1. Individual income tax 45% of tax revenues.Included in individual income tax category are capital gains taxes, which make up between 4% and 7% of individual income tax revenues and between 2% and 3% of total tax revenues within this category.
2. Payroll taxes 35% of tax revenues.Social insurance (Social Security). Funds used to pay for Federal old age, survivors, disability insurance, unemployment insurance, temporary assistance to needed families, Medicare/Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI).Employee's share of this is 17.5%.
3. Corporate Income Tax 15% of total tax revenues.
4. Excise Tax 3% of total tax revenues. Essentially a consumer tax on alcohol, cigarettes and gas.
5. "Other" 2%
So, individuals' share of total tax revenues amounts to approximately 65.5%, employers 17.5% and corporations 15% plus the mysterious "other" of 2%. If you go to the above link and scroll down about halfway, you will find a nifty little chart that shows how much the share corporations paid into total tax revenues has diminshed since 1950. For example, an early 50s spike on the graph show corporations' share to be approximately 30+%...TWICE AS MUCH AS IT IS NOW.
"…tax compliance costs employers with less than 20 employees a total of $1304 per employee as compared to employers with 500 or more employees which incur $780 per employee to comply with Federal taxes.Small entities pay 40% more for tax compliance than employers with 500 or more employees.
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – How Robust was 2001-2007 Economic Expansion? Figures 1 and 2 will indicate the following information: Based on the 7 economic indicators, Bush years turned in below average growth percentages in every single indicator except for one….CORPORATE PROFITS. The biggest losers….employment (JOBS) and wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS). To make this dry economic data a little bit spicier, 2 comparisons have been shown…Bush years against Post WWII averages and Bush years as compared to the 90s decade. I have run averages on the trough and peak growth comparison data depicted in Figure 2 to come up with the following overall percentages. Pay special attention to the last 3 items.
1. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) down 31% from Post WWII average and down 12.85% from the 90s
2. Consumption down 23.45% from Post WWII average and down 6.25% from the 90s
3. Non-residential fixed investment down 40% from Post WWII average and down 58% from the 90s
4. Net worth down 16.25% from Post WWII average and down 20.1% from the 90s
5. Wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS) down a whopping 55.6% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 40.55% from the 90s
6. Employment (JOBS) down an amazing 68.65% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 46.65% from the 90s
7. Corporate profits up 200% above post WWII average and up 126% from the 90s.
From where I sit, there is clearly something wrong with this picture. I will be voting for the candidate who shares this view and plans to restore a more balanced, equitable and FAIR distribution of wealth. This is not about shifting bucks from one person to another. This is about corporations whose butts are being bailed out right and left by us Joe Shmoes shouldering more fiscal responsibility toward their shareholders AND toward John Q. Public.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
I am fatigued with more and more of my paycheck going to the stockholders of the company I work for. My benefits are being taken away, my line count has been "adjusted" several times in the last 10 years to make more profit for the stockholders. Meanwhile, the suits are given astronomical salaries and golden parachutes.
Second issue. It is very important to remember that the 3 remaining judges on the Supreme Court who are not conservative will be leaving very soon. The pres who appoints their replacements will be impacting the nation for the next 30 to 40 years or so. Think about it. Can you imagine your 15-year-old granddaughter or great-granddaughter being forced to give birth to a horribly deformed baby because she made a mistake? Roe v Wade WILL be overturned if McCain is elected. The court will be totally pro-corporate interests if mcCain is elected. This is a much getter consequence that is not getting enough consideration amidst all the slogan throwing.
I don't really think a redistribution of the wealth
is the answer and don't necessarily agree with it either. What I would like to see though are these corporations, and individuals, that don't fairly pay taxes start paying what they are supposed to. They hide their money in off-shore accounts and redistribute it so they don't have to pay so much. I know that this happens, I started out in accounting in college and we had big long discussions about this. But I didn't have to have a class to know that this happens.
Too bad that redistribution of wealth
won't benefit most of us.....it will benefit the low income people who want to mooch off of the government. Besides, I still says that the middle class is fair game to Obama. He will raise our taxes too....you just wait.
Redistribution of wealth...
"Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.
When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the hom eless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.
I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application."
Redistribution of wealth is happening as I write this, except that it's all going to make greedy rich people richer. Up to a trillion dollars now (and probably growing in the future), the Wall Street crooks are still earning their bonuses.
