https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/...p-not-down

Now you have to skip the first 5 paragraphs with the mindless Democratic drivel (I almost quit reading), but there is some serious discussion beyond that. Start with this paragraph:

"...Let's remember, though, that the U.S. is, by developed country standards, a very low-tax country. It raises about a quarter of its gross domestic product in revenue at all levels of government, compared to about a third in the rest of the developed world, and well more than 40 percent in some countries. For the last several decades, the U.S. at the federal level alone has raised roughly 18 percent of GDP in taxes, while spending around 20 percent...."

Taxes are fine (doesn’t matter what amount), it’s what we get for our taxes paid that is too low.

all I see is spending is 2% too high.....

I also only see benefit from lowering taxes that will yield increased consumer spending.....therefore, (and I'm leaving a ton of points out and skipping to the crux), it simply comes down to 'will congress begin to spend in a responsibly fiscal manner or remain status quo moving forward???'

Calling the US a low-tax country is a matter of perspective. We are a low-tax country in total taxes. We are a high-tax country in terms of what we tax from corporations and the "rich." Since they can move taxable income around, they choose to earn money overseas and have it taxed there. As a result we get zero tax revenue from them on those earnings, whereas if they chose to earn here, we would be getting taxes on it. It's really not rocket science.

I've laid out my approach before and will summarize here. A comprehensive welfare safety net consisting of universal health care under the Bismarck model (which may very well cost the government less than it now spends on health care) plus a guaranteed minimum income under Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund, funded with a flat 15% tax on corporate income, a 15% payroll tax (7.5% employer, 7.5% employee) like social security but with no earnings cap, and a 15% consumption tax under the VAT model. That balances the budget with zero individual income tax. I would also add a 5% (2.5%/2.5%) super 401k privatized component of social security, so that wealth will be shared with everyone.

Federal taxes are too high and most state taxes are too low.

I disagree with the author on corporate taxes. Reality is that our high rate drives businesses off-shore, reducing what we collect and sending it to Ireland or other places. The tax rate must come down to at least 25% to be competitive with the rest of the developed world.

For many of our smaller businesses, they elect sub S status and avoid the corporate double tax. But that limits their ability to raise capital. Instead our largest companies and the potential for large tax collections, get encouraged to move operations overseas.

We have a lot of preferences that should be eliminated. Our depreciation policy is way too generous now. There are numerous other preference items with limited utility for the economy as a whole. All you have to do is look at how much longer the AMT form gets every year.

(12-01-2017 12:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  I disagree with the author on corporate taxes. Reality is that our high rate drives businesses off-shore, reducing what we collect and sending it to Ireland or other places. The tax rate must come down to at least 25% to be competitive with the rest of the developed world.

For many of our smaller businesses, they elect sub S status and avoid the corporate double tax. But that limits their ability to raise capital. Instead our largest companies and the potential for large tax collections, get encouraged to move operations overseas.

We have a lot of preferences that should be eliminated. Our depreciation policy is way too generous now. There are numerous other preference items with limited utility for the economy as a whole. All you have to do is look at how much longer the AMT form gets every year.

The rate itself is nearly meaningless. It's how it is implemented.

I'm not sure how subchapter S elections prevent a company from raising capital.

(12-01-2017 12:00 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Taxes are fine (doesn’t matter what amount), it’s what we get for our taxes paid that is too low.

And who taxes, that's also a problem.

I'd have no issue sanding 25% of my Income to Saint Paul and 7% to Washington..

Not too low at all. I'd wager without reading the article, that most of the countries they compared the US to are more socialist in nature, be it socialized medicine or otherwise. 18% of GDP is more that sufficient if the fat is trimmed.

NO...Spending is too high.

(12-01-2017 12:21 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 12:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  I disagree with the author on corporate taxes. Reality is that our high rate drives businesses off-shore, reducing what we collect and sending it to Ireland or other places. The tax rate must come down to at least 25% to be competitive with the rest of the developed world.

For many of our smaller businesses, they elect sub S status and avoid the corporate double tax. But that limits their ability to raise capital. Instead our largest companies and the potential for large tax collections, get encouraged to move operations overseas.

We have a lot of preferences that should be eliminated. Our depreciation policy is way too generous now. There are numerous other preference items with limited utility for the economy as a whole. All you have to do is look at how much longer the AMT form gets every year.

The rate itself is nearly meaningless. It's how it is implemented.

I'm not sure how subchapter S elections prevent a company from raising capital.

Sub S are limited to 100 shareholders and can't have corporations, partnerships or non-resident aliens as shareholders.

(12-01-2017 12:45 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  NO...Spending is too high.

thank you!!!

that's the crux.....

last time I checked (back in my teen days), a couple of bucks in my pocket was mere tip money for the rest that pitched in to pay for the meal.....it's a good thing we didn't all have amex platinum cards at that age....

there's a reason we need foreign debt ownership in today's economy......however, accumulating 10T in debt over an 8 yr span pales in comparison to the projected 1.5T (which is udder spoiled milk bs) over a 10 yr projection.....

I swear.....this board sometimes reminds me of my dipshite libtard econ profs that I always gave the finga to.....

(12-01-2017 12:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 12:21 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 12:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  I disagree with the author on corporate taxes. Reality is that our high rate drives businesses off-shore, reducing what we collect and sending it to Ireland or other places. The tax rate must come down to at least 25% to be competitive with the rest of the developed world.

For many of our smaller businesses, they elect sub S status and avoid the corporate double tax. But that limits their ability to raise capital. Instead our largest companies and the potential for large tax collections, get encouraged to move operations overseas.

We have a lot of preferences that should be eliminated. Our depreciation policy is way too generous now. There are numerous other preference items with limited utility for the economy as a whole. All you have to do is look at how much longer the AMT form gets every year.

