Taxation without representation.
Throw in the 20,000 citizens whom hide their assets and income in foreign banks.
It is amazing that in a country supposedly in existance for its citizenry, that the average citizen gets screwed like a cheap trick.

There is NO rule of LAW, when it is bought and sold for gold and thrones.

We have become the worlds most corrupt and criminal society.

Remove the citizenship of all business. Remove all the loopholes specifically designed to shield corporations from taxation. Remove the abatement laws, which are criminal to the People. Remove the TIF's.
If your business is unwilling to pay taxes, it should be put out of business, immediately. But the concubines in the congress and the various state governments have sold themselves, and their constituants', out to the highest bidder.
So they can be an "authority".

It is time the People put all these criminals out of business.
But you wont. They have you by the short hairs and refuse to let go. And most of you refuse even modest inconvenience or hardship, at least untill they tell you they have the right to sacrifice your life for their wealth. Then you jump in willingly.

The GAO study did not investigate why corporations weren't paying federal income taxes or corporate taxes and it did not identify any corporations by name. It said companies may escape paying such taxes due to operating losses or because of tax credits.

Many of these corporations (criminals...LOL)are my clients. Most of them are small corporations who have set themselves up as a subchapter S which is a pass-through corporation where they declare all net income "personally" and pay no corporate income taxes. this is done this way because, at times, personal income tax brackets are more favorable than corporate brackets.....it is a choice on the part of business owners to decide whether or not to pay corporate or personal income taxes.

corporations will never pay that much in income taxes because they would prefer to defer them or pay out other expenses to avoid the taxes.

But don't let these rational, real world, tidbits get in the way of your stupid leftie psycho rants about how evil your employers are.

wow

"Trillions in sales" among a huge number of corporations does not equal "trillions in profits," or any profits for that matter. I wouldn't call it "avoiding" taxes if the company ends up reporting zero taxable income after deductions and losses. Change the tax code if you want to tax corporations to death.

Eb, this study has nothing to do with flow-through entities.

corporations will never pay that much in income taxes because they would prefer to defer them or pay out other expenses to avoid the taxes.

Please explain this statement.

But don't let these rational, real world, tidbits get in the way of your stupid leftie psycho rants about how evil your employers are.

This has nothing to do with employers it has to do with corporate citizenship.

Did you know Eberly, that when the income tax was first instituted corporations paid an overwhelming majority of taxes collected? Of course you didn't because you have your conservative blinders on.

Joe, I think the study looks into how many of those NOLs and/or those losses are self-generated through transactions with affiliates. I know many states are starting to go after deductions generated by related party transactions where no cash really changes hands, they are merely reflected on book entries.

About 25 percent of the U.S. corporations not paying corporate taxes were considered large corporations, meaning they had at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts.

Yup, just mom and pop grocery stores...

I don't think the study looks into any of that. The article even says, "The GAO study did not investigate why corporations weren't paying federal income taxes or corporate taxes." Meaning, the purpose of the study was to produce an inflammatory newspiece. Some corporations don't pay taxes, we don't care why, we just wanted to remind people of that.

From the article Taxman,

An outside tax expert, Chris Edwards of the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, said increasing numbers of limited liability corporations and so-called "S" corporations pay taxes under individual tax codes.

"Half of all business income in the United States now ends up going through the individual tax code," Edwards said.

Pass through entities are specifically referenced Taxman.

corporations will never pay that much in income taxes because they would prefer to defer them or pay out other expenses to avoid the taxes.

Please explain this statement.

Well, they can take more personal income (specifically stated in the article...did you read it?) or they can retire debt or they can defer income or they can expand....buy property or equipment or hire people.

You yourself have argued that there is a good consequence from raising corporate tax rates because it forces these good things to be done.....I have agreed with that.

This has nothing to do with employers it has to do with corporate citizenship.

bullshit, it has to do with a tax code that the govt wrote...not you nor me.

Did you know Eberly, that when the income tax was first instituted corporations paid an overwhelming majority of taxes collected? Of course you didn't because you have your conservative blinders on.

Things evolve Taxman. blinders? or is it "rose colored glasses"? I get them confused.

what is "conservative" about my response anyway?

Do you deny that corporations avoid taxes through self-generated NOLs and deductions? I don't think the piece is inflamatory at all, especially when taken in a historical context.

"Do you deny that corporations avoid taxes through self-generated NOLs and deductions?"

