of their income for the fixed state and local taxes and federal user fees.

---
We are sliding into an oligarchy.
And on top of that, automation and robotics are going to destroy an enormous amount of jobs over the next two decades. We may reach a point where many can't find a job. What do we do? Let them starve?

"As a *Republican who does not believe that cutting confiscatory taxes actually raises tax revenue from those same taxes despite all evidence to the contrary*" - fixed that for ya.

From the Hillary v. Obama debate, Charlie Gibson actually asks a tough question:

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

Transcript taken from http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23137.html
which was the first link after searching google for gibson obama "purposes of fairness"

I recommend reading the entire exchange so that proper context may be established. Too bad that the context shows that Obama is just another Class Warfare type.

The top American marginal income rates from 1944 to 1963 were 92%. Yes, 92% of income made over the top amount, went to taxation. In 1944, if you made over $200,000, 92% went to the government. In 1963, it was $400,000. And yet, this was a period of profound economic expansion and middle class comfort. Kind of makes you want to question the "conventional wisdom" that all taxes are bad.

This is a list of American historical tax rates: http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_history-june2010.pdf

"The idea that Clinton somehow brought on the mortgage crisis by forcing banks to lend to poor people is simply ludicrous."

You are correct, strictly speaking. However, it was done with the blessing of top leaders of the Democratic party. Here is a transcript of Barney Frank's speech before an assembly to amend the regulation of the Fannie and Freddie funds, this measure was rammed through Congress with the objections of the Bush Administration The measure went through the Democratically-controlled house regardless: Frank Speech.

You are talking about taxes and the original poster is discussing subsidies. They are two sides of the equation. Furthermore, the article you cite is discussing how companies such as Exxon have structured their finances in such a way as to avoid the payment of taxes in the US. This would seem to run counter to the thrust of your argument. Tax shelters allowed by the US tax code are just one form of subsidy...

Getting a trustworthy citation on this issue is almost impossible. Climate groups put the number in the trillions by claiming unpaid environmental damages due to greenhouse gas emissions as a subsidy. I don't believe you should include data you can't quantify.http://www.progress.org/2003/energy22.htm [progress.org]

Conservative groups claim that the amount is only a couple of billion per year. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/26559.html [taxfoundation.org]

The proposed budget by the president attempts to cut subsidies by 36.5 billion. Since it is unlikely that this is an attempt to end all petroleum subsidies (every industry from aircraft manufacture to rice farming receives some subsidies) the number is probably somewhere between 40 and 100 billion per year. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6103RM20100201 [reuters.com]

Did you even try?

Obama angles to turn Gulf oil spill to his advantage

State and Federal Tax Collections on Oil Industry Exceed Oil Industry Profits

As I try to point out in my first post above, I think it is a stretch to call the government policies most beneficial to oil companies, royalty reductions for certain types of wells, "fat subsidies". But yes, royalty hikes would harm the industry and, at least in the short term, America's energy situation.
On another related point: the profitability of the oil industry is often exaggerated or taken out of context. Specifically, their profit margins are not widely known. While US oil companies do make many billions of dollars of profit, this is on even larger amounts of revenue, as this Congressional Research Service report shows, oil industry profits for the ten largest oil companies in America were on average 8% of revenue, well below many other industries such as banks, drug companies, tech companies and even food companies.
This is because the oil industry requires huge capital investments, all the while paying large royalties and more tax than they make profit. For reasons I believe become clear at that site, the argument that US state and federal governments are not getting their fair cut from the oil industry just doesn't hold water.

Compare this to this.

Fifty years ago a single income household was the norm, and there were two cars in the garage, appliances in the house, and a far larger proportion of savings in the bank. The government paid down our WWII debt, and we basically financed the all of the Allies, among whom only Finland paid off its debt, in less than a decade.

And do you know how we did that? Do you know what the top income tax rate was in 1953, the first year of Ike's presidency? 92%

.

We've declined as a society primarily because we stopped investing in the common good. One can't go from a tax rate of 92% to a tax rate of 35% without seriously eroding the common good. It's the common good that drives prosperity because it is investment in these things that are the building blocks of a strong economy.