Why is it okay to redistribute the wealth to the WEALTHIEST while punishing people who are working hard and HONESTLY, just trying to feed their families?
The middle class has been diminishing in this country for a long time now, and it's almost extinct. I'll never understand why people support rewarding those who are dishonest.
Redistribution of wealth...another way of saying
reparations, just not as blatant.
Redistribution of YOUR Wealth
Obama and Congress will let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. That will cost each of us MTs about $1,200 or so a year. He is proposing 3 new separte payroll taxes (new separate deductions) including his own bill now in Congress to "fight WORLD hunger." Sounds nice, but I would rather fight hunger at my house. If you think you are going to get a bunch of free stuff in return for all these new taxes, think again - that stuff will all evaporate after the election but the tax increases will remain, just like with Clinton. I heard last night that 57% of Americans think Republicans now control Congress - and these morons vote - scary.
He is already promising redistribution of wealth and he ...
doesn't even have the job yet. That is not a lie. He has campaign commercials about it and he is Barack Obama and he approved that message. Have you read anything about his voting history and the people he has associated with most of his adult life? Of course he is socialist. Way left socialist.
I never said Democrats were socialists. I did say Hillary Clinton was one, and Obama is to the left of her on that particular issue.
You think calling someone a socialist is name calling?
About all that redistribution of wealth silliness
That would be $1200 to nearly every Alaskan in addition to their already existing $2000 annual rebate. In a nutshell, Palin levied a windfall profit tax against oil companies, then will pay a portion of the revenues out as bonus checks to residents.
One might even suggest that, since Alaska has no state income tax, this was a almost straight redistribution of wealth using higher taxes on the oil companies to redistribute wealth to individuals. It's almost...socialist. Go Gov. Palin!!!
Correct. The *redistribution of wealth* is just that...
those who have gotten their piece of the American Dream are forced to give to those who can't/don't/won't achieve their own American Dream. We are on the way sheeple, wake up and do research, don't take leftist talking points as truth.
Included in individual income tax category are capital gains taxes, which make up between 4% and 7% of individual income tax revenues and between 2% and 3% of total tax revenues within this category.
Essentially a consumer tax on alcohol, cigarettes and gas.
5."Other"2%
So, individuals' share of total tax revenues amounts to approximately 65.5%, employers 17.5% and corporations 15% plus the mysterious "other" of 2%.
If you go to the above link and scroll down about halfway, you will find a nifty little chart that shows how much the share corporations paid into total tax revenues has diminshed since 1950.For example, an early 50s spike on the graph show corporations' share to be approximately 30+%...TWICE AS MUCH AS IT IS NOW.
"…tax compliance costs employers with less than 20 employees a total of $1304 per employee as compared to employers with 500 or more employees which incur $780 per employee to comply with Federal taxes.(6) Put another way, small entities pay 40% more for tax compliance than employers with 500 or more employees.
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – How Robust was 2001-2007 Economic Expansion? Figures 1 and 2 will indicate the following information:
Based on the 7 economic indicators, Bush years turned in below average growth percentages in every single indicator except for one….CORPORATE PROFITS.The biggest losers….employment (JOBS) and wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS). To make this dry economic data a little bit spicier, 2 comparisons have been shown…Bush years against Post WWII averages and Bush years as compared to the 90s decade.I have run averages on the trough and peak growth comparison data depicted in Figure 2 to come up with the following overall percentages.Pay special attention to the last 3 items.
1.Gross Domestic Product (GDP) down 31% from Post WWII average and down 12.85% from the 90s
2.Consumption down 23.45% from Post WWII average and down 6.25% from the 90s
3.Non-residential fixed investment down 40% from Post WWII average and down 58% from the 90s
4.Net worth down 16.25% from Post WWII average and down 20.1% from the 90s
5.Wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS) down a whopping 55.6% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 40.55% from the 90s
6.Employment (JOBS) down an amazing 68.65% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 46.65% from the 90s
7.Corporate profits up 200% above post WWII average and up 126% from the 90s.