No. I will, however, counter your assumption that these transactions make up the bulk of corporations that don't pay taxes. The study itself doesn't differentiate between those not paying taxes on a legitimate basis and those not paying for other reasons.

It is clearly inflammatory - there is no point in conducting a "study" when the only result is "corporations don't pay taxes," if you aren't going to examine whether the reason they don't pay taxes is compliance with our own tax code versus actual misconduct by the corporations. It simply gives the impression - "corporations=bad."

Eb, your big companies aren't S-Corporations. While S-Corps are used at the mid-size level, you will not find many, if any, Fortune 1000 companies that are S-Corps. In my experience, most S-Corps are generally families or close groups of individuals. If you look at the S-Corp rules you will see why S-Corps aren't favored by growing companies: they must be domestic corps; only individuals, estates, certain trusts, banks, and certain exempt organizations can be shareholders; only citizens or residents of the US can be shareholders; the corporations can only have one class of stock; and the entity can have no more than 100 shareholders.

My main point of posting this article was this paragraph:

Dorgan and Levin have complained about companies abusing transfer prices amounts charged on transactions between companies in a group, such as a parent and subsidiary. In some cases, multinational companies can manipulate transfer prices to shift income from higher to lower tax jurisdictions, cutting their tax liabilities. The GAO did not suggest which companies might be doing this.

This shows that companies are using self created deductions on the books when they really have suffered no monetary loss or expense.

I have to go, but Joe is correct, it is inflamatory. The "2/3 of all corpoations" is at the heart of it.....most of them are not even structured to pay taxes and anybody who knows anything about it knows that. If you want to steer the conversation to discuss what large corporations do to avoid taxation then fine....but this article is a poor way to start that.

While S-Corps are used at the mid-size level, you will not find many, if any, Fortune 1000 companies that are S-Corps.

that it obvious taxman. again, "2/3 of US corporations....."

The rest of your argument is another story.

Of course, S-Corps use many of the same techniques to distribute losses to their shareholders, that is one of the main reasons behind having an S-Corp - you don't distribute gains, only distribute losses.

To clarify, generally when a S-Corp gets to the point where it is generating a profit that cannot be offset through NOLs or other deductions, the shareholders will convert to an C-Corp as they don't want the taxable income to flow through to them.

But the C Corporation then has to pay the tax anyways, along with another tax when the money is distributed to the shareholders. S Corporations are not only for people not generating any gains.

S Corporations are not only for people not generating any gains.

I didn't say that was their only purpose; as a matter of fact, if you read above I stated that many are used by families.

But you did state that generally when an S Corporation starts generating profits that can't be offset, they switch to a C Corporation. I would think that to be false given the "double taxation" that comes along with a C Corporation, and the fact that the tax has to be paid anyway regardless of whether it flows through to the owner.

You never want to show a profit if you are an s corp. If you show a profit, you need a new accountant.

The best example of self dealing S Corp losses that I have ever seen that is still legal is a captive insurance company organized offshore.

You can shift a great deal of income into a tax free jurisdiction and hold it tax free. The "premiums" paid for the "self insurance" by the S corporation are fully deductible and the income remains untaxed.

It should be illegal, but it isn't so you take advantage of it.

The best example of self dealing S Corp losses that I have ever seen that is still legal is a captive insurance company organized offshore.

there isn't that much of that going on. You are right, most captive insurance programs are domiciled out of the caymen islands....which is quite dubious.

businesses don't participate in captive insurance programs for a tax benefit so much as an opportunity to self-insure with some protection. They might be in an industry that is very volitile with regard to commercial insurance and if they run their business very well with little or no claims then the captive option can be viable but not for very many.

1915- Corporations pay 100% of Federal Taxes.

1950- Corporations pay 50% of Federal Taxes.

Today Corporations pay 7% of Federal Taxes, if the IRS can catch them.

Of course, if you raise taxes on business, who really ends up paying?

Of course, if you raise taxes on business, who really ends up paying?

SHHHH -- Don't tell anyone.

It's like an debate I had with a friend of mine who said that since he rented he did not pay property taxes. I pointed out he did, he just did not get to deduct them on his federal income tax.

Full circle........ Break from England because of taxes now back in the severe taxation under the USA now.

"SHHHH -- Don't tell anyone."

Goatman, don't look now, but you're treading on the Theory of Elasticity. You'd be hard-pressed to show a majority of incidences where all tax increases get passed on to the consumer. Usually a portion gets passed, and a portion eaten.