The top 1% of earners pay 40.42% of all taxes collected yet earn only 22.83% of the money. The top 10% pay 71.22% of all taxes, yet earn only 48.05% of the wages. The top 50% of earners pay 97.11% of all taxes (Figures from 2007 - the last year for which data is available). It's currently estimated that 47% of the wage earners in America effectively pay no federal income taxes.

Under Bush's "tax cuts for the rich" (2001-2007) the proportion of taxes paid by the richest 10% increased from 67% to 72%, while the proportion paid by the lowest 50% of earners went from 3.91% to 2.89%.

Before labeling people as "un-American" -- please check your data.

See here (all data from tables 1 and 6, which are direct reprints of IRS supplied data).

Thank you for stating what Barlow missed ... today's problem has nothing to do with the Internet. Today's federal government governs via taxes and black mail. They take money from the citizens of every state, then won't give it back unless states bow to their pressure. And the federal taxes are so high, states can't refuse. This allows the federal government to mandate things like speed limits and educational standards, when those issues should be left to the states and other localities. All this based on 'the common good' clause in the constitution, and not allowing states to decide what the 'common good' is for their residents.

One only has to look at the federal income tax for to see this. Standards of living are different in every state, yet tax rates and deductions are all the same at the federal level. The tax structure is upside down ... *most* of my taxes should go directly to my city, then the county, state, and feds with the federal government taxing at the lowest rate. Instead, it is top down .. the feds take the biggest bite and dole it out as they see fit, then the states take another bite and do the same. By the time localities create tax rates, there is very little left because their resident's wallets have already been raped.

One way to start to fix this is to reduce the spending habit of the federal government in a controlled manner so that states can pick up the excess. For instance *EVERY* state receives federal highway dollars, which of course is at the whim of the federal government determining who gets what. It's important that states without adequate sources to maintain highways receive assistance, but why then should *EVERY* state??? According to one study, the 'least' amount any state gets is about 70% of what they kicked in. So .. why not decrease federal highway spending by 70%, and not have to put the money through a federal bureaucracy that just gives it back, but only to projects they approve??? States can then increase their taxes to make up the difference, fix what they think needs to be fixed, and we will need fewer bureaucrats in Washington to administer it.

The same is true of many programs .. welfare and education come to mind first. By decreasing the dollars going to the feds, their ability to govern by tax blackmail instead of my constitutional authority decreases.

Yeah, the debt run up by Dubya was a pittance compared to what's going to be run up by the Democrats this cycle. The numbers they _lied_ about were ridiculously high, the real numbers will be insane. You think the cast of Dubya's 8 years was a snaggle toothed bunch of villains? Wait until you see the extent to which these current scoundrels have lied about how much all this shit they're doing is going to really cost.

Got any sources to back that up? Of course not, you're a teabagger. You're too busy massaging Glenn Beck's balls with your tongue to actually do any research, so you just repeat what you heard on his show.

It's even funnier when left wing nuts blame the Republicans for the housing meltdown than it is when right wing nuts blame the Democrats and CRA. It was a bubble - just like the Internet bubble. Sorry, lefty, government is not the solution to all of our problems.

Yeah, and neither is the "free market". Of course the teatards don't mind government spending when they benefit from it. Which they do, quite handsomely. In fact the most teatarded portions of America are also the portions that receive more in federal spending than they contribute in federal taxes.

2 unwinnable wars? Maybe. One of them was legitimate (Afghanistan), one questionable. I think Dubya was a liar too, but my viewpoint is softening on the old scoundrel a little bit. Iraq might have been some plan to create a battlefield with Al Qaeda that was well away from US civilians. Draw them to us where we can fight them at least a little more on our terms.

Or it could be that they were just a bunch of stupid bastards who saw a chance to try out a neo-conservative foreign policy. Your supposition about Iraq though is one of the stupidest fucking things I've ever read on Slashdot though. Really, if you're dumb enough to believe that then you probably have problems maintaining basic sphincter control.

I don't know - they sure as shit lied about it, whatever the real reasons. I think the "durr, it was for multinational evil corporations" screed the left wing loons rant about is a bit facile.

