Conservatives & Liberals - What's the difference?

[Qikdraw]

Wow. Please excuse my ignorance. How is what they were doing with the kids at the end of that clip different from what they say is happening with young Muslim kids???

Seems like brainwashing and such to me. Scary!

It is scary. The end of that clip is from Jesus Camp (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Camp-Becky-Fischer/dp/B000KLQUV2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1218661364&sr=1-1).


The feverish spectacle of a summer camp for evangelical Christian kids is the focus of Jesus Camp, a fascinating if sometimes alarming documentary. (Shortly after its release, the movie gained a new notoriety when Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, who appears near the end of the film, resigned his post amid a male prostitute's allegations of drug use and sexual misconduct.) For most of the film, we follow a charismatic teacher, Becky Fischer, as she trains young soldiers in "God's Army" at a camp in North Dakota. Some of the kids emerge as likable and bright, and eager to continue their work as pint-sized preachers; elsewhere, the visions of children speaking in tongues and falling to the floor in ecstasy are more troubling. Even more arresting is the vision of a generation of children home-schooled to believe that the Bible is science, or Fischer's certainty that America's flawed system of democracy will someday be replaced by a theocracy. (In one scene, a cardboard cut-out of George W. Bush is presented to the children, who react by laying their hands on the figure as though in a religious procession.) Filmmakers Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady maintain neutrality about all this, maybe too much so (they throw in some interviews with radio host Mike Papantonio to provide a liberal-Christian viewpoint) and one would like to know more about the grown-ups presented here. Power broker Haggard is the creepiest person in the film, an insincere smooth talker whose advice to one of the young would-be campgoers comes across as entirely cynical. Time will tell whether the film's Christian soldiers will be marching onward. --

Just like most religions there are crazies. This is the future generation of abortion clinic bombers. 'Christian' terrorists.

[Skinview]

Partly correct, but now, one of the largest providers of assisted living is evicting seniors who have "spent out", despite assurances to the contrary during the initial contract phase. These seniors were told that once their savings were depleted that the facility would accept Medicaid payment. Now this company, with others soon to follow, is reneging on that agreement.If they made an agreement, then they can be taken to court and sued for breech of contract. Thats what government is for.


The conservatives and Republicans would have us believe that we're on our own,No, they believe that we need to help each other voluntarily.


and that it is not the government's role to provide support to working familiesThe Republicans want to save working families from being taxed into poverty by Democrats.

[usmc1]

If they made an agreement, then they can be taken to court and sued for breech of contract. Thats what government is for.
The nursing homes have the advantage in that they can lawyer up and delay so that wrong done "outlives" the complainant. Also, this is an area in which laws and regulations are insufficient for the problem. In short, there are few ways, currently, for government to intervene, and tort actions are costly and long and drawn out.


No, they believe that we need to help each other voluntarily. There are several problems with this. One is that people just don't. Another is that some issues are so immense as to require the government intervention and administration. An example is Social Security, which yesterday celebrated 73-years of outstanding benefit to millions and millions of good, decent, hardworking Americans and their families.


The Republicans want to save working families from being taxed into poverty by Democrats. Oh really? Why then do they provide the tax breaks, loopholes, and favorable structures to the wealthy and corporations while over-taxing the middle class and working families?

[Sanslines]

The Republicans want to save working families from being taxed into poverty by Democrats.

Do you mean this:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=311 border=1><TBODY><TR align=middle><TD width=311 colSpan=3 height=54>Individual Income Tax Due in 2008,
Bush Law versus Clinton Law

</TD></TR><TR><TD align=middle width=311 colSpan=3 height=50>For taxpayers who take the standard deduction and have no children</TD></TR><TR><TD align=middle width=127 height=67>Taxpayer</TD><TD align=middle width=94>Tax That Would Have Been Owed under Clinton-Era Tax Law</TD><TD align=middle width=90>Tax Owed under Current Law, with Bush Tax Cuts</TD></TR><TR><TD width=127 height=59>Single, income of 30,000</TD><TD align=right width=94>$3,157.50 </TD><TD align=right width=90>$2,756.25 </TD></TR><TR><TD width=127 height=51>Single, income of 50,000</TD><TD align=right width=94>$7,262.50 </TD><TD align=right width=90>$6,606.25 </TD></TR><TR><TD width=127 height=54>Married, income of $50,000</TD><TD align=right width=94>$5,085.00 </TD><TD align=right width=90>$4,012.50 </TD></TR><TR><TD width=127 height=46>Married, income of $60,000</TD><TD align=right width=94>$6,585.00 </TD><TD align=right width=90>$5,512.50 </TD></TR><TR><TD width=127 height=51>Single, income of $75,000</TD><TD align=right width=94>$14,262.50 </TD><TD align=right width=90>$12,856.25 </TD></TR><TR><TD width=127 height=53>Married, income of $75,000</TD><TD align=right width=94>$9,426.50 </TD><TD align=right width=90>$7,762.50 </TD></TR><TR><TD width=127 height=47>Single, income of $125,000*</TD><TD align=right width=94>$29,378.50 </TD><TD align=right width=90>$26,472.25 </TD></TR><TR><TD width=127 height=41>Married, income of $125,000*</TD><TD align=right width=94>$23,426.50 </TD><TD align=right width=90>$19,462.50 </TD></TR><TR><TD width=311 colSpan=3 height=45>*This chart does not take into account the Alternative Minimum Tax</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/22958.html