Well I would like to thank you all for the wonderful advice on how to dodge taxes for small s corps. I informaly help one with their taxes and their income has gone up pretty signifactly this year. Last year they had to use every dodge I could come up with and still owed 2k at the end of the year. You have given me some good ideas to keep that from going up and possibly lower it this year.

I thought by IRS rules a company can't declare endless losses and still be considered viable.

If this 2/3rds of corporations don't pay taxes, doesn't that mean they aren't making money (not all of course).

Halliburton led the way with Cheney's moving most of their subsidiaries to that building in the Cayman Islands which 7000 corporations use as a front to avoid paying taxes in the U.S.

Patriots? Uh huh.

"Remove the citizenship of all business. Remove all the loopholes specifically designed to shield corporations from taxation. Remove the abatement laws, which are criminal to the People. Remove the TIF's.
If your business is unwilling to pay taxes, it should be put out of business, immediately. But the concubines in the congress and the various state governments have sold themselves, and their constituants', out to the highest bidder."

Posted by gitmboy

I have said this time and again.. If you incorporate to avoid taxation by incorporating in Asia or offshore and pay no taxes your goods should have a duty that offsets the loss in revenue.

There is a cost to doing business in a stable country that allows for rule of law and a fair shake to do business without threat of warlords or drug lords or mob bosses from squeezing you.

Unfortunately our government is corrupt because of the influence pedaling from pacs and lobbying..

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
John Adams, Journal, 1772

and later in his life after seeing the rampant cronyism and corruption..

Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.
John Adams, Letter, April 15, 1814

I fear we are at the end of our democracy/republic.

Long live the republic..

Thanks all for a pretty decent and civil discussion (sans politics) about this article and our tax code.

I've heard some talk about the Fair Tax. What, if anything, would it do to solve these loopholes and is it really fair?

You'd be hard-pressed to show a majority of incidences where all tax increases get passed on to the consumer. Usually a portion gets passed, and a portion eaten.

It is all in the definition. What is "eaten"? This guy is willing to make less, so he "eats" the taxes? Where is this arbitrary profit line drawn? I think it can be successfully argued that all taxes get passed to the end user/consumer -- it is just a matter of profits for the merchant/landlord/service provider

So here's the plan, have Corporations pay no tax, since goods will be cheaper, let them hide their assets overseas, outsource jobs to $1/day labor, and stop all regulation, especially pollution, like in Texas, Mexico and China. Its gonna be great, we'll all be rich, because cars, gas and food are gonna be soooooooo cheap. In the end, our wages will be so low, we won't have to pay any tax either.

Yes Virginia, this really is the oligarchy's plan.

Tune in Limbaugh in a cupla days, where he will explain:
1.) Paying NO taxes keeps America safe.
2.) Taxes are Communist anyway
3.) The corporations STILL need tax cuts because zero is still too much. They need handouts so they can create more jobs in Shanghai.

33% 1-in-3 people in the US do not pay any income taxes (as of 2005). Do all the things said about the companies that do not pay taxes also apply to these people?

I still say, if you do not pay income taxes, you should not be allowed to vote.

Of course, S-Corps use many of the same techniques to distribute losses to their shareholders, that is one of the main reasons behind having an S-Corp - you don't distribute gains, only distribute losses.

Posted by taxman
* * * *

What in the hell are you talking about. That's not how it works. I know of dozens of S-Corps that are profitable. Converting over to a regular corporation isn't the easiest thing to do: it's expensive, it requires more tax filings, and in many cases, it's pointless.

Tune in Limbaugh in a cupla days, where he will explain:
1.) Paying NO taxes keeps America safe.
2.) Taxes are Communist anyway
3.) The corporations STILL need tax cuts because zero is still too much. They need handouts so they can create more jobs in Shanghai.

Posted by johnjkavanagh

this is so fucking true..Sometimes the seal clubbers are beating the wrong furry fat fuck

I think it can be successfully argued that all taxes get passed to the end user/consumer -- it is just a matter of profits for the merchant/landlord/service provider

Posted by goatman

wrong..

wrong..

You gotta love it when someone tells you are wrong: Not why, no counter argument, just "wrong".

Well, I'm convinced.

"It is all in the definition."

No, it's not. When taxes rise, prices must be completely elastic to pass on the full amount to the consumer in the short or medium term. Even if passed on in full, the margin percentage is now lower, keeping downward pressure on future price increases.

No, it's not. When taxes rise, prices must be completely elastic to pass on the full amount to the consumer in the short or medium term.

