Skip to main content

View Diary: It's the Tax Revenue, Stupid (88 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Its the spending... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Balto

    Since 2000 revenues will have gone up over 50% based on estimates in 2015, spending on the other hand will have gone up 2.5 times the amount in 2000.   To say that is not sustainable is a wild understatement.  This thing is way out of control.

    As for the corporate income tax the U.S. has the second highest tax rate, Japan is higher but they are in the process of reducing theirs which will make the U.S. have the highest corporate income tax rate in the world.   This makes the U.S. uncompetitive with the rest of the world

    Tax revenues did not peak in the year 2000 you need to get the facts straight.  

               Revenue     Spending   Deficit

    1990  1,032.0    1,253.0    -221.0
              1,055.0    1,324.2    -269.2
              1,091.2    1,381.5    -290.3
              1,154.3    1,409.4    -255.1
              1,258.6    1,461.8    -203.2

              1,351.8    1,515.8    -164.0
              1,453.1    1,560.5    -107.4
              1,579.2    1,601.1    -21.9
              1,721.7    1,652.5    69.3
              1,827.5    1,701.8    125.6

    2000  2,025.2    1,789.0    236.2
              1,991.1    1,862.9    128.2
              1,853.1    2,010.9    -157.8
              1,782.3    2,159.9    -377.6
              1,880.1    2,292.9    -412.7

              2,153.6    2,472.0    -318.3
              2,406.9    2,655.1    -248.2
              2,568.0    2,728.7    -160.7
              2,524.0    2,982.6    -458.6
              2,105.0    3,517.7    -1,412.7

    2010  2,165.1    3,720.7    -1,555.6
    2011  2,567.2    3,833.9    -1,266.7
              2,926.2          3,754.9    -828.5
              3,188.1    3,915.4    -727.3
              3,455.5    4,161.2    -705.8
              3,633.7    4,385.5    -751.9

    •  wrong (10+ / 0-)

      its the wrong type of spending.  

       I really, really sick of people who cant think a few degrees from the bacon.  

      THe money the govs spends doesnt catch fire and go away. It creates JOBS, and opportunities.  But it has to be the right type of spending, ie spending with a high money multiplier.

      Fuck the wars, fuck allowing chna to manipulate their money and the trade wars, fuck drug wars,  and tax the fucking rich who are just sitting on their money and playing it in commodity markets which make our food prices go up.

      The real problem is we have NO GROW UPS in washington, we have greedy fucks and their puppets and nothing else. We have Bernie Sanders and a bunch of children.

      Bad is never good until worse happens

      by dark daze on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 07:03:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "As a % of the American economy" (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ferg, wader, Snud, SJLeonidas, ewmorr, eXtina

      Any reason why you omitted that part of diarist's assertion then disputed an argument that hadn't been made? (By posting the same data the diary itself does in chart form? while saying the diarist needed to get their facts straight?)

    •  Wrong - After You Take into Account All the (6+ / 0-)

      deductions, exemptions, write offs, net operating loss carryovers, subsidies, etc. that corporations in this country receive, the EFFECTIVE US corporate tax rate is one of the lowest. The effective rate is the ACTUAL tax rate paid by corporations after all deductions, exemptions, etc., and is the true rate paid. You seem to be looking at marginal corporate tax rates, which is not the true (effective) tax rate that corporations pay.

      •  Nope, you are way too simplistic (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sparhawk

        When you exclude deductions you are excluding the taxes a corporation pays on foreign income.  It is way too simplistic to look at only US taxes paid by US domiciled multinationals.

        Now if you say they cannot deduct foreign taxes paid you will only accelerate moving jobs offshore.

        Also, coming off a period off horrendous losses, is it surprising that they have NOL carryforwards?

        •  Nope to You - Foreign Taxes that A Corporation (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mmacdDE, wader, NoMoreLies

          pays can be offset by a credit on their US taxes. This is just another write off for corporations and proves my point that the EFFECTIVE tax rate paid is the rate that should be looked at, NOT the corporate marginal tax rates, which is what MrSJohnson is doing. And no it is not surprising that after a recession a company has NOL's to carry forward - but let me repeat, NOL's are used to figure the EFFECTIVE (true) tax rate paid by the corporation.

          •  If you are going to consider... (0+ / 0-)

            The "EFFECTIVE (true) tax rate paid by the corporation" you simply must include the taxes paid in other countries.  To not do so is simplistic and misleading, and reduces your credibility when making these arguments.

        •  Jobs move offshore today - that boat has sailed (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NoMoreLies

          It's done for local market responsiveness and to keep various costs down, when it comes to setting up shop in a country for products that are sold there.

          But, jobs from the USA are offshored today due to lower burden costs, overall - that's not a tax-specific issue, IMHO.  Instead, USA-based multinationals are "following the Sun" in terms of resource costs.

          "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

          by wader on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 08:25:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  they are following where the growth is... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wader

            ...95% of consumers are outside of the US.

            the developing world will grow at 2x the rate of the developed world for the foreseeable future.  

            Yes, we are still the worlds largest market, but we aint' where the action is going to be...

            You dont' think this has an impact on where businesses set up operations?

            •  I mentioned "local market responsiveness" (0+ / 0-)

              as an umbrella to cover . . . local markets.  That includes consumers in the growth markets, yes.