[Sanslines]

Election 2008

Presidential Candidate Tax Plan Comparison

<TABLE id=candidates cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="95%"><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none" width=150></TD><TD style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none" width=150>John McCain



</TD><TD style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none" width=150>Barack Obama



</TD></TR><TR><TD>Marginal Individual Income Tax Rates
View Research Area » (http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/83.html)


</TD><TD>Maintain current (Bush tax cut) rates. (Source) (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/4a3ab6fe-b025-42b1-815b-13c696a61908.htm)


</TD><TD>No specifics; "Repeal Bush's tax cuts for top 1%" (Source) (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/14/us/politics/14talk.html)
Eliminate income taxes on seniors earning $50,000 per year or less. (Source) (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#tax-relief)


</TD></TR><TR><TD>Corporate Income Tax
View Research Area » (http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/91.html)


</TD><TD>Cut to 25% (from current 35%) (Source) (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/75389e0f-aa0f-4cb6-a00a-f4b23c9ee1cf.htm)


</TD><TD>No specifics available. Proposes eliminating "preferential loopholes" and "cracking down on offshore tax havens." (Source) (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#playing-field)


</TD></TR><TR><TD>Tax Reform
View Research Area » (http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/7.html)


</TD><TD>No specifics; suggests a system that's "simpler" and "fairer" with "lower" rates.


</TD><TD>Have the IRS send out pre-populated tax forms based on employer-provided data, allowing tax return completion in "five minutes." (Source) (http://obama.3cdn.net/b7be3b7cd08e587dca_v852mv8ja.pdf)


</TD></TR><TR><TD>Estate Tax
View Research Area » (http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/99.html)


</TD><TD>Modify to apply to estates over $10 million, taxed at 15% rate. (Source) (http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/NATION/951285270/1028/election&template=nextpage)


</TD><TD>Opposes repeal; no specific plan proposed


</TD></TR><TR><TD>Social Security Payroll Tax
View Research Area » (http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/93.html)


</TD><TD>No specifics; opposes tax increase as solution. (Source) (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/0B8E4DB8-5B0C-459F-97EA-D7B542A78235.htm)


</TD><TD>Increase the wage cap, causing more in wages to be subject to the tax. Possibly include a "donut hole" to exempt income just above the current cap (now $102,000). (source) (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21739271/)


</TD></TR><TR><TD>Alternative Minimum Tax
View Research Area » (http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/118.html)


</TD><TD>Permanently repeal. (Source) (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/0B8E4DB8-5B0C-459F-97EA-D7B542A78235.htm)


</TD><TD>No plan


</TD></TR><TR><TD>Other Tax Policies


</TD><TD>


</TD><TD>- Would create a new “Making Work Pay” tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. This refundable income tax credit would "provide relief... from the payroll tax system." It would offset the payroll tax on the first $8,100 of earnings while still preserving the important principle of a dedicated revenue source for Social Security.
- Would create a universal 10 percent mortgage credit. Non-itemizers would be eligible for this refundable credit, which would "provide the average recipient with approximately $500 per year in tax savings."
- Would give full-time workers making minimum wage an EITC benefit up to $555. If the workers are "responsibly supporting their children on child support," the Obama plan would give those workers a benefit of $1,110.
- Would create an "American Opportunity Tax Credit." This universal and fully refundable credit would "ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans."
- Would reform the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit by making it refundable.