Keeping in mind the original premise (see 6:58) this is not valid since a renter's landlord will always be paying property taxes; i.e., it's not a short or medium term thing being passed on. He must pass it all on in order to make a profit that's acceptable to him. We must assume that if it goes on for a long term, he is making an acceptable profit. So it is as I say, it is in the definition of a profit.

Landlord 'A' may charge more rent than landlord 'B', but 'A' is willing for a smaller profit margin. Does this mean he passess less of his property taxes on to his renters? Or does it mean he passes less of his mortage interest on to them?

It's in whatever definition you choose. You apparently choose to call that lower portion as to be coming from taxes. That's cool. I may choose to say I'm eating more mortage insurance. That's cool, too. Yet another landlord may choose eat more of his contract labor costs. Again, cool. Bottom line is the same. Just different definitions of where it's coming from.

"Keeping in mind the original premise (see 6:58) this is not valid since a renter's landlord will always be paying property taxes; i.e., it's not a short or medium term thing being passed on. He must pass it all on in order to make a profit that's acceptable to him. "

Not true at all; if property taxes go up a unit average of $30 a month, and the landlord has research showing a $25 or higher increase causes folks to relocate (I saw a study that concluded $23 was the cutoff) he's not going to pass the entire increase along, at least for a while. In the interim, he's "eating it". And you're assuming he'll make up for the full profit at some point down the road, when a tax increase actually makes that less possible. You're also assuming "acceptable profit" is the "same profit" over time, whereas higher taxes often eat into profit margins.

"Landlord 'A' may charge more rent than landlord 'B', but 'A' is willing for a smaller profit margin. Does this mean he passess less of his property taxes on to his renters? Or does it mean he passes less of his mortage interest on to them?'

Yes, and yes. It's not an "or" situation.

"It's in whatever definition you choose."

No, it's always considered to be a percentage of the whole. Neither of us get to pick and choose.

Not true at all; if property taxes go up a unit average of $30 a month, and the landlord has research showing a $25 or higher increase causes folks to relocate (I saw a study that concluded $23 was the cutoff) he's not going to pass the entire increase along, at least for a while.

Danforth: Dude, you copied my quote, but obviously did not read it. "Keeping in mind the original premise". The original premise did not allow for a raise in taxes. It was existing taxes. Existing means -- existing. No raises in taxes.

If you want to put forth another argument with different parameters -- fine. But don't move the goal posts I put up and tell me I'm wrong.

Goatman- cuz i'm curious:

Are you a guy that thinks rescinding tax breaks(say bushs crap tax to the rich) is raising taxes?

Or do you mean an actual bill that would raise taxes, not end a cut?

" The original premise did not allow for a raise in taxes"

Huh? The 6:58 included the phrase "if you raise taxes..."

And every back and forth has included references to increased taxes and how the market would react to the full amount passed on.

Huh? The 6:58 included the phrase "if you raise taxes..."

Did you not notice that was in italics? THat convention is usually used in this blog to designate a quote; i.e., I did not say it. My "freind debate" I quoted made no mention of raising of taxes in the property tax thing.

And every back and forth has included references to increased taxes and how the market would react to the full amount passed on.

LOL Because YOU put that stipulation in, not I! You crack me up.

Are you a guy that thinks rescinding tax breaks(say bushs crap tax to the rich) is raising taxes?

If I pay more taxes next year than last, then yes, of course -- clearly my taxes were raised. What kind of question is that?

"THat convention is usually used in this blog to designate a quote"

And the topic on which you're continuing the discussion: raising taxes. The first thing you posted was "Don't tell anyone", as in 'consumers always pay all the tax increases anyway'.

"My "freind debate" I quoted made no mention of raising of taxes in the property tax thing."

Well, you could have mentioned it a half dozen posts ago.

Regardless, if 25% of the landlord's annual expenses are for real estate taxes, 25% of the rent is considered to go for real estate taxes. If 10% went to labor costs, 10% of the rent is considered labor costs. And it doesn't matter if it's a profit or a loss. Plus, you don't get to say the first $5000 went for taxes, and the next $2000 went for labor, etc. It's all a percentage of the whole.

Because YOU put that stipulation in, not I!

No, you were the one who responded: "It is all in the definition. What is "eaten"? This guy is willing to make less, so he "eats" the taxes? "

You were answering me about the rise in taxes, Goatman.

...as in...

Well, if you are going to interpret my words, I really can't disagree with your intepretation, can I? To me it's clear what I meant, but if you want to construe otherwise, what can I say?