From where I sit, there is clearly something wrong with this picture.I will be voting for the candidate who shares this view and plans to restore a more balanced, equitable and FAIR distribution of wealth.This is not about shifting bucks from one person to another.This is about corporations whose butts are being bailed out right and left by us Joe Shmoes shouldering more fiscal responsibility toward their shareholders AND toward John Q. Public.
What pat of redistribution of wealth do you not understand?
THAT is socialism and THAT is what he wants to do. Said so himself. Remember spreading the wealth? C'mon. Admit it. He's a socialist. Fair tax cuts go to EVERYONE. Not the rich to redistribute to those who do not even PAY taxes. THAT is socialism.
He's not lying about redistribution of wealth...
unfortunately. He is wholly committed to that one.
Obama's redistribution of wealth
I challenge all of you who are making such a big deal about Obama's plan for "redistribution of wealth" to do a little research. Then come back and talk about it. It's a matter of where the distribution is to go. Republicans want it to go to the top i.e. Reagan's "trickle down economics" and the institution of the earned income tax credit goes to him as well. Tell me, who has benefited? Maybe it's about time we go back to trickle up economics....sorta like FDR's "chicken in every pot." Ya thank????
Spread the wealth, redistribution of income...that is the big O's
plan...AKA I'll give to those who don't deserve it by taking it from those who have worked hard to get it. O wants to take the hard earned money from many Americans and then HE will decide who he gives it to. Sounds a bit like socialism to me. Just where is he going to get the money for all the programs he wants to GIVE to us? Oh, and remember the words of Biden, it's patriotic to pay taxes. So what does that make the 40% of Americans who DON'T pay taxes?
Redistribution of wealth is a basic socialism tenet...
and it is part of his platform. He leans very hard in the direction of government run health care...alnother socialism tenet. He used and taught the Alinsky method of organizing...hard left Marxist theory. Not overgeneralization. He went to a church preaching black liberation theology for 20 years....major Marxist overtones and "economic parity" part of that theology. If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it's a duck. And if you look at his associations throughout his career...common thread there. And for me, that is concerning. And yet another reason I am not voting for him. He is no change from any of the hard left liberals before him, except in one key area...he is harder left than any of them, if you look only at his voting record. He's not the guy for the job as far as I am concerned.
Does corporate welfare qualify as wealth redistribution
nm
Obama talking about redistribution of wealth in 2001...
Before discounting this because it is on a conservative site....the You Tube tape is there...you can hear "O" in his own words.
Hope is not a dirty word....redistribution of wealth is,
in my books. Have you looked at the church he belonged to for 20 years? Divisive is a MILD way to describe it. He has no interest in uniting us. He has interest in forcing his view of how society should run down all our throats. I do not call that bringing unity. His whole life has been influenced by Marxists. That is how he wants to "unify" us. I am sure Cubans heard these same stories from Che Guevara and loved him just as much. And look how it turned out for them. Not great, not even the way Che wanted. He was off to Bolivia when he found out it wasn't going the way he hoped. The next socalist always thinks he will get it "right." And you know what? Those who do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them...I just hope America is not the next failed socialist state. There is MY "HOPE."
I was brought up Buy American made products, keep American jobs.
Always bought American made cars and bought products from companies where my family was employed. Now look at America? We are definitely connected all around the world.
My feeling? Obama states he wants to start from the poor upward. Not the other way around like it has been for quite awhile. That to me does not necessarily mean just in America, but around the world by taking the poorest countries and working upward so America's pay wages and everything else will be so low and comparable to the poorest countries. After all, we are now connected together.
Cannot wait to see what will happen with the Swine flu this fall with the second wave and what it will do to the economy of all the countries combined at once.
Any child born to American parents is an American -
I am sorry, but I respectfully disagree with you - any child born to American parents is an American even if they are born overseas. The birth has to be registered with the United States, but they are still an American even if they are born in the foreign hospital.
I have 2 cousins who were born in Japan and they have no problems at all being "American".
Tit for tat is infantile and not my style.
nm
Your writing style gives you away....(sm)
You are holier than thou in your attitude. You can't get away by claiming you're not the same "sm" poster, when you use the same phrasology over and over in your posts.
All jokes on the liberal board must be approved by the CONS, and everyone's sense of humor MUST mirror their own. Any deviation from this will result in deletion of the jokes (and any accompanying posts).
It's the epitome of true freedom of speech -- Bush style!