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Sanslines]

Would 101 Million Families Not Benefit from McCain's Tax Plan? (http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23482.html)

Posted on August 14, 2008 by Gerald Prante (http://www.taxfoundation.org/staff/show/82.html)

In an op-ed in this morning's (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121867201724238901.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries)Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121867201724238901.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries), Obama economic advisors Austan Goolsbee and Jason Furman make this claim:

"In contrast (to Obama's plan), Sen. McCain's tax plan largely leaves the middle class behind. His one and only middle-class tax cut -- a slow phase-in of a bigger dependent exemption -- would provide no benefit whatsoever to 101 million families who do not have children or other dependents, or who have a low income."
This statement is somewhat misleading given the use of the term "family." Family, according to Census, does not include singles, meaning that there are actually less than 100 million families in the United States, as defined by Census.
Properly interpreted, the 101 million figure is correct. However, it would be more correct to use the term "tax return" or "tax unit" instead of family. The average American may not understand the difference, but Furman and Goolsbee do.
Using the 2004 IRS public use file, here's what we can say (using 2006 IRS summary data available here (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06in23ar.xls) will get you close but they cannot be used for additive reasons):

In 2004, there were a total of 132.2 million tax returns filed.
Of those 132.2 million tax returns, 49.3 million (37%) tax returns had at least one dependent exemption.
Of those 49.3 million tax returns with a dependent exemption, 26.7 (54.2%) million had a positive income tax after credits, meaning they would benefit from McCain's dependent exemption increase.
Of those 73.1 million tax returns that could be classified as a family per Census's definition of family (which I define as all MFJ returns, 1/2 of MFS returns, and all Head of Household returns), 26.7 million would benefit from McCain's dependent exemption increase, which means about 46.4 million "families" that file a tax return would not benefit. Add to that about 10 million families who don't file and grow the figure up slightly from 2004 to 2009, and the real figure is closer to about 60 million families who would not benefit from his plan.
In closing, 20.1 percent of tax returns would receive a tax cut, meaning 105.5 million tax returns would not receive a tax cut. If you exclude the dependent returns (mostly younger people who file just to get their money withheld back), that number is 95.8 million. Projecting that up to 2009 and you're pretty close to the 101 million figure cited by Furman and Goolsbee.
This is not an endorsement of McCain's dependent exemption increase. In fact, I would call it a terrible idea for many reasons. But the facts should be set straight, although in this entire campaign, facts aren't necessarily important to either candidate. (Yes this includes Obama too regardless of how some might wish to portray Obama as 'walking on water' due to their blind and unwavering party loyalty.)

[Sanslines]

Questions About the Obama Tax Plan (http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23491.html)

Posted on August 14, 2008 by Robert Carroll (http://www.taxfoundation.org/staff/show/134.html)

Today's Wall Street Journal op-ed (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121867201724238901.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries) by Senator Obama's chief economic advisors, Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee, outlines much of the senator's tax platform and makes a number of claims that are not completely consistent with the evidence or the facts. Just a few points:

Top tax rate: Senator Obama would raise the top individual tax rate back to 39.6 percent, impose an additional 2 to 4 percent tax on earnings for some over the existing Social Security wage cap, and bring back the phase-out of the personal exemption and certain itemized deductions for higher-income taxpayers. When added up, the top effective marginal tax rate rises by 12 to 14 percentage points, from 37.9 percent to roughly 48 to 50 percent. "High" is in the eye of the beholder, but these are tax rates not seen since before the Tax Reform Act of 1986.


Note: These calculations work as follows: (1) 37.9 percent equals the current 35 percent top income tax rate plus the current 2.9 percent Medicare tax rate; and (2) 48 to 50 percent equals Obama's 39.6 percent top income tax rate plus the 2.9 percent Medicare tax rate plus his additional 2-to-4 percent hike in the Social Security tax rate plus an additional roughly 4.5 percent for the phase-out of personal exemption and certain itemized deductions.


The 1993 record: It is always hard to say what would have happened if Bill Clinton had not raised tax rates. But how damaging were the higher tax rates in economic terms? Economic research suggests (http://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v95y2005i2p426-431.html) that the two higher tax rates he passed on wages damaged the economy and shrank the size of the federal tax base, leaving less income exposed to those new rates. As a consequence, the increase in tax rates raised 40 percent less in revenue than some might have thought.
Government debt: Both candidates would increase the government debt. According to the Tax Policy Center, Senator Obama's plan would add $3.4 trillion to the government debt over the next ten years. Senator McCain would add roughly $5 trillion.
An important clarification: Senator McCain has proposed a very significant change in the tax treatment of health care. He would replace the existing exclusion for employer-based health insurance premiums with a refundable tax credit for health care. This refundable credit would be $5,000 for family coverage and $2,500 for individual coverage. Importantly, and a point not recognized in the op-ed, McCain's health plan would be revenue neutral. It's not a $3.6 trillion tax hike because the existing $3.6 trillion tax subsidy (over ten years) for health care in the tax code today is rechanneled to low- and moderate-income taxpayers through the credit.