Well, you could have mentioned it a half dozen posts ago.

???

mention that I didn't mention raising taxes?

I'll try to remember next time I address you to mention what I didn't mention. LOL

You were answering me about the rise in taxes, Goatman.

This is so absurd I feel like a fool responding, so this will be my last post on this ridiculousness:

Look at my original post at 6:58. Follow the thread. Who first mentioned raising of taxes? You did at 7:14.

As I said, this is crazy. Interpret my words as you wish, feel that I first brought up raising of taxes if you wish -- I'm done with this. It's too buffalobobbish for my taste tonight.

"Well, if you are going to interpret my words, I really can't disagree with your intepretation, can I? "

Sure you can: what did you mean?

I meant exactly as I wrote it:

"It's like an debate I had with a friend of mine who said that since he rented he did not pay property taxes. I pointed out he did, he just did not get to deduct them on his federal income tax"

I do not know how to rephrase it to make it more clear without sounding flippant or snarky, so we'll just chalk it off to my inability to express myself.

""It's like an debate I had with a friend of mine who said that since he rented he did not pay property taxes. I pointed out he did, he just did not get to deduct them on his federal income tax""

Okay. You're right.

I thought you were continuing to discuss what you quoted.

In that case, what did you mean by "SHHHH -- Don't tell anyone"?

Converting over to a regular corporation isn't the easiest thing to do: it's expensive, it requires more tax filings, and in many cases, it's pointless.

No it isn't easy, but I have been busy walking S-Corps through the steps. The main purpose of converting would be to go public.

Converting over to a regular corporation isn't the easiest thing to do: it's expensive, it requires more tax filings, and in many cases, it's pointless.

Posted by rightisright

Add one foreign shareholder and it is automatic. Add the 101'st shareholder and it is automatic.

Otherwise it is as simple as attaching an election to the final S year revoking the S election.

No it isn't easy, but I have been busy walking S-Corps through the steps. The main purpose of converting would be to go public.

Posted by taxman
* * * *

Fine. But you implied that the reason S-Corps become C-Corps is that, now that they're making money, they need to change their organization.

And 726: I know the process to convert from an S- to a C-corp. But Corporations have more tax filings than S-'s do, not to mention, their filing date gets moved up. New accounting rules, different tax structure.--It's like saying it's not expensive for a 16-year old to get a regular driver's license, because it's only $20. But that's only the first of your increased expenses. Sheez.

The study by the Government Accountability Office, expected to be released Tuesday, said about 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the U.S. avoided corporate taxes over the same period.

Your headeline left out the word FOREIGN.

Let's have a little truth here.

Companies only pay taxes on PEOFIT. Owners and employees pay taxes on their income. If you want the price of a product or service to go up, just tax the company a bunch more.

What is so hard to understand? Tax companies and they will have to pass the cost on to the consumer. The consumer is the one that ends up paying the bill. The answer is to reduce the size of government, not increase the size of taxes.

Frankly I've never heard of any corporation that was eligible for S Corp status wanting to elect to pay more taxes under the C Corporation regime. I still find it hard to believe that any tax professional would recommend this change to "any" S Corp that happens to be making money.

Frankly I've never heard of any corporation that was eligible for S Corp status wanting to elect to pay more taxes under the C Corporation regime. I still find it hard to believe that any tax professional would recommend this change to "any" S Corp that happens to be making money.

Generally when businesses grow and become more profitable, they become appealing targets to investors - when this happens, a company will want to go public. S-Corps can't be public companies.

I guess I deal with too many large multi-national companies and not enough of the small guys, as I witness conversions on a consistent basis. The main reason behind these conversions is that we can lower the effective tax rate of a C-Corp as compared to an S-Corp through multi-national planning - it is quite easy, and again there is no need to lower an entities or an individuals tax rate if losses are being generated. Of course, S-Corps and other flow-throughs are used strategically in this planning, but generally you will see a C-Corp parent at the top of the pyramid.

As I was thinking last night I reminded myself that it isn't the corporations that any anger should be directed at, they are complying with the laws as written. If people want corporations to pay more taxes, then they need to direct their efforts with their respective lawmakers.

Guess it just depends what line of work you're in. I've seen C Corps that will do everything they can to meet the S eligibility requirements just so they can make the switch, and pay an assload of built in gains tax because in the long term it is still the better regime for them. I see what you are saying and for some of the bigger guys it probably makes sense.