BANGKOK (AFP) - Parliamentary candidates in Thailand's upcoming election are trying to buy the votes of elderly men by passing out free Viagra, a local government official said Friday.
Thais head to the polls on December 23 for the first time since the military toppled the elected prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra in a bloodless coup last year.
Residents in Prathumthani, on the northern outskirts of Bangkok, reported some of the candidates were passing out doses of the anti-impotence drug in exchange for promised votes, said Sayan Nopkham, a local government official.
"The villagers told me they have been given one or two pills of Viagra by candidates. Then they come to me to ask for more pills, or sometimes coffee, in exchange for voting for my brother, who is also running for a seat," he told AFP.
Thailand has a long history of vote-buying, but laws banning it have recently been toughened.
Anyone found guilty of buying votes could face up to 10 years in prison while voters who accept money face up to five years in jail.
Charungwit Phumma, an investigator with the Election Commission, said he had received no formal complaints about a Viagra-for-votes scheme.
"It's a funny claim," he said.
Charungwit said the most common complaints filed with his office were voters being paid to join a political party or being promised cash for going to the ballot box.
Sens. Barack Obama & D*ick Durbin Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. Gov. Rod Blogojevich House leader Mike Madigan Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike) Mayor Richard M. Daley (son of former Mayor Richard J. Daley).....
Chicago is a combat zone. Of course they're all blaming each other.
Can't blame Republicans; there aren't any!
(Look them up if you want).
State pension fund $44 Billion in debt, worst in country.
Cook Co unty ( Chicago ) sales tax 10.25% highest in country.
Chicago school system, one of the worst in country.
This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois .
It really adds nothing when you insult other posters like this. Why can't you accept an opinion, when everyone here who knows politics, is very aware of things that have happened over the past few months? Just because someone doesn't feel like typing out what has been discussed and debated here for the last few months does not make them less intellectual than you.
I rather admire them for refusing to be baited by your antagonistic style of posting.
"Every time Obama opens his mouth, his subjects and verbs are in agreement. If he keeps it up, he is running the risk of sounding like an elitist."
He has already attracted a rebuke from Sarah Palin.
"Talking with complete sentences there and also, too, talking in a way that ordinary Americans like Joe the Plumber can't really do there, I think needing to do that isn't tapping into what Americans are needing, also."
By Phil Kerpen
Director of Policy, Americans for Prosperity
The composition of the tax hikes in the 2010 budget is frighteningly similar to the Revenue Act of 1932, the much-maligned Hoover tax hikes that put the “Great” in Great Depression by putting an enormous tax burden on millions of Americans, largely through excise taxes. These taxes, raised even further by FDR, were justified by the promise that the funds would be returned in the form of relief programs, which is to say that some portion of the tax revenue, after administrative costs in Washington, would go back to the states with strings attached, often to further political rather than economic objectives.
As the table below shows, the Obama budget blueprint, like the 1932 act, is split mainly between broad excise taxes and income tax hikes on high income earners. Unfortunately, there were no 10-years projections back then, so I had to use one year numbers, but it’s still an interesting comparison.
The 2010 budget assumes, probably correctly, that the only way to generate a big revenue increase in the face of severe economic weakness is to use a tax mechanism–the excise tax–that is collected in relatively small increments across millions of transactions made by Americans of all income levels. That is a direct lesson of 1932, when the income tax on the rich–then the only people who paid income taxes–was raised to capture as much revenue as possible before high-income earners fled the country or stopped working. Then, as now, that amount was about 0.3 percent of GDP.
Excise taxes did most of the revenue work in the 1932 act, including excises on everything from trucks, tires, jewelry, chewing gum, and soft drinks to gasoline and electricity. Those last two are especially interesting in light of the carbon cap-and-trade proposal in the 2010 budget, which is a DE facto excise tax on those items as well as every other energy technology that relies on the most affordable energy sources: natural gas, oil, and coal.
Despite President Obama’s promise that “If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increase a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime,” his new budget raises 45 percent of its revenue from energy taxes that will be paid by everyone who fills a gas tank, pays an electric bill, or buys anything that was grown, shipped, or manufactured.