People tend to have very different views on proposals that redistribute income from higher income taxpayers to low and moderate income taxpayers, but it would seem that this important health care proposal from McCain actually fits in well with Senator Obama's tax plan, which is so focused on redistributing the tax burden.

Nothing new on the estate tax: The Obama plan would still increase the top estate tax rate to 45 percent and set the exemption at $3.5 million per person ($7 million for couples). This third layer of tax on capital income detracts from economic growth. It adds an equivalent of another 5 to 10 percent tax on capital, in addition to the corporate tax and the investor level taxes on capital and dividends.
One interesting detail on dividends and capital gains: Senator Obama would set the top tax rates on dividends and capital gains at the same rate, but proposes to increase the top rate to 20 percent. Note that the 20 percent rate is below the 25 percent and 28 percent that have previously been reported.

[Sanslines]

More Questions About the Obama Tax Plan (http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23492.html)

Posted on August 14, 2008 by Josh Barro (http://www.taxfoundation.org/staff/show/142.html)

The Furman-Goolsbee WSJ op-ed (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121867201724238901.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries) which my colleague Bob discusses below (http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23491.html) provides a general overview of the Obama tax plan, and as he notes, it leaves some unanswered questions about the proposals it discusses. It also entirely omits mention of two significant Obama tax proposals:

Exempting seniors earning less than $50,000 from income tax. As we noted (http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23467.html) earlier this week, the current proposal includes a cliff: seniors making $49,999 would pay no income tax, and those making $50,001 would potentially pay thousands of dollars in income tax. The tax code avoids such structures as they are highly distortionary—you would get seniors striving, Price-Is-Right-style, to make $49,999 without going over. However, avoiding the cliff involves phasing out the tax benefit as incomes rise, which would involve a significant tax cut for seniors making from $50,000 to, say, $75,000. It would also drive up the marginal rate for seniors with incomes in the phase-out window.
The windfall profits tax. The article trumpets Obama's proposal to give refundable stimulus tax credits of $500 per individual or $1,000 per married couple. However, it does not discuss his intention to pay for the one-year stimulus with five years' revenue from a windfall profits tax on oil. As we discussed (http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23462.html) earlier this week, the Obama campaign has not disclosed the structure or rate for the proposed windfall profits tax, including whether it will be a production tax or an income tax. Therefore, it is not possible to fully analyze the proposal, nor to determine whether the windfall profits tax is likely to generate enough revenue to pay for the tax credits.

[Sanslines]

NY Sun Editorial: Obama's War on Women (Tax Edition) (http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23490.html)

Posted on August 14, 2008 by Gerald Prante (http://www.taxfoundation.org/staff/show/82.html)

In an editorial posted on its website (http://www.nysun.com/editorials/obamas-war-on-women/83871/), the New York Sun argued that Sen. Barack Obama is waging a “war on women,” partly due to his tax policies. The paper says the following:

Meanwhile, the most astonishing sentence in the op-ed (referring to Furman/Goolsbee op-ed) is this one: "His plan would not raise any taxes on couples making less than $250,000 a year, nor on any single person with income under $200,000." It amounts to a declaration of war on two-income families, a marriage penalty of punitive proportions. If those two single persons with income just under $200,000 get married, Mr. Obama is going to hammer them with a huge tax increase. If the second earner, who in many cases is the woman, is going to have to give 54% of what she earns to the government, she might as well stay home with the children. Mr. Obama may be able to get away with symbolic slights to women, such as not picking Senator Clinton as vice president. But punishing them with confiscatory taxes for participating in the workforce at a high income level moves the slight into the realm of substance.
The problem with their claim of this being a marriage penalty of punitive proportions is that the tax code at that high-income level already has significant marriage penalties built into it. Obama isn’t changing much as it relates to the tax code “penalizing marriage” by imposing that threshold at this level. For example, a typical single person earning $200,000 in wages with $36,000 in itemized deductions (18% of AGI) would be in the 28 percent marginal tax bracket at that level. For a typical married couple earning $250,000 with $45,000 in itemized deductions (assume no children) would be already in the 33 percent bracket. There is already a marriage penalty, possibly of “punitive proportions” depending upon your view.
With regards to the 54 percent marginal tax rate, that is reasonable if one assumes a typical state individual income tax rate for high-income earners combined with Obama’s proposed 39.6 percent rate on wage income plus possibly 4 percent payroll tax increase plus higher marginal rates in phase-out ranges of itemized deductions plus Medicare tax plus state individual income tax.
On the other hand, if one looks at Obama’s payroll tax plan, it implicitly punishes families whose wage income comes from only one source relative to a family whose income comes from two sources. That’s because the payroll tax imposes taxes on individuals, independent of filing status. So under Obama’s payroll tax plan, a family where the primary earner (typically the husband) brings home $480,000 would pay more in payroll taxes than in the family where the husband earns $240,000 and the wife earns $240,000 (who would pay nothing more in payroll taxes under Obama’s plan as I interpret it).

