The GP asserted that corporations didn't pay tax. I think we can both agree they did. Now you want to discuss how much they pay; OK, fine. How much should they pay? And how much should the average person pay? Because the vast majority of US citizens pay less than 10% federal income tax. And it's the bottom 80% who pay that rate; the top 20% tend to pay way above 10%.
So how much would you want the corporations to pay, since we agree they ARE paying? How much should the average US taxpayer pay? And how can, like the GP insinuated, an US citizen or corporation avoid paying any taxes? And should we eliminate deductions - which you apparently want to see happen (want to tax based on revenues, not net income - like taxing you on gross income, not adjusted, not after deductions)?
Seems to me that they all pay income taxes - and quite a bit of it. It's a common fallacy that big companies don't pay taxes. Just take a look at the facts for yourself and find out that they do, in fact, pay income taxes - and a lot of them at that.
Businesses - those that make stuff - aren't too happy. And they aren't hiring (in case you didn't notice that we've had millions of people drop out of the employment market - due to long-term unemployment). Now, the investors, the financial industry, they don't really care because the Fed's been pumping $85 billion a month into them - and that's made it easy to make money on the stock market. But in general, the business lobbies (outside of the financial and insurance industries - the big winners from the Obama financial moves) aren't happy.
Go ahead and try to do business in the US without paying US taxes. Heck, try to be a US-based business or citizen and do business overseas. Either way - the IRS will get it's chunk of flesh from you. Even when no other developed country would consider it proper, Uncle Sam will take his cut.
Isn't it a weird coincidence that the Dow Jones Industrial Average has doubled since "anti-business" Obama took office?
Not really, when you consider literally $4 trillion in new dollars (stimulus and QE 1/2/3) pumped into the economy, mainly via Wall Street. That $4 trillion has to go somewhere, and it ended up in the stock market.
Factor out this extra Governmental spending, and our GDP has barely budged over the last 5 years. The stock market is up because there's a lot more free/easy money to throw/invest, not because the GDP is roaring away.
Huh? Really? I give you the Sumas Mountain runoff (Swift Creek) as an example of nature polluting itself. You can find lots of examples of rivers naturally polluted with lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium and other heavy metals.
Please list one. Because as far as I know, every State or Country charges tax for profit. Now, there may be deductions that allow that profit to go away, and thus the tax is zero - but there is still a non-zero tax rate on actual profit.
Tax rates by themselves are irrelevant; actual taxes paid are what matter. Tax rates, as we all know, are heavily influenced by deductions; marginal rates by themselves are simply talking points, given how essentially no one pays the marginal rate. For example, in 1955 the top tax rate was 91%; under Reagan it was 35%. Yet the average tax rate of those in that category was higher under Reagan than Eisenhower. Because the deductions changed.
Additionally, the taxes paid have gone up. Not just as the economy expands. In 1957 (the last year the US Federal Government ran an actual surplus), the per-capita taxes paid - in 2006 dollars - was just over $3000. In 2012, it was just over $6600 - in those same 2006 dollars. So the typical person today has over the twice the Federal tax load as someone from 50-60 years ago. Taxation per capita in constant dollars has skyrocketed. What that means is the Federal Government has over twice as much money per person as it did - and now it's running huge deficits, instead of surpluses
.
The problem isn't revenue - the problem is spending.
Taxes are not near all-time lows; please look at the per-capita Federal taxes, adjusted for inflation - you'll find today's collections are nearly twice that of 1950s and 1960s. Twice wouldn't be close to all-time lows.
As far as productivity, you are correct - it skyrocketed in the later 1980s and 1990s - precisely the time the GINI index started taking off. Why? Because it comes from a fundamental shift in what our economy does - it moved from manufacturing to information. Old money is slowly whittling away, new money is exploding in relatively few hands. Not because of anything evil, but because the early pioneers of the information age (Microsofts, Apples, Googles) are still getting going. Give it another 40 years and you'll see it settle down as those effects do, indeed, trickle down.
Apparently reading data (see the table to the left of the graphs) is hard. In 1980, the GINI was 0.403; in 1990 it was 0.428. In 2000 it was 0.462. Meaning the 1980s saw a GINI increase of 0.25, and the 1990s saw a GINI increase of 0.34. There was a greater GINI increase in the 1990s than in the 1980s.
We can also go to the Census itself and get the GINI data. Look at the change from 1980 to 1988, and 1992 to 2000; the former is 0.023; the latter is 0.029. A great increase directly in the Clinton years than the Reagan years. That is the raw Census household data.
Lastly, interesting how you now stretch it to be the "Reagan Bush" era, versus my original contention of just Reagan. Apparently changing my argument for me is a valid debate technique? In that case, the Clinton/Obama years have been even worse (adding 0.029 under Clinton, and 0.011 under Obama for a total of 0.04, versus 0.03 total for Reagan/Bush). The interruption in the Clinton/Obama years - the Bush years - was a miniscule 0.004 - a tenth of the change.