Well those multinational corporations have benefited quite handsomely from our middle eastern adventure, haven't they teatard?

Of course such people still enjoy the services and protections provided by government. Thus in purely financial terms, they are engaging in parasitism. This is a big step towards the welfare state, the nanny state, or whatever you prefer to call it. It works because there are large enough numbers of these people that their votes can easily sway elections and they vote in uniform blocs with little diversity of opinion among them.

Yes, and those uniform voting blocs of non-productive parasites are called Red States. If you weren't a lazy and stupid Libertard you would know that the least productive and most parasitic parts of our country happen to be the most conservative. For every dollar that ultra-liberal California sends to Washington D.C. they receive back .78 cents in federal spending. For every dollar that ultra-libertarian Alaska sends to Washington, D.C. they get back $1.84. Kentucky, home of Rand Paul, the son of Libertarian darling Ron Paul takes $1.55 in federal spending for every $1 they pay in taxes. The parasites you talk about are overwhelmingly Republicans and Libertarians. And of course Ron Paul has never, ever told any of his constituents that they need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and not rely on the federal government.

The number of adult voters with no federal tax liability was 38% prior to the recent stimulus bill and now sits around 47%.

What a load of Libertarded bullshit. This statistic and others like it, so casually tossed about, without any attribution ignorant and dishonest Libertards such as yourself conveniently ignores the fact that these people are still paying Social Security taxes, which make up a large portion of federal spending. The numbers that you're referring to, either disingenuously or stupidly are the numbers of Americans with no Federal Income Tax Liability. Now, these numbers might have increased after the last stimulus bill, but those people are still paying taxes, 15.4 percent of their income, and associated state and local sales and property taxes. So the myth that you're propagating is bullshit and you of course have no numbers to back it up because you're a Libertard and Libertards just make shit up or get their information from conservative e-mails that contain 20,000 Fwd: headers. Oh, and if you look at the chart I linked to you'll find that the states with the highest percentage of individuals who have no federal income tax liability are the Libertarded and Republican Red States while the state with the lowest percentage of citizens with no federal income tax liability is liberal Masschusetts.

Politically, the purpose of creating and encouraging this class of taxpayers is to engage in class warfare. The game is to get a large percentage of the population dependent on government subsidies for their day-to-day living. Those people will then defend and re-elect the politicians who feed that dependency no matter how unreasonable their policies may be.

Again, this perfectly explains the why the Libertards and Republicans who live in the red states keep electing ignorant racists and crackers to Congress such as Jim DeMint, Richard Shelby, John Cronyn and Sam Brownback. These guys are assholes, they're chock full of stupid religious beliefs and hate the idea of individual freedom. They want to use the government to shove Jesus down your throat and if you don't want Jesus shoved down your throat, well too bad. But they keep the welfare payments flowing to their constituents and are thus re-elected, even though they're stupid, corrupt, hate-filled bigots whose very existence is offensive to anyone who believes in limited government.

There is a second benefit to our rulers. The more "rich people" and "poor people" see each other as adver

Of course such people still enjoy the services and protections provided by government. Thus in purely financial terms, they are engaging in parasitism. This is a big step towards the welfare state, the nanny state, or whatever you prefer to call it. It works because there are large enough numbers of these people that their votes can easily sway elections and they vote in uniform blocs with little diversity of opinion among them.

Yes, and those uniform voting blocs of non-productive parasites are called Red States. If you weren't a lazy and stupid Libertard you would know that the least productive and most parasitic parts of our country happen to be the most conservative. For every dollar that ultra-liberal California sends to Washington D.C. they receive back .78 cents in federal spending. For every dollar that ultra-libertarian Alaska sends to Washington, D.C. they get back $1.84. Kentucky, home of Rand Paul, the son of Libertarian darling Ron Paul takes $1.55 in federal spending for every $1 they pay in taxes. The parasites you talk about are overwhelmingly Republicans and Libertarians. And of course Ron Paul has never, ever told any of his constituents that they need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and not rely on the federal government.