[Sanslines]

Thursday Video: Social Security (and Payroll Taxes) Turn 73 Years Old Today (http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23480.html)

Posted on August 14, 2008 by Joseph Henchman (http://www.taxfoundation.org/staff/show/88.html)

Today is the 73rd birthday of the Social Security system in the United States. Signed into law in 1935, the first payroll taxes were collected in 1937 and the first payment made in 1940. Although initially the system was designed to pay out benefits from a reserve fund, it was changed in 1939 to "pay-as-you-go"—payroll taxes that are collected are immediately paid out to current retirees. Taxes are split, with half deducted from employee paychecks and the other half paid by the employer. Consequently, early retirees enjoyed a large windfall: the first recipient, Ida May Fuller of Vermont, for example, paid $22.54 in payroll taxes but collected $22,888.92 in benefits (http://www.ssa.gov/history/idapayroll.html) before her death at age 100.
Increased life expectancy and expanded benefits have led to increases in the Social Security payroll tax over time (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/oasdiRates.html). Initially set at 2% (half each from employer and employee) in 1937-39, today it stands at 12.4% (6.2% each from employer and employee). In 2007, $481 billion in retirement benefits were paid to 40.9 million individuals.

The establishment of Social Security was not without controversy. Two 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court cases in 1937 challenged its constitutionality, arguing that the establishment of a retirement insurance program is not among the powers granted to the federal government. Anticipating this, officials structured the program in a way that divided the revenue and spending functions.

In Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), the Court upheld the imposition of Social Security payroll taxes as constitutional, on the basis that they are general taxes not earmarked for any purpose.
In Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937), the Court upheld the spending side of the program, holding that the federal government's power to spend extends beyond enumerated powers. This settled (in the Court's mind, at least) an argument going back to the Founding between James Madison (who argued that spending could only occur for enumerated powers) and Alexander Hamilton (whose view won out in 1937).
The future of the program remains in the headlines today. Payroll taxes were sharply increased in 1983, for the purpose of creating annual surpluses that could be accumulated for future payments. Since then, payroll taxes have raised $2.2 trillion more than program expenses, but this money was diverted to other government spending. The trustees estimate that the program will go into the red again around 2017, necessitating some increase in revenues or taxes, decreased benefits, or better returns.
The 12.4% payroll tax, also, is imposed on wages only up to $102,000 (adjusted annually for inflation). The cap was created as a way to maintaining some semblance of a retirement program, since an individual with wages over the cap would be unlikely to recoup in benefits what he or she paid in over time. Additionally, removing the cap at this point would force these individuals to pay more taxes while receiving no additional benefits, creating an equity issue. Given the experience since 1983, it's unlikely that additional tax revenues would be used for Social Security, but probably would be diverted for other government spending. However, it remains a popular proposal for addressing some of the shortfall, with a version of it a centerpiece of Senator Obama's plan (http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23353.html).
See more on Social Security payroll taxes here (http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/93.html).

[Sanslines]

OECD Finds Corporate Taxes Most Harmful to Economic Growth (http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23478.html)

Posted on August 13, 2008 by Scott A. Hodge (http://www.taxfoundation.org/staff/show/5.html)

In a blockbuster new study titled "Tax and Economic Growth," economists at the Organization for International Cooperation and Development studied the effects of various types of taxes on the economic growth of developed nations within the OECD and found that "corporate taxes are found to be most harmful for growth, followed by personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes."
With respect to corporate taxes, the empirical evidence from the new OECD study suggests that "investment is adversely affected by corporate taxation through the user cost of capital", meaning the after-tax return on investment. Looking at the firm-level, OECD economists found that the effect of corporate taxes is strongest on industries that are older and more profitable because of their larger tax bases. Younger and smaller firms (i.e. start-ups) are less effected because they are less profitable.
The OECD study also found that statutory corporate tax rates have a negative effect on firms that are in the "process of catching up with the productivity performance of the best practice firms." This suggests that "lowering statutory corporate tax rates can lead to particularly large productivity gains in firms that are dynamic and profitable, i.e. those that can make the largest contribution to GDP growth."[1] (http://www.taxfoundation.org/admin/library/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/paste/blank.htm#_ftn1)
The main recommendation of the study is that if countries want to enhance their economic growth they would do well to move away from income taxes - especially corporate income taxes - toward less distortive taxes such as consumption-based taxes. The key to creating a growth-oriented corporate income tax system is to impose a reasonably low tax rate with few exemptions.
The study is particularly timely in light of the new OECD rankings of corporate taxes among the 30 OECD nations. It shows that the U.S. continues to have the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> highest overall corporate tax rate among industrialized countries. Only Japan has a higher overall rate.
Worst of all, since nine countries cut their corporate tax rates this year, the overall OECD average fell by a full percentage point, from 27.6 percent to 26.6 percent. This means that the U.S. rate is now 50 percent higher than the OECD average. This should be a wake up call to Washington that our long-term economic health is in jeopardy as long as corporate rates remain so far out of step with our major economic competitors.