OK, I cherry picked the data. Why do you use the 1950-1980 baseline, why not something earlier and longer for the baseline? Oh - and you never answered where you get your data from...
Yes, snowfall does make a difference. It compresses to ice, and Greenland's ice sheet has been thickening since the early 1990s. Now 6 cm/yr may not sound like a lot of additional thickness, but since 1993 that's at least 1.2 meters additional thickness (records prior to 1993 aren't that accurate - the satellites don't exist). It may be even more than that over the preceding decades as well. Given that ice weighs around 920 kg/m^3, and there are ~1.7 million km of Greenland ice sheet, the gains since 1993 easily add up to literally trillions of metric tons of additional weight. Weight that will compress the entire ice sheet even a bit more, raising the temperature ever so slightly at the base of the glacier, and thereby melting fractionally more ice - creating more lubrication for the glacier to move.
Most of the people where I work feel the TSA is doing a good job. In fact their response reminds of the Simpson's clip where Lisa sells Homer a rock that keeps bears away.
Hey, that rock is STILL working... No bears around here so far! Now beers, mmm, beer....
There was a time when USA would launch satellites for other nations, now we off shore even that. What is NASA's mission now? I thought it was supposed to encourage domestic space exploration.
Oh, that's right, some White House talking head said NASA exists to make the descendents of the people that basically invented mathematics and science feel good.
Which is even a wrong goal, given that mathematics and science existed for more than 1000 years before those other folks...
To deny SS isn't a pro-AGW/Mann-supporting site is pretty bold... But perhaps you can point to data that shows we're not stalled (not "slowing down - stalled)? Because every dataset shows we're either stalled or dropping in temperature. Mann does have his solitary tree (Yamal-06), but the dozens, even hundreds of other trees in the dataset, and the ground and satellite records show the opposite.
Slashdot Mirror
The GP asserted that corporations didn't pay tax. I think we can both agree they did. Now you want to discuss how much they pay; OK, fine. How much should they pay? And how much should the average person pay? Because the vast majority of US citizens pay less than 10% federal income tax. And it's the bottom 80% who pay that rate; the top 20% tend to pay way above 10%.
So how much would you want the corporations to pay, since we agree they ARE paying? How much should the average US taxpayer pay? And how can, like the GP insinuated, an US citizen or corporation avoid paying any taxes? And should we eliminate deductions - which you apparently want to see happen (want to tax based on revenues, not net income - like taxing you on gross income, not adjusted, not after deductions)?
Only until electron rabies sweeps the country and make all Teslas drive in reverse only...
They all pay US income taxes. In 2012:
Microsoft: $2.4 billion
Apple: $8.4 billion
Google: $2.5 billion
IBM: $1.5 billion
CItigroup: $229 million
ExxonMobil: $2.5 billion
Seems to me that they all pay income taxes - and quite a bit of it. It's a common fallacy that big companies don't pay taxes. Just take a look at the facts for yourself and find out that they do, in fact, pay income taxes - and a lot of them at that.
Businesses - those that make stuff - aren't too happy. And they aren't hiring (in case you didn't notice that we've had millions of people drop out of the employment market - due to long-term unemployment). Now, the investors, the financial industry, they don't really care because the Fed's been pumping $85 billion a month into them - and that's made it easy to make money on the stock market. But in general, the business lobbies (outside of the financial and insurance industries - the big winners from the Obama financial moves) aren't happy.
Go ahead and try to do business in the US without paying US taxes. Heck, try to be a US-based business or citizen and do business overseas. Either way - the IRS will get it's chunk of flesh from you. Even when no other developed country would consider it proper, Uncle Sam will take his cut.
Isn't it a weird coincidence that the Dow Jones Industrial Average has doubled since "anti-business" Obama took office?
Not really, when you consider literally $4 trillion in new dollars (stimulus and QE 1/2/3) pumped into the economy, mainly via Wall Street. That $4 trillion has to go somewhere, and it ended up in the stock market.
Factor out this extra Governmental spending, and our GDP has barely budged over the last 5 years. The stock market is up because there's a lot more free/easy money to throw/invest, not because the GDP is roaring away.
Nature does not pollute itself.
Huh? Really? I give you the Sumas Mountain runoff (Swift Creek) as an example of nature polluting itself. You can find lots of examples of rivers naturally polluted with lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium and other heavy metals.
Note that they are only able to say "profits aren't profits" by taking legal tax deductions. Meaning those aren't actual profits.
Please list one. Because as far as I know, every State or Country charges tax for profit. Now, there may be deductions that allow that profit to go away, and thus the tax is zero - but there is still a non-zero tax rate on actual profit.
Did they really investigate the theory that it was carried by a swallow?
Tax rates by themselves are irrelevant; actual taxes paid are what matter. Tax rates, as we all know, are heavily influenced by deductions; marginal rates by themselves are simply talking points, given how essentially no one pays the marginal rate. For example, in 1955 the top tax rate was 91%; under Reagan it was 35%. Yet the average tax rate of those in that category was higher under Reagan than Eisenhower. Because the deductions changed.