The number of adult voters with no federal tax liability was 38% prior to the recent stimulus bill and now sits around 47%.

What a load of Libertarded bullshit. This statistic and others like it, so casually tossed about, without any attribution ignorant and dishonest Libertards such as yourself conveniently ignores the fact that these people are still paying Social Security taxes, which make up a large portion of federal spending. The numbers that you're referring to, either disingenuously or stupidly are the numbers of Americans with no Federal Income Tax Liability. Now, these numbers might have increased after the last stimulus bill, but those people are still paying taxes, 15.4 percent of their income, and associated state and local sales and property taxes. So the myth that you're propagating is bullshit and you of course have no numbers to back it up because you're a Libertard and Libertards just make shit up or get their information from conservative e-mails that contain 20,000 Fwd: headers. Oh, and if you look at the chart I linked to you'll find that the states with the highest percentage of individuals who have no federal income tax liability are the Libertarded and Republican Red States while the state with the lowest percentage of citizens with no federal income tax liability is liberal Masschusetts.

Politically, the purpose of creating and encouraging this class of taxpayers is to engage in class warfare. The game is to get a large percentage of the population dependent on government subsidies for their day-to-day living. Those people will then defend and re-elect the politicians who feed that dependency no matter how unreasonable their policies may be.

Again, this perfectly explains the why the Libertards and Republicans who live in the red states keep electing ignorant racists and crackers to Congress such as Jim DeMint, Richard Shelby, John Cronyn and Sam Brownback. These guys are assholes, they're chock full of stupid religious beliefs and hate the idea of individual freedom. They want to use the government to shove Jesus down your throat and if you don't want Jesus shoved down your throat, well too bad. But they keep the welfare payments flowing to their constituents and are thus re-elected, even though they're stupid, corrupt, hate-filled bigots whose very existence is offensive to anyone who believes in limited government.

There is a second benefit to our rulers. The more "rich people" and "poor people" see each other as adver

Wow, so we are dealing with a real old school firebrand socialist here. How cute, I thought you guys went extinct back in the 80s. Your fantasy has only one problem, it does not correspond in any way to reality. Corporate taxes in those countries are not very high, in fact they are lower than in the USA:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/22917.html
http://alhambrainvestments.com/blog/2009/01/29/corporate-tax-rates-by-country-oecd/


The problem with heavy taxes on corporate profits is that pretty soon there will be no more profits to raid, no more investment in new business, no more innovation. Where do you think corporate profits go exactly? To pay for shareholders yachts? Tiny portion perhaps, but vast majority gets reinvested. You know, the "capital" in capitalism. Your ideological leaders actually know better than you, they know not to kill the golden goose of capitalism because there would be no more money for your precious welfare programs. That's why it is the individual income that is heavily taxed in those countries not corporate profits:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg/800px-Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg.png

But keep dreaming, comrade.

Sure.

However, the Texans won't fall for it. They take a moment to add up all the money they get from the "evil" federal government, and suddenly they're not so interested in leaving.

Except Texas is a donor state, so it get less money from the federal government than what it pays in taxes. http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/60.html

I bet once you factor in all the money that comes in via government jobs in the defense and aerospace industries, among others, Texas wouldn't do so well if it seceded.

slap in the face to these hard working people who for the most part just want to be left the hell alone.

And collect checks from the Federal Government.

Most of the states from which you hear the most noise about "government encroachment" and "getting rid of Government" get more in Federal expenditures than they pay in taxes. Montana, from which you hear lots of whining, gets $1.47 back for every $1 they pay in taxes. Alaska gets $1.84; they're pigging out on Federal tax money. New Mexico is the biggest pig of all, at $2.03. And those "liberal" states? They pull their own weight. New York only gets back $0.79 for every dollar they pay in taxes. California gets even less, $0.78. Massachusetts gets $0.82.

Texas gets $0.94, so they're paying their way, but not by much.

They take all our tax money and return nothing.

For every federal tax dollar that Texas paid to the US in 2005, Texas received 94 cents. Texas ranks #35 among the 50 states and DC:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html [Scroll to page 43]

They dumb down the rest of the nation

Various measures of academic ranking are subjective, but this one puts Texas at #25, almost right smack on the national average:

http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm

and they are also probably largely responsible for most of the failed mortgages.