[usmc1]

Do you mean this:
Etc, Etc, Etc,


No I meant this:

The Bush tax cuts provide extremely wealthy families with vast benefits. The richest one percent of families will get an average tax cut of $92,000 in 2010, including cuts in income and estate taxes. The average income for families in the top one percent will be $1.6 million in 2010, and yet, the President and his Republican allies in Congress have showered the most generous tax cuts on these fortunate families. Meanwhile, the poorest 60 percent will get only 12-15 percent of the total tax cuts in 2010.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
And by 2010, the top 1% will enjoy 53% of the tax cuts and the remaining 99% of us will scramble, scrap and fuss for the remaining 47%.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
And the wealthy corporations will continue to either pay no taxes at all, or pay amounts vastly lower than they should.

[Qikdraw]

And conservatives everywhere are accountable for those church killings in Tennessee. Oh sure, there are conservatives that were stunned and saddened by the crime. They will join hands and pray, swaying back-and-forth in candle-light vigils for the innocent dead. They will attribute it all to one violently disturbed individual, and then continue to watch and listen to the vile and hateful ranting and tirades against liberals by Dobbs, Hannity, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, and Coulter. They will continue circulating their vicious and ugly e-mail missives promoting hate and fear and blaming liberals as the cause of all that trouble them.

No one can say with any certainty where is the tipping point that causes a man to take a gun into a church and kill people because the church is liberal. But, it takes no imagination at all to find the hate-speech from the right as a major contributing factor. There are consequences to words. And, in this case, those consequences were tragic and all persons calling themselves conservative, who have not repudiated the calls for violence and hate-filled speech of the Coulters, Hannitys, Limbaughs, and O’Reillys of the world, share responsibility for those deaths.


Funny you should mention that. Guess what they found inside (http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/28/church-shooting-police-find-manifesto-suspects-car/) Adkisson's house? "officers found "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by radio talk show host Michael Savage, "Let Freedom Ring" by talk show host Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor," by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly."

-Mark

Well to bring this point back up...

Would anyone like to buy a t-shirt (http://www.therightshirts.com/political/cpshop.cgi/antidemocrat.rightwingstuff.216475+got-ammo.html)??

Picture (http://www.cafepress.com/cp/moredetails.aspx?showBleed=false&ProductNo=9126735&colorNo=23&pr=F) of one close up here.

Nice.

[Skinview]

The Bush tax cuts provide extremely wealthy families with vast benefits. The richest one percent of families will get an average tax cut of $92,000 in 2010, including cuts in income and estate taxes. The average income for families in the top one percent will be $1.6 million in 2010, and yet, the President and his Republican allies in Congress have showered the most generous tax cuts on these fortunate families.
Meanwhile, the poorest 60 percent will get only 12-15 percent of the total tax cuts in 2010.
This is standard Democrat, left wing, class warfare propaganda. As if someone who makes more than you do keeps more of his own money than he would have otherwise is a bad thing.
Of course, if you cut taxes, the people who pay the most taxes are going to have the amount of tax they pay go down the most. And they are still taxed at a higher rate.


And the wealthy corporations will continue to either pay no taxes at all, or pay amounts vastly lower than they should.They shouldn't pay any. But what you write is wrong. Exxon, for instance, earned $11.68 billion in the second quarter of 2008, and paid $32.36 billion in total taxes. Thats a hell of a lot of taxes.

[usmc1]

This is standard Democrat, left wing, class warfare propaganda. As if someone who makes more than you do keeps more of his own money than he would have otherwise is a bad thing.
Of course, if you cut taxes, the people who pay the most taxes are going to have the amount of tax they pay go down the most. And they are still taxed at a higher rate.

No. It is documentable fact! And using pejoratives and name-calling won't change those facts. And is funny how those being beaten down by the system which favors the wealthy, stateless corporations, and vested interests are accused of class warfare when they try to get their fair share or level the playing field a bit.