As I was thinking last night I reminded myself that it isn't the corporations that any anger should be directed at, they are complying with the laws as written.

why spoil the party?

The lefties here need to chime in with ignorant opinions of how evil they are all and how it is bush's fault.

I've seen C Corps that will do everything they can to meet the S eligibility requirements just so they can make the switch

I have seen that as well, but due to the built-in-gains tax, the transition can be very unatrractive.

But Corporations have more tax filings than S-'s do, not to mention, their filing date gets moved up. New accounting rules, different tax structure.--It's like saying it's not expensive for a 16-year old to get a regular driver's license, because it's only $20. But that's only the first of your increased expenses. Sheez.

Posted by rightisright

Please enumerate me on these "more tax filings" that a C corp has over an S Corp. With a C Corp you file form 1120, for an S you file an 1120S. One form. Of course with an S you also have to prepare schedule K-1, track E&P if they have any, track basis, track AAA (for both the shareholder and the corporation) as well as at-risk amounts. I would argue that an S-Corporation increases the amount of work needed to adequately prepare the tax return.

For 2008, the due dates of the returns for both C and S corps was 3/15, with an extension of time to 9/15 available.

track E&P if they have any, track basis, track AAA (for both the shareholder and the corporation) as well as at-risk amounts.

Worst job ever!

Yep. Not to mention Built in Gains taxes too.

Goatman, don't look now, but you're treading on the Theory of Elasticity. You'd be hard-pressed to show a majority of incidences where all tax increases get passed on to the consumer. Usually a portion gets passed, and a portion eaten.

Posted by Danforth

And that is a theory of yours ace.

Taxes on companies are paid for by the consumer! If you think they are operating at a loss you are nucking futs.

"And that is a theory of yours ace."

2 in 3 companies avoid US taxation.

2 in 3 individuals avoid US taxation by taking deductions for themselves and their children.

Those criminals. How dare they take deductions that Congress allowed. The individual probably bought those Congressman to pass such laws.

They even took deductions for their mortgage, those medical bills when the baby was born, those taxes they paid to the state govt.

The EVIL of it all.

The EVIL of it all.

Posted by Petrous

I should have posted that in the first place.

Good one Petrous.

Petrous, I am not worried about those individuals and/or businesses that are deducting actual expenses, and I don't think anyone else here is either. The argument lies in methods used by taxpayers where they artificially create deductions in order to escape tax liability. And as I pointed out above, is it really a taxpayer's fault for using the tax code as written? Of course, the Code also provides remedies to the IRS if they catch on to these methods - specifically Internal Revenue Code 482 governs related party transactions (i.e. transfer pricing).

Record Deficit projected for this year: $498,000,000,000 (billion)

What do you tax experts propose? That we continue to borrow from China, Japan, SA?

At what point does it finally become pragmatic to increase our revenue stream? If a family has a deficit do they pull out the credit cards or get a second job?

"What do you tax experts propose? "

Well, obviously what we need is a further tax cut. I'm proposing we make permanent the repeal of a tax which only affects multi-millionaires and billionaires, and to finance it, we'll just borrow more money.
-John McCain

Seriously...that's what he wants.

"At what point does it finally become pragmatic to increase our revenue stream?"

As I've said before, I'm all for raising taxes if the money would actually be used to pay our debts. The problem is that most politicians who want to raise our taxes would never use the money for that purpose - instead they would create new spending programs or add to those that already exist.

JOE

According to my calculator the federal budget has increase more during this administration and the GOP 2001-2007 Congress than any other.

Clinton left us with surpluses and a plan to start paying down the deficit. No reason to think that with some of the same team on Obama's advisory committees we can't have a return to paying down deficits and shoring up SS.

One of the first steps would seem to be putting a halt to tax schemes that allow multi billion dollar companies from avoiding taxes.

I'm all for raising taxes if the money would actually be used to pay our debts.

Joe,

Bite your fucking tongue!! Raising taxes is the wrong thing to do and will just make matters worse by far.

The revenue stream needs to be created by giving incentives to those companies that are willing to invest in this country, and that doesn't mean wall street, but main street. Building here not over there.

Clinton left us with surpluses and a plan to start paying down the deficit.

Get a grip and stop pushing this lying bull shit of a stat.

Left us with a surplus because clinton stole the money from the Social Security pot, but I am sure that doesn't matter to you now does it?