              Which was only part of my addressing why we were offshoring USA jobs, the other being that multinationals are specifically moving towards lower burden rates for human resources and manufacturing (even after shipping and tariffs):

              Philippines ousts India for outsourcing top spot
              By Joel D Adriano

              The Philippines has emerged as the world leader in business process outsourcing (BPO), supplanting India in terms of total number of workers employed. Two studies, one by IBM's Global Locations Trend report, another by consulting firm Everest Group, show a shift at the top of the still strong global cost-cutting trend.

              With average annual growth of 46% since 2006, BPO has been one of the few bright spots in the otherwise moribund Philippine economy. The sector, almost non-existent a decade ago, has zipped from US$350 million in revenues in 2001 to over $9 billion last year. Analysts predict industry revenues will exceed $10 billion this year.

              BPO has evolved into a $150 billion global industry, driven largely by Western banking, insurance and technology companies that have outsourced parts of their IT operations to lower cost, English-speaking developing countries. The boom in the Philippines has been led by call centers, where Filipinos handle sales, customer service and technical support calls.

              "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

              by wader on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 12:48:31 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not sure.. (0+ / 0-)

                ...we are in violent agreement or disagreement.  But I do think that in addition to the factors you mention there is a desire to be close to your customer, which transcends virtually all aspects of an organization.   In any event, we are crazy to just stick our heads in the sand and hope protectionist responses will make it all go away (not that you are suggesting this).

    •  MrSJohnson Is Also Not Looking At The Percent (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wader, NoMoreLies, SJLeonidas, Azazello

      of taxes paid by corporations compared to GDP. Over the past 50 years the percentage of corporate taxes paid as a percentage of GDP has steadily declined from about 6% in 1950 to only 1.2% of GDP in 2008.  Here is a link to an article about this topic: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/...

    •  You're cherry picking columns. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wader

      Show the whole spread sheet and you'll see a fuller picture with lots of options to create whatever fiscal vision we can muster the will to achieve.

    •  Some Notes on Spending (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sirclown, Azazello

      There's no question spending has gone up significantly since 2000.  As I noted above, the unfunded costs of two wars and the emergency spending (TARP, stimulus) to counter the Bush recession (plus the Medicare prescription drug benefit all produced growing deficits.

      And as I mentioned above, the growth in federal health care spending will have to be reined in.  (Repealing the Obama health care plan is just about the worst thing the feds could do, as it would add $210 billion to the debt over the next 10 years).  Defense spendings should come down as the Iraq and Afghan conflicts wind down.

      But you still can't get there from here without increasing tax revenue.  If the Bush tax cuts are made permanent, as Republicans want, the U.S. will lose roughly $4 trillion over 10 years; $700 billion to the wealthiest Americans needing it least.

      As for tax revenue peaking in 2000, I was referring to individual income tax revenue, not total tax revenue.  That's the blue area in the chart above.

    •  US has a very high advertised corporate tax rate (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mmacdDE, eXtina, Azazello

      but the EFFECTIVE corporate rate of taxation is very low thanks to deductions and loopholes. What difference does a 35% corporate tax rate make when no corporations actually pay that, and immensely profitable US corporations like ExxonMobil and GE actually pay no federal taxes.

      Its the effective tax rate, stupid.

      Trickle Down Economics 101: They get the golden parachute, we get the golden shower.

      by NoMoreLies on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:06:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  so what would you do? (0+ / 0-)

        If you don't let multinationals get a tax credit for taxes paid on foreign earnings what do you think they will do? Grin and bear it or pull up their tents?

        btw, American citizens get a tax credit for foreign taxes paid on their overseas earnings.   Should we get rid of that too?

        •  Door. Hit. Ass. They are killing the country (0+ / 0-)

          anyway.

          Trickle Down Economics 101: They get the golden parachute, we get the golden shower.

          by NoMoreLies on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 01:02:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  But if you have overseas earning (0+ / 0-)

          you STILL have to pay US taxes if they are more than the amount of overseas tax you paid. And you still have to file.  

          If you LIVE outside the US for more than 360 days in the year (I think it's still that), you get to exempt the first 100k or so of your overseas earnings (not sure of that amount, I'm sure somebody else is).

          Remember too - most overseas tax rates (at least for places where people WANT to live) are MORE than US rates. Often CONSIDERABLY more.

          Same with corporate taxes - a company in Europe will pay CONSIDERABLY more in taxes than they will here.

    •  The Stimulus is a one time hit to (0+ / 0-)

      the 2010 numbers and will flatten out going forward

      "I've taken up sculpting recently. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

      by eXtina on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:55:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hmm (0+ / 0-)

      You can spend your money on food, education, housing, and maintenance of your house, so you have a shot of getting a decent job (and make MORE money) and a decent amount for your house when you need to sell.

      Or you can spend your money on golfing, fancy clothes, and fancy restaurants - with nothing to show for it other than a falling down house and no skills. But you'll impress the hell out of the people you take to dinner or golf, and you'll have a great time while you have some money. Won't last, though.

      There's investment and maintenance, and there's frivolous spending.

      Our govt is great at the frivolous part. Not so good on the investment piece. That part requires patience, and isn't always much fun.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site