The rate itself is nearly meaningless. It's how it is implemented.

I'm not sure how subchapter S elections prevent a company from raising capital.

Sub S are limited to 100 shareholders and can't have corporations, partnerships or non-resident aliens as shareholders.

You're crossing over into two different realms here.

Small businesses don't raise vast amounts of capital, they don't need to.

Those rules are designed to work in tandem with securities regulation.

So, I'm still not seeing how this is some kind of oversight that is impacting the ability of small businesses to raise capital.

(12-01-2017 05:03 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 12:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 12:21 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 12:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  I disagree with the author on corporate taxes. Reality is that our high rate drives businesses off-shore, reducing what we collect and sending it to Ireland or other places. The tax rate must come down to at least 25% to be competitive with the rest of the developed world.

For many of our smaller businesses, they elect sub S status and avoid the corporate double tax. But that limits their ability to raise capital. Instead our largest companies and the potential for large tax collections, get encouraged to move operations overseas.

We have a lot of preferences that should be eliminated. Our depreciation policy is way too generous now. There are numerous other preference items with limited utility for the economy as a whole. All you have to do is look at how much longer the AMT form gets every year.

The rate itself is nearly meaningless. It's how it is implemented.

I'm not sure how subchapter S elections prevent a company from raising capital.

Sub S are limited to 100 shareholders and can't have corporations, partnerships or non-resident aliens as shareholders.

You're crossing over into two different realms here.

Small businesses don't raise vast amounts of capital, they don't need to.

Those rules are designed to work in tandem with securities regulation.

So, I'm still not seeing how this is some kind of oversight that is impacting the ability of small businesses to raise capital.

It limits their ability once they reach a certain size.

(12-01-2017 05:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 05:03 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 12:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 12:21 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 12:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  I disagree with the author on corporate taxes. Reality is that our high rate drives businesses off-shore, reducing what we collect and sending it to Ireland or other places. The tax rate must come down to at least 25% to be competitive with the rest of the developed world.

For many of our smaller businesses, they elect sub S status and avoid the corporate double tax. But that limits their ability to raise capital. Instead our largest companies and the potential for large tax collections, get encouraged to move operations overseas.

We have a lot of preferences that should be eliminated. Our depreciation policy is way too generous now. There are numerous other preference items with limited utility for the economy as a whole. All you have to do is look at how much longer the AMT form gets every year.

The rate itself is nearly meaningless. It's how it is implemented.

I'm not sure how subchapter S elections prevent a company from raising capital.

Sub S are limited to 100 shareholders and can't have corporations, partnerships or non-resident aliens as shareholders.

You're crossing over into two different realms here.

Small businesses don't raise vast amounts of capital, they don't need to.

Those rules are designed to work in tandem with securities regulation.

So, I'm still not seeing how this is some kind of oversight that is impacting the ability of small businesses to raise capital.

It limits their ability once they reach a certain size.

At which point one would simply alter their tax election status or restructure, which are not just tax considerations.

That's the point, there is more to that, at the point you are talking about, than just tax considerations.

(12-01-2017 11:48 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/...p-not-down

Now you have to skip the first 5 paragraphs with the mindless Democratic drivel (I almost quit reading), but there is some serious discussion beyond that. Start with this paragraph:

"...Let's remember, though, that the U.S. is, by developed country standards, a very low-tax country. It raises about a quarter of its gross domestic product in revenue at all levels of government, compared to about a third in the rest of the developed world, and well more than 40 percent in some countries. For the last several decades, the U.S. at the federal level alone has raised roughly 18 percent of GDP in taxes, while spending around 20 percent...."

When I ballparked the total US tax burden I found it to be quite substantially higher than 25%. Maybe 25% if you're poor or lower middle class. Certainly not 25% if you're making $40,000 and up.

The government spends money like a drunk sailor in Singapore.

Taxes are too damn high. Period.

(12-01-2017 05:38 PM)shere khan Wrote:  The government spends money like a drunk sailor in Singapore.

Singapore is a bad place for a drunk sailor to spend money.

Patpong Thailand, well that's a different story.

I honestly don't know how other countries tax, but curious if the number used is really apples to apples. I know I pay federal tax, state tax, city tax, social security (which I may, or may not, get some back), Medicare tax, sales tax, gas tax, real estate tax, excise taxes on my utility bills to include phone, gas, electric and cable, a tax for owning a dog, a few others I'm sure I'm leaving out.

We have a pretty good household income and my effective federal rate is usually right around 17% since a fair chunk is from qualified dividends and long term capital gains and our charitable donations are usually around 10% of gross. However, my total tax bill taking all the mentioned items into consideration are typically around 36% of effective gross.

My guess is that in doing this comparison, a lot of those countries aren't taxing you the 15 different ways you get taxed here.

(12-01-2017 08:01 PM)banker Wrote:  I honestly don't know how other countries tax, but curious if the number used is really apples to apples. I know I pay federal tax, state tax, city tax, social security (which I may, or may not, get some back), Medicare tax, sales tax, gas tax, real estate tax, excise taxes on my utility bills to include phone, gas, electric and cable, a tax for owning a dog, a few others I'm sure I'm leaving out.

We have a pretty good household income and my effective federal rate is usually right around 17% since a fair chunk is from qualified dividends and long term capital gains and our charitable donations are usually around 10% of gross. However, my total tax bill taking all the mentioned items into consideration are typically around 36% of effective gross.

My guess is that in doing this comparison, a lot of those countries aren't taxing you the 15 different ways you get taxed here.

Well a lot of countries have national Value Added Tax. A lot of people have suggested it here. I don't like it because its hidden. And its too easy to raise lots of money with inflation.