Same old, same old! Mugger tells the judge that he was assualted by the person he was trying to mug!


They shouldn't pay any. But what you write is wrong. Exxon, for instance, earned $11.68 billion in the second quarter of 2008, and paid $32.36 billion in total taxes. Thats a hell of a lot of taxes.Let's see, $32.36 billion in taxes on $11.68 billion in earnings? I think you left something out! Why don't you get your facts straight, and put 'em here so I can demolish them.

And, Exxon would be a good one to start with, but there are others.

And, I do wonder at, and would love the benefit of an explanation, for your thinking on why corporations "shouldn't pay any" taxes.

Mark and Fitz, up above, pretty much makes my challenge needless. What an outstanding job they did of debunking your "class warfare", poor picked-on corporations guff. And now Qikdraw..whoo--whee, Skinview you're getting the cyber version of a beat down.

Dang old special forces of class warfare done come out with they guns a blazin'!

[Naturist Mark]

This is standard Democrat, left wing, class warfare propaganda

This is a typical right wing tactic. When presented with facts showing laws and policy favoring the already privileged, AKA "Elitism" or "Class Warfare", they label that presentation as "class warfare".

Got that?

The facts on the ground that prove class warfare are irrelevant.

It is telling people those facts that is class warfare.

-Mark

[Naturist Mark]

GAO: Two Thirds of Corporations in US pay no Corporate Income Tax (http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-08-957)

-Mark

[Fitz1980]

Also it's really the right that engages in class warfare, not the left. If the rich are paying less of their income in taxes than I am, it's not none of my business, because I'm the one making up the shortfall.

http://www.zompist.com/richtax.htm

For more than a century it's been generally recognized that the best taxes (admittedly this is an expression reminiscent of "the most pleasant death" or "the funniest Family Circus cartoon") are progressive-- that is, proportionate to income.

Lately, however, it's become fashionable to question this. Various Republican leaders have trotted out the idea of a flat tax, meaning a fixed percentage of income tax levied on everyone. And in their hearts they may be anxious to emulate Maggie Thatcher's poll tax-- a single amount that everyone must pay.

Isn't that more fair? Shouldn't everyone pay the same amount?

In a word-- no. It's not more fair; it's appallingly unfair. Why? The rich should pay more taxes, because the rich get more from the government.

Consider defense, for example, which makes up 20% of the budget. Defending the country benefits everyone; but it benefits the rich more, because they have more to defend. It's the same principle as insurance: if you have a bigger house or a fancier car, you pay more to insure it.

Social security payments, which make up another 20% of the budget, are dependent on income-- if you've put more into the system, you get higher payments when you retire.

Investments in the nation's infrastructure-- transportation, education, research & development, energy, police subsidies, the courts, etc.-- again are more useful the more you have. The interstates and airports benefit interstate commerce and people who can travel, not ghetto dwellers. Energy is used disproportionately by the rich and by industry.

As for public education, the better public schools are the ones attended by the moderately well off. The very well off ship their offspring off to private schools; but it is their companies that benefit from a well-educated public. (If you don't think that's a benefit, go start up an engineering firm, or even a factory, in El Salvador. Or Watts.)

The FDIC and the S&L bailout obviously most benefit investors and large depositors. A neat example: a smooth operator bought a failing S&L for $350 million, then received $2 billion from the government to help resurrect it.

Beyond all this, the federal budget is top-heavy with corporate welfare. Counting tax breaks and expenditures, corporations and the rich snuffle up over $400 billion a year-- compare that to the $1400 budget, or the $116 billion spent on programs for the poor.

Where's all that money go? There's direct subsidies to agribusiness ($18 billion a year), to export companies, to maritime shippers, and to various industries-- airlines, nuclear power companies, timber companies, mining companies, automakers, drug companies. There's billions of dollars in military waste and fraud. And there's untold billions in tax credits, deductions, and loopholes. Accelerated depreciation alone, for instance, is estimated to cost the Treasury $37 billion a year-- billions more than the mortgage interest deduction. (Which itself benefits the people with the biggest mortgages. But we should encourage home ownership, shouldn't we? Well, Canada has no interest deduction, but has about the same rate of home ownership.)

For more, see Mark Zepezauer and Arthur Naiman's informative little book, Take the Rich Off Welfare.