In 2007, the mortgage foreclosure rate in Texas was 1.21%, compared with 1.33% in the West South Central region and 1.69% nationally:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2007-12-06-delinquency-chart_N.htm

I have to admit: you may have set the record for the most ignorance shown in a single post on Slashdot.

From 1981-2005 (latest year data is available) Texas PAID more Federal taxes than received in Federal Spending - EVERY SINGLE YEAR. That's not true of California or Massachusetts.

The Tax Foundation

If you look at foreclosures adjusted for population then Texas is not one of the problem states. You might want to start by returning California to the Russians.

Texas is large and diverse. Are there things that the state government does that embarrass me? Of course. Are there any states where that is not true?

Although I will mention that for lotto, there's a utility aspect that makes the math equation work in favor of playing the lotto. A dollar a week (even compounded over many years) has almost no utility; life-changing winnings has extremely high utility. It's possible that the probability of winning, however low, is enough to make playing the lotto worth it. It's hard to quantify, though -- is $1 a week worth less than [probability of winning]*[jackpot value]? The human brain has trouble dealing with VLNs, so it's possible that millions of people are wrong, and it's a losing proposition to play the lotto. But I'm not convinced... especially since the act of just playing the lotto has a payoff.

I take it, you are bad at math and poor at reasoning.

Using these assumptions...

years playing: 60
% yield: 5%
initial balance: $1
monthly contribution: $4.35 (for approx 4.35 weeks per month)
final yield: $19814.97

... it is easy to make an argument for savings instead. In fact, in trying to find out how much the average person spends on lotto (about $150-$200), I found this awesome link. Saving only $200 (2006) dollars would yield over one-quarter meeeellion dollars (2006 dollars, so it would nominally be millions) forty years later. That's the catch.

Could you do this AC a favor and reply letting me know you feel just a wee bit foolish?

Also, the proper reason for playing lotto is when the office is grouping their buy-in for a big game. Your odds of winning are poor but the risk of THEM winning and you not getting a cut is just not worth it. Imagine, the people working for you having more money to throw in your face. Can't let that happen!

You might be more correct to say people are poor at planning.

we have been hearing these howls on the left for decades

but how come we don't hear it from the right?

Um, the first link in the summary is just that - the right-leaning Forbes magazine complaining about big corporations not paying U.S. taxes. The article starts off with: "As you work on your taxes this month, here's something to raise your hackles: Some of the world's biggest, most profitable corporations enjoy a far lower tax rate than you do--that is, if they pay taxes at all." But instead of degenerating into hatred for corporations as you did, it tries to probe the reasons why these companies do it, and points out why some proposed solutions may not work. I'm guessing you disagreed with their reasons and therefore classified it as being for these corporations dodging taxes, rather than against it.

Regardless, people on the right do complain about corporations dodging taxes. Very few people on the right are multi-millionaire owners and boardmembers of fortune 500 companies. Most of them are small business owners or part-owners/investors who don't have the luxury of opening offices offshore to take advantage of accounting tricks to avoid taxes. Their businesses have to pay the full burden of U.S. federal and state corporate tax rates, which are among the highest in the world. So there's a sizable group on "the right" who want sensible reform of tax laws (mostly simplification, and elimination of numerous exceptions which almost exclusively benefit the largest companies). But just because they don't believe as you do that all corporations are evil, that's no reason to conclude "the right" is saying nothing about the matter.

Bullshit:

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

Texas is 39th, with 94 cents in Federal spending for every dollar they pay in taxes.

I've been living in New York since 1998, which is 42nd and has 79 cents on the dollar returned to us.

Oh noes! Market freedom! They must be evil!

You pay the same Federal taxes if you live in Texas as you do if you live in New York or New Jersey. You just pay fewer State taxes (particularly in NY, with one of the highest Sales tax rates and one of the highest income tax rates).

Even if you were right, wouldn't it be nice if some businesses could survive without the Federal teat? I have zero Federal contracts and don't want any, so 'government services' don't really affect me beyond the basics, most of which the State provides.