MW-

If it were up to me, we'd keep taxes how they are, reduce current spending on things like wars and corporate welfare, and use that money to pay down the deficit. I don't support raising taxes per se, the point I make is that no liberal politician ever proposes we do so for the purpose of paying down the debt.

AU-

Not sure what your point is since I have never supported the current administration.

It is funny that people bitch about the deficit but think global trade is total reality and shouldn't be weighed.

Well, the more we off-shore our manufacturing/production the higher the deficit will go and also the LESS REVENUE(taxes) will be collected.

Left us with a surplus because clinton stole the money from the Social Security pot, but I am sure that doesn't matter to you now does it?

Posted by moneywar

Looks like AU has his facts straight.

Clinton's large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

The revenue stream needs to be created by giving incentives to those companies that are willing to invest in this country,

well, I think a federal tax break is going to have little effect

:-(

If it were up to me, we'd keep taxes how they are, reduce current spending on things like wars and corporate welfare, and use that money to pay down the deficit.

Do that and tax rates will naturally fall.

JOE

Just want to remind the rightie tighties that we are running deficits because of GOP runaway spending.

Borrowing to make up deficits is a very bad idea.

Never in a 'time of war' have we given tax cuts to the wealthiest among us - who coincidentally were the biggest supporters of Bush and the GOP, which has turned into the antithesis of everything they used to stand for.

All that needs to happen is changes in the rules.

Invest over seas and corporations should be taxed heavily, invest here in America and corporations get the tax write off.

Clinton left us with surpluses

Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Bull Shit!!

1990 3.233
1991 3.665
1992 4.064
1993 4.411
1994 4.692
1995 4.973
1996 5.224
1997 5.413
1998 5.526
1999 5.605
2000 5.674

Tell me which year Clinton was in office that the national debt did not go up!!

Clinton had budget surpluses.

Fact!!!!

SNIPER

My comment was in context of the 'budget' dude. The fact the GOP piled up record debt and increased our national budget - more than all other administrations in history combined.

You pile up the national debt and you accrue interest.

PS Reagan got us started down the path of national debt. He got us our very first 1 trillion dollar mark.

Dick Cheney: Deficits don't matter.

AU: Dick, yes they do.

One will argue about the deficit. See: surplus.
One will argue about the National Debt: See: never went down.

We don't need tax breaks.
We need spending breaks.

Cut the spending and you have surplus. Cut spending more than the amount you cut taxes and the surplus is a less, but it is still a surplus.

I have yet to see a Congress that will spend LESS - regardless of tax cuts or increases.

Drill, drill, and drill some more.
Save, save, and save some more.

STOP SPENDING. It's ain't the presidency to think about in November. It is CONGRESS that needs a fix.

SNiPER

Why didn't you keep going on your national debt numbers?

Probably because it would glaringly point out how irresponsible Bush and the GOP have been with our finances.

Just the projected amount of the deficit for this year is almost twice what the entire national debt was when Jimmy Carter left office in 1981.

I think Clinton's surplus (sic) would be nonexistent if the WTC's collapsed on his watch.

Of course, the inside-job wasn't during his watch.

Did the WTC attack cause the Medicare Plan D where we're losing hundreds of billions because the GOP made it illegal to negotiate prices a company of 30 can?

Crooked contractors ripping us off in Iraq?

Privatization of the government that costs us MORE per year?

An illegal war in Iraq that's cost us a trillion dollars - probably gonna be 3 when it's all said and done?

Tax breaks that cost us hundreds of billions a year in a time of war?

I don't think so

Oh, and an additional $230 billion a year in debt service to the 4+ trillion Bush and the GOP added to the national debt.

wrong..

You gotta love it when someone tells you are wrong: Not why, no counter argument, just "wrong".

Well, I'm convinced.

Posted by goatman

dumb shits like you will never understand globalization.. I have my masters in economics and you work on an oil rig.. go figure.

Clinton had budget surpluses.

Fact!!!!

www.factcheck.org

Posted by reinheitsgebot

Yhat part of "the debdt didn't go down" don't you f*****g understand? If there was more tax money that came in than went out the debdt would have to decrease.

The debdt has increased every year since WWI

It was $250,000,000,000 when Carter left office.

You don't understand the concept that debt piles up from interest?

The GOP Presidents have done a massively good job of piling it up

Thanks to W and the GOP Congress we now pay $500,000,000,000 a year in INTEREST ONLY. Twice what the entire national debt was when Carter left office.

More from the 'Deficits Don't Matter' GOP

"The debdt(sic) has increased every year since WWI"

Posted by Sniper

Whatever that is.