While the overall tax hike is smaller than 1932 (0.9 percent of GDP versus 1.6 percent of GDP) and the excise/energy component is only half the size (0.4 percent of GDP versus 0.8 percent of GDP) there is every reason to believe that the bite of the cap-and-trade tax will increase considerably beyond the initial projections, making this plan even more resemble 1932.
The cap-and-trade provisions are designed to get much, much more expensive over time, making the total impact hard to quantify but likely to be as or more expensive than the 1932 Revenue Act. In fact, Obama’s version of cap-and-trade is much more expensive than last year’s already outrageous Lieberman-Warner bill, mandating emissions cuts of 83 percent versus 63 percent in last year’s version.
I didn’t include the death tax in the chart, because there was no revenue estimate for it in 1932, but that’s another eerie parallel. In 1932 the rate was hiked from 20 percent to 45 percent, and in 2010, under Obama’s proposal (which is hidden in a footnote in the budget) it will go from zero under current law to that same 45 percent rate.
If we continue down a path of repeating the policies of the 1930s we risk a repeat of the same results. Let’s hope Congress has the good sense to say no to these Hoover-style tax hikes.
Phil Kerpen is director of policy for Americans for Prosperity. Redistribution (sm) Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.
When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.
I am happy that FINALLY someone is standing up for the middle class. I am happy that finally we will be given some tax breaks. The wealth does NOT trickle down when the tax breaks are given to the upper class/business that fall in that tax bracket. They do not create more jobs, therefore strengthening the middle class/economy. What they do is line their pockets and get rich and then save even more money and get even more tax breaks by sending work overseas and hiring people that will gladly work for way less an hour, therefore driving the value of American jobs down so that the rest of us, who are stuck trying to make it, find a decent paying job, are screwed. I am voting for Obama and I think he is going to win.
spreading the wealth
no I dont and I dont want to. But I do know about working my butt off and my husband his. My husband has lost his job as a finish trim carpenter because of this ecomony. I also know that since Bush has been in office, our lives have been that much harder. Prices have gone up on EVERYTHING but our pay has not. I also know that McCain did nothing but support Bush over the last eight years and only just recently has tried to separate himself from him. Even McCain has said that he voted 90 percent of the time with Bush. That is ALL I need to know. By the way, not everyone who is having a hard time these days are people who refuse to work. Not everyone that votes for Obama are people that are on welfare. I have never been on welfare and would never be on welfare. But unfortunately, the days of just simply working hard and getting ahead are gone. It is NOT true. I have been smart with my money, I work hard and I have been responsible with my credit but I cant see where I am getting anywhere.
"Spread the wealth around"..also known as...
we are penalizing those who have worked hard, make a decent living, pay our bills and don't live above our means so that those who don't or won't do the same can ride our coat tails and not have to be responsible for themselves and feel some sort of entitlement. Some plan, placed squarely on the shoulders of hard working Americans who have done the right thing. Can you say SOCIALIST STATE?
Yes, need to spread that wealth around. LOL nm So restribution of wealth
isn't taken away someone's rights even though it penalizes hardworkers by taking their money and giving it to people who don't? I do believe that is taking away someone rights....the rights to keep the hard earned money that they earned and make their life better because that is what they worked for and we voted for that when we voted in Obama.
They still have the right to be together as a couple. No one is telling them that they can't go out in public and declare they are a couple, etc. However, to allow their union and call it marriage is something that many people cannot agree with and they have that right to their opinion and their vote has made that decision. Marriage is between a man and a woman. If homosexuals want to be legally bound to each other......call it something else but keep the definition of marriage as a man and woman.
talking about "redistributing the wealth" --
do you not think that is already being done? How about the earned income credit? Why should some people get back $5000-7000 on their taxes, never pay anything in, and all because their income is lower? That is definitely redistributing my wealth!
our government already redistributes the wealth...
I don't know why this is now an issue when it has not been being one - nobody cares about the redistribution of our wealth when tax time rolls around and all these people get thousands and thousands of dollars back from the IRS that they did not pay in, will never pay in, did not earn! Where do you think that money comes from - from us of course.
For example, I have a relative who makes $13.00 an hour but she never pays in a single penny of tax during the year and she gets a rebate of at least $5000 every year because of earned income. That effectively means, she makes $27040 tax free. That $5000 does not go toward income requirements for anything - she still qualifies for any government programs without including that extra $5000 as income.
marks the location of current message within thread