Fortunately my little corporation isn't in Washington. I know first hand that there are many states more conducive to small business.

Fun facts about Wshington state:

Estimated at 8.9% of income, Washington's state/local tax burden percentage ranks 35th highest nationally, below the national average of 9.7%. Washington taxpayers pay $4,334 per capita in state and local taxes.

Washington ranks 9th in the Tax Foundation's State Business Tax Climate Index. The Index compares the states in five areas of taxation that impact business: corporate taxes; individual income taxes; sales taxes; unemployment insurance taxes; and taxes on property, including residential and commercial property. Neighboring states ranked as follows: Idaho (18th), Oregon (14th) and California (48th).

Washington levies no state personal income taxes, joining Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming as the only other states not to do so.

Washington's corporate tax structure contains no corporate income tax. Nevada, Texas and Wyoming are the only other states that do not levy corporate income taxes. However, Washington levies the nation's oldest gross receipts tax, the Business and Occupations (B&O) Tax, first instituted in 1933. Washington, Texas, Ohio, Michigan and Delaware are the only states to levy economy-wide gross receipts taxes.

Washington levies a 6.5% general sales or use tax on consumers, slightly above the national median of 6%. In 2006, state and local governments combined collected $1,868 per capita in general sales taxes, which ranks the highest in the nation. Washington's gasoline tax stands at 37.5 cents per gallon, which ranks 3rd highest nationally. Washington's cigarette tax stands at $2.025 per pack of twenty and ranks 8th highest nationally. The sales tax was adopted in 1933, the gasoline tax in 1921 and the cigarette tax in 1935.

Washington is one of the 37 states that collect property taxes at both the state and local levels. As in most states, local governments collect the majority of property taxes. Washington's localities collected $835.25 per capita in property taxes in fiscal year 2006, which is the latest year the Census Bureau published state-by-state property tax collections. At the state level, Washington collects more property taxes than most states do. In FY 2006, Washington collected $257.73 per capita, bringing its combined state/local property taxes to $1,092.98 per capita, which ranks 25th highest nationally.

Washington taxpayers receive less federal funding per dollar of federal taxes paid than the average state. Per dollar of Federal tax collected in 2005, Washington citizens received approximately $0.88 in the way of federal spending. This ranks the state 38th highest nationally and represents a decline from 1995, when Washington received $0.97 per dollar of taxes in federal spending (ranked 31st nationally). Neighboring states and the federal spending received per dollar of federal taxes collected were: Idaho ($1.21) and Oregon ($0.93). The Facts on Washington's Tax Climate

And there's the Republican's (again, a generalization,) second favorite argument: slippery slope.

If we let gays have civil unions, soon we'll have 8-year-olds marrying their dogs!

Slippery slope is another red herring.

Your numbers for share are also wrong. According to an anti-tax group The Tax Foundation, the top 10% pull in 48.05% of the income, and pay 71.22% of the taxes.

However, those in the 6% to 10% range actually pay *LESS* than the average! They make 10.61% of the income, and only pay 10.58% of the taxes. That's about as even as it gets. Obviously, from there down, each income bracket pays a smaller percentage effective tax rate. So it's really only the top 5% that "pay unfairly."

This also only covers "Adjusted Gross Income", or "what we could con the IRS into thinking we make." Many, if not most, people whose AGI is over the "6% mark" have sources of income that don't fall under income taxes. Thus, their actual increase in net worth each year is likely much higher.

I do fully agree, however, that *LOCAL* cost of living should be taken into account. Someone living in Kokomo, Kentucky or Detroit, Michigan will have "poverty line" drawn much lower than someone living in San Francisco or New York City. (Although I do think 'metropolitan statistical area' should be the basis. Yes, it costs a lot more to live in Manhattan than Detroit; but if you work in NYC, you can choose to live in Hoboken, and even the extra cost of transportation isn't enough to increase away the significantly lower cost of living. Likewise with San Francisco vs. Berkeley.)

To truly turn health care into a free market, you would have to create a system that is much more callous than almost anyone would be willing to tolerate. But, I guess if you're a free market thinker, every problem looks like a nail.