Presumably our illiterate poster was referring to debt, which, when normalized against the nation's ability to pay, went down continuously since WWII until the idiot Reagan was elected.

Left us with a surplus because clinton stole the money from the Social Security pot, but I am sure that doesn't matter to you now does it?

Posted by moneywar

Yeah and Reagan hiked those same SS taxes to finance his tax cuts.

Not to mention that Lil Bush took that same SS money that every working american pays and gave it to millionaires and billionaires.

Invest over seas and corporations should be taxed heavily, invest here in America and corporations get the tax write off.

Posted by moneywar

Corporate America will never allow that to happen.

Cheap overseas labor needs to be exploited to continue multi multi million dollar CEO salaries.

Until private money is removed from elections that will never change.

When a candidate has to spend $200 million to get a four year job the system is broken.

Presumably our illiterate poster was referring to debt, which, when normalized against the nation's ability to pay, went down continuously since WWII until the idiot Reagan was elected.

Posted by Zatoichi

our illiterate zat can spin the numbers any way he wants to but the fact is the debt has not gone down under any president in his lifetime.

I have not defended any republican, in fact all the politicians are the same. They buy thier power with our tax dollars and running up the credit card.

Bite your fucking tongue!! Raising taxes is the wrong thing to do and will just make matters worse by far.

The revenue stream needs to be created by giving incentives to those companies that are willing to invest in this country, and that doesn't mean wall street, but main street. Building here not over there..

A tax neutral policy that increased taxes on the wealthy and reduced taxes on the middle class would seem to make the most sense.

The major differences between Dems and Repubs tax policy is where money should be injected into the economy. Republicans want to inject the money at the top of the income scale and let the masses compete for what trickles down. Dems want to inject money at the middle to lower end of the income scale and let businesses compete for the consumers' dollar.

I think that it is far better to have robust consumers with businesses competing.

When is the last time that a person making under $50k a year gave you a job?

Your theory on us being a consumer economy sucks. We need to be a country that produces something. How else can we afford to consume?

Robust consumers spend money which stimulates demand. To fill that demand, businesses hire more workers. Those workers, having more money to spend, spend it thereby creating even more demand.

Isn't it ironic that the only solution to the economic malaise that the Dems and Repubs could both agree on was an economic stimulus for the masses? They both realized that the golden goose (the consumer) was being cooked.

Your theory on us being a consumer economy sucks. We need to be a country that produces something. How else can we afford to consume?

Posted by Sniper

can someone explain to me why being an uber consumer is good?

Without consumers, there is no need for production; without production there can be no consumers. A balance has to be struck.

Money in the hands of consumers will always find its way to the producers that create the goods that consumers want. Money in the hands of producers could lead to the production of goods that consumers don't want.

Robust consumers spend money which stimulates demand. To fill that demand, businesses hire more workers. Those workers, having more money to spend, spend it thereby creating even more demand.

Posted by FedUpWithPols

If I understand you correctly, you say we can consume our way to a great economy.

How can we survive if we only consume and have a service econmy? That is what we are doing to some extent now and all our dollars are goin out of the country to purchase consumer goods.

Your concept of how an economy works is very shallow. You have not thought it thru to the ultimate conclusion.

How can we survive if we only consume and have a service econmy? That is what we are doing to some extent now and all our dollars are goin out of the country to purchase consumer goods.

Bingo! The problem is that our money is going OUT of the country because we aren't producing the goods that we are consuming! If we were still producing those goods we wouldn't have nearly the problems that we are having because the production of those goods would lead to jobs that could sustain the consumption!

I guess we are on the same page. We cannot consume our way to greatness. We have to produce something of value. We realy should be producing more than we consume so our balance of payment is positive, not the way it is now.

We are on the same page.

In a strange kind of way, because we produce so little of what we consume, about the only way of really stimulating the economy is to do it from the top down lest it flow out of the country.

Since I believe that it is healthier for our economy if businesses chase consumer dollars, we should erect a virtual dam to better control the flow of money out of the country. This virtual dam would take the form of increased tariffs on imported goods to give businesses in our country an opportunity to retool and become more competitive. By doing so, we could produce more of what we consume.

I would spend the increased income from the tariffs on further tax reductions on the middle class, R&D to improve manufacturing processes and education.

The virtual dam would also include a drastic reduction in the number of work visas being issued and a shut down of illegal immigration. These are other ways in which money flows out of the country (i.e. in the form of remittances).