How about social spending? Well, putting aside the merely religious consideration that the richest nation on the planet can well afford to lob a few farthings at the hungry, I'd argue that it's social spending-- the New Deal-- that's kept this country capitalistic. Tempting as it is for the rich to take all the wealth of a country, it's really not wise to leave the poor with no stake in the system, and every reason to agitate for imposing a new system of their own. Think of social spending as insurance against violent revolution-- and again, like any insurance, it's of most benefit to those with the biggest boodle. (See also my page on whether welfare does any good).
Who gets to sit on the tax?
Come election season, Steve Forbes, among other millionaires, will be pushing plans for a flat tax. These proposals need to be absorbed with a carload of salt.

A plan where everyone's taxes are lowered is of course simply a tax cut. Here, once again, the question to ask as a voter and citizen is, what government services do you want to cut? Somehow I don't think Steve is proposing to slash corporate welfare or defense. It's more likely a way to attempt to cut social spending through the back door. People like to hear about tax cuts; they don't like to hear about service cuts, even though they're financially equivalent.

A revenue-neutral plan won't change total receipts any-- it'll just redistribute it. Here you have to ask, who gets shafted?

You can't exactly make the poor pay more taxes-- they don't have the money. That leaves only one way to flatten the tax rates-- that is, reduce the taxes the rich pay: soak the middle class. If tax rates go down on the rich, and we're not cutting total taxes, the middle classes have to pay more.

So Steve and the others want the government, already pretty much a subsidiary of the large corporations, to be subsidized even more by the rest of us. About all I can say is, if the American people are stupid enough to swallow this, they deserve to pay for it. (Fortunately, as we saw with Monicagate, the American people are not as stupid as their leaders.)

This is pretty shameless, but it's much of a piece with Republican practice in general. For years some nosy folks (such as Sen. Moynihan) have been investigating what states pay the most to the federal government, and which states get the most benefits back. What a surprise: the biggest winners are the western and southern states that vote Republican; the biggest losers are the northeastern states that vote Democratic. Those who whine the most about taxes are those who suck the most from the public trough.

They won't be happy, I suppose, until they can reconstitute a truly medieval system, in which the nobles pay no taxes at all.
The marriage tax
While we're at it, what about the marriage penalty? Why in heavens are we penalizing marriage?

We aren't. This is a good example of politicians' weasel-talk. There's no marriage penalty-- there's a double-income penalty.

For instance, suppose you make $50,000 of taxable income (after deductions and exemptions) and your spouse doesn't work. Together you pay $8500 in taxes. A single person with the same income pays $10,700. You're enjoying a $2200 marriage bonus. (Even more, if you've taken the standard deduction.)

The penalty comes for double-income marriages. E.g. you make $50,000, and your spouse makes $40,000. You pay $19,700 in taxes; if you were both single you'd pay a total of $18,600-- about $1100 less.

Is it fair to tax double-income households more? Well, why not? If you have a double income, you can certainly afford to pay more than those of us who have just one.

And again, reducing this "penalty" for double-income households means increasing taxes on single-income households.
Exercises for the Republican reader:

1. Write a rebuttal justifying the corporate subsidy of your choice, respecting the conservative principle that the tax system cannot be used for social engineering.
2. Write a homily, suitable for use in Sunday school, explaining why Jesus should have condemned the sheep who demeaned the poor by feeding and clothing them, and blessed the rich man for living in splendor while Lazarus suffered.
3. Take your favorite flat tax proposal and your last 1040, and have your acountant calculate how much money it will save you. Find the names of the five or six middle-class people who will have to make up that shortfall, and write them a nice thank-you note.
4. Compare the GNP with the rate of taxation over the last fifty years-- e.g. the boom years of the '50s with their 90% marginal tax rate-- and practice explaining that high tax rates discourage investment until you can do it with a straight face.

[Qikdraw]

GAO: Two Thirds of Corporations in US pay no Corporate Income Tax (http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-08-957)

-Mark

Top CEOs Give 10 Times More To McCain Than Obama; McCain Promises Huge Tax Breaks For Them In Return (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/16/top-ceos-contributions/)


Eight companies — Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips Co., Bank of America Corp., AT&T, Berkshire Hathaway Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Microsoft Corp. — would each receive over $1 billion a year.

McCain would deliver about $4 billion in tax cuts to the five largest oil companies. He would also hand over $2 billion to the top 10 health insurance companies. Unlike the highest-rung of the corporate ladder, much of the rest of Wall Street refuses to be bought off. Those employees are giving more to Obama than to McCain.

While McCain caters to the rich, Barack Obama’s tax plan “offers three times the break for middle class families” than the proposals of John McCain. To clarify the contrast in the two candidates’ plans, consider this fact: John and Cindy McCain would reap over $300,000 from McCain’s own tax plan. By contrast, both the Obamas and McCains would receive a substantial, albeit much smaller, savings under Obama’s plan.