Eh?

Most Republicans were willing to allow subsidies for some individuals to purchase insurance on the private market. There are even some libertarians that hold this view.

McCain's health care tax credit was one of these proposals.

Free market solutions aren't always "the wild west" version of an given issue. Sometimes they mean utilizing market forces through incentives, tax and fiscal policies, in lieu of attempting to fiat outcomes. The reason for this is that market based solutions tend to work better (and cheaper) than fiat solutions.

You can't fiat and end to poverty, and I would argue that you can't fiat a functioning health care system. You setup conditions that allow the market to do it for you, and you provide incentives to help the impoverished.

*shrug* Time will tell, though. I can't imagine people will be happy with Obamacare in the near future, particularly if it kicks off a double-dip recession when the top tax brackets go to an effective 65-70%.

I agree with the point you're trying to make, although I like numbers, so here there are some:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Some of the quotes from the NYT article:
"The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980."

Or from the tax foundation article on Gross Income:
All Taxpayers (141,070,971) $8,798,500,000,000
Top 1% (1,410,710) $2,008,259,000,000
Bottom 50% (70,535,485) $1,078,287

Or the top 1% of incomes earned about 25% of all income in the USA in 2007. Also they earned about a 100 times more per person than the bottom 50%.

To me it shows the American Dream is only for the lucky few.

True. How fortunate that the US is #1 in manufacturing, and vastly ahead of #2 (Japan) and very far ahead of #3 (China).

You know what the most important thing is for statistics? Context. Our manufacturing per capita consistently places us outside of the top 10. It's like people celebrating a US or Canadian women's hockey victory despite the fact that we have more players by a factor of a thousand. Sweden, Norway, Japan, and Germany outperform us in a number of areas. And I bet if you took entertainment out of the equation it would really be illuminating.

You also may want to know that the #2 economy (by GDP alone) is now China. It also just overtook Germany as the world's largest exporter (again, by pure GDP, not per capita).

And worse, Bill Clinton signed a larger tax cut for the rich than George Bush ever did...

Alright, now you're just full of shit, by income tax and by effective tax rates. Read the tax rates here. Top bracket under Bush is 35%. Top bracket under Clinton is 39.6%. Capital gains tax was cut from 20% to 15%. Income from dividends went from 35% to 15%. The Estate Tax was halved, and even completely nonexistent for one year (this year, I think). And that's why you hear the babbling heads screaming bloody murder about keeping the Bush Tax Cuts.

There's even an article in the Times from 2007. This shit is no secret. "Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html

And before you say a word about the richest paying the most taxes - OF COURSE. The top 1% of households hold more than 50% the assets. Why wouldn't they be paying most of the taxes?

If you have any other questions about reality, feel free to ask.

You do know the red states take more Federal money than they pay in taxes, right? Funny how people always like socialism that benefits them, isn't it? Funny how they can feed from the trough, and at the same time, claim it is immoral to feed from the trough, so no one else should.

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

Look how well socialism worked to turn a subsistence level farming community into an industrial powerhouse in under fifty years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

DeLorean? How was that remotely socialist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeLorean_Motor_Company

The Kibbutzim? Okay, well, that was socialism, but the situation is complex, and the failures of the kibbutzim is not necessarily an indictment of socialism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz

That all being said, flamebait? Really? I hate it just as much when it happens to people I disagree with as when it happens to me. "Flamebait" and "Troll" are not synonymous to "I disagree." I don't need your help, reactionary mods, I can make my arguments just fine without your 'helpful' down-moderation of my opponents.

The federal government taxes everyone. In my state, we only see $0.69 of Federal spending for every $1.00 contributed by a citizen in Federal income tax. Most of the central states see more than $1.00 of Federal spending for every dollar they contribute in taxes.

The state and local taxes that I pay make up for the money being taken from my state by the Federal government to pour into pork programs like farm subsidies. Besides, it's not like we can't buy food from other countries.

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

And that's very nice that you've been having lower temps where you live. An interesting data point but it doesn't say really contradict the concept of climate change.