Additionally, the taxes paid have gone up. Not just as the economy expands. In 1957 (the last year the US Federal Government ran an actual surplus), the per-capita taxes paid - in 2006 dollars - was just over $3000. In 2012, it was just over $6600 - in those same 2006 dollars. So the typical person today has over the twice the Federal tax load as someone from 50-60 years ago. Taxation per capita in constant dollars has skyrocketed. What that means is the Federal Government has over twice as much money per person as it did - and now it's running huge deficits, instead of surpluses
.
The problem isn't revenue - the problem is spending.
What State or Country allows a company to make a $1+ billion profit and pay zero taxes?
Are you smarter than an 8th grader in 1912?
Taxes are not near all-time lows; please look at the per-capita Federal taxes, adjusted for inflation - you'll find today's collections are nearly twice that of 1950s and 1960s. Twice wouldn't be close to all-time lows.
As far as productivity, you are correct - it skyrocketed in the later 1980s and 1990s - precisely the time the GINI index started taking off. Why? Because it comes from a fundamental shift in what our economy does - it moved from manufacturing to information. Old money is slowly whittling away, new money is exploding in relatively few hands. Not because of anything evil, but because the early pioneers of the information age (Microsofts, Apples, Googles) are still getting going. Give it another 40 years and you'll see it settle down as those effects do, indeed, trickle down.
Apparently reading data (see the table to the left of the graphs) is hard. In 1980, the GINI was 0.403; in 1990 it was 0.428. In 2000 it was 0.462. Meaning the 1980s saw a GINI increase of 0.25, and the 1990s saw a GINI increase of 0.34. There was a greater GINI increase in the 1990s than in the 1980s.
We can also go to the Census itself and get the GINI data. Look at the change from 1980 to 1988, and 1992 to 2000; the former is 0.023; the latter is 0.029. A great increase directly in the Clinton years than the Reagan years. That is the raw Census household data.
Lastly, interesting how you now stretch it to be the "Reagan Bush" era, versus my original contention of just Reagan. Apparently changing my argument for me is a valid debate technique? In that case, the Clinton/Obama years have been even worse (adding 0.029 under Clinton, and 0.011 under Obama for a total of 0.04, versus 0.03 total for Reagan/Bush). The interruption in the Clinton/Obama years - the Bush years - was a miniscule 0.004 - a tenth of the change.
OK, I cherry picked the data. Why do you use the 1950-1980 baseline, why not something earlier and longer for the baseline? Oh - and you never answered where you get your data from...
What is the global temperature increase since, say, 1995? What data set do you use to come up with any recorded increase?
Yes, snowfall does make a difference. It compresses to ice, and Greenland's ice sheet has been thickening since the early 1990s. Now 6 cm/yr may not sound like a lot of additional thickness, but since 1993 that's at least 1.2 meters additional thickness (records prior to 1993 aren't that accurate - the satellites don't exist). It may be even more than that over the preceding decades as well. Given that ice weighs around 920 kg/m^3, and there are ~1.7 million km of Greenland ice sheet, the gains since 1993 easily add up to literally trillions of metric tons of additional weight. Weight that will compress the entire ice sheet even a bit more, raising the temperature ever so slightly at the base of the glacier, and thereby melting fractionally more ice - creating more lubrication for the glacier to move.
Most of the GINI coefficient increase since Reagan happened during the Clinton years - when the tech boom/information age started. Trickle down actually worked given the huge increase in median income experienced during the Reagan years. From 1981 to 1989 median income went from ~$45K to ~$50.5K, a solid 10% increase over 8 years. It's increased up to ~$52K since then, a paltry 3% over 25 years.
Do you have any practical suggestions on how to accomplish that?
The Security Clearance Anal Probe? Whatever floats your boat... (oops, that's the Navy)
Most of the people where I work feel the TSA is doing a good job. In fact their response reminds of the Simpson's clip where Lisa sells Homer a rock that keeps bears away.
Hey, that rock is STILL working... No bears around here so far! Now beers, mmm, beer....
There was a time when USA would launch satellites for other nations, now we off shore even that. What is NASA's mission now? I thought it was supposed to encourage domestic space exploration.
Oh, that's right, some White House talking head said NASA exists to make the descendents of the people that basically invented mathematics and science feel good.
Which is even a wrong goal, given that mathematics and science existed for more than 1000 years before those other folks...
Nah, it's just the State wanting to make sure you don't make and illegally sell some glass, without the FTB getting their cut...
Let's use the battery to heat the system so we can charge it!
Oh wait...
To deny SS isn't a pro-AGW/Mann-supporting site is pretty bold... But perhaps you can point to data that shows we're not stalled (not "slowing down - stalled)? Because every dataset shows we're either stalled or dropping in temperature. Mann does have his solitary tree (Yamal-06), but the dozens, even hundreds of other trees in the dataset, and the ground and satellite records show the opposite.