Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Published on December 15, 2007 By Draginol In Politics

How the federal government of the United States spends tax payer money has changed dramatically since 1960.  The priorities of the federal government have shifted from national defense and interstate development to providing a social safety net.

image 

At the dawn of the 60s, national defense was 52% of our expenses. Social security and Medicare and Health were relatively small.  A relatively new category of spending called "income security" which is in which the federal government provides a "social safety net" to the poor and jobless, had grown to 8% by 1960.

By 2007 how things had changed:

image

Net interest payments had dropped to only 2% of the budget (they were 7% in 1960).  But now Medicare and social security have taken over. Health has grown to being 11% on its own.   Income security had grown to 14%.

In 2007, the United States spent $392 billion on Medicare, $586 billion on Social Security, $367 billion on "income security". That is a total of $1.35 trillion on those programs (national defense was, by contrast, $527 billion in 2007).

Social Insurance taxes (Medicare and Social Security) were only $884 billion in 2007 meaning that even before taking "income security" spending into account that the US federal government was spending more on these programs than was bringing in.  The remainder is coming out of individual and corporate taxes.

Below are the specifics including sources of income.

image

Source: MSN Encarta.

Other trends that have changed is that corporations no longer pay as much income tax as they once did. Part of the reason for that is the recognition that when you tax a company, you are simply taxing individuals since companies pass on those taxes in the form of higher prices which, in turn, make US companies less competitive in a global market.


Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Dec 18, 2007
Are you on welfare if you take advantage of a deduction?


Technically no. and that is my point. multinationals have so many deductions to the point that many of them pay very little even though their profits are dozens of Billions.

But we are not talking technicalities here, we are talking of what are the best policies. I didnt say they are doing something illegal (even though more than few of them are ). Just change the rules so they pay their fair share.

But most subsidies are surely a form of welfare. Some subsidies are justified, but most of them are not (e.g. oil companies, large Agri Busn. .. etc.)
on Dec 18, 2007
Show me a corporation that pays NO taxes, and I will show you Chapter 11. That is good for people, right?


ok here it is :

"With corporate tax receipts at 20-year low, the GAO takes a look through the books and finds 94% of all U.S. companies paid less than 5% -- and 61% paid nothing at all.

By MSN Money staff and news services

Think about this as you sign that check to Uncle Sam next week: More than 60% of all U.S. companies paid no federal tax at all during the boom years of 1996 to 2000, the General Accounting Office reports.

In 2000 alone, 94% of all U.S. corporations paid less than 5% of their total income in corporate taxes, the GAO said in a report released Friday. Among the largest corporations -- the 1% of all corporations that owns 93% of all corporate assets -- 82% paid less than 5% of their income in taxes.
"

are you saying 60% of all US comp are in Chap 11.?????!!!!

82% of the top 1% paid just 5% taxes on their income. Those comp own 93% of all corp assets. ..... When are we all, for once, be not biased in our discussion?

It is useless to try to convince the inconvincible.

WWW Link
on Dec 18, 2007
Think about this as you sign that check to Uncle Sam next week: More than 60% of all U.S. companies paid no federal tax at all during the boom years of 1996 to 2000, the General Accounting Office reports.

In 2000 alone, 94% of all U.S. corporations paid less than 5% of their total income in corporate taxes, the GAO said in a report released Friday. Among the largest corporations -- the 1% of all corporations that owns 93% of all corporate assets -- 82% paid less than 5% of their income in taxes."


that was in the year 2000. along with the bush tax cut. business mainly the fortune 500 club have to pay a minimum tax as they did when Reagan was president.

come on people if i know this and i don't pay attention to the news. why don't you people who do pay attention. oh that's right you get your news from the ABN.
on Dec 18, 2007

"With corporate tax receipts at 20-year low, the GAO takes a look through the books and finds 94% of all U.S. companies paid less than 5% -- and 61% paid nothing at all.

It is useless to try to convince the inconvincible.

No, it's just that it's hard to convince people when you come across like someone who has no idea what they're talking about.

You state facts without understanding the underlying cause.

The reason these companies pay hardly any taxes is because they make sure to pay out as much of their profits as possible to decrease their tax hit.  They do this because the corporate tax rate is much higher than the individual tax rate. 

If you want to see corporate taxes go way up, then lower their tax rates such that they are lower than individual taxes.

If my corporation has a net profit of say $250,000 my tax rate is 39%. But if I take that money and pay it to various S-corporations (which are counted as individual taxes) then the tax rate is closer to 32%.

In addition, what you fail to understand with your factoid is the change in corporate tax law over the past two decades.  Today, most new companies are either LLCs, or S-corporations in which the profits are passed on to the owners of the companies as individuals (individual taxes).

C-corporations, the ones who pay "corporate taxes" are becoming less and less common.

THIS is why you fail to convince people, ThinkAloud. It's because you plainly don't understand these issues you so passionately argue. 

on Dec 18, 2007
are you saying 60% of all US comp are in Chap 11.?????!!!!


Do you pay the same amount of taxes every year? No? WHy not?

And like all statistics, that is a snapshot in time on only 1 tax, not all taxes. (although for infalmmatory purposes the writer clearly wanted to leave that impression).

When a company loses money, no it pays no income tax (just a lot of other taxes). If it pays NO tax, then chapter 11 is the least of their worries. A long stint in Sing SIng is more likely their worries (it has been done, but the miscreants are almost always caught - unless pardoned by a president while in exile in Switzerland).

But a company cannot lose money every year. I have my own small company. I do not make a profit every year (so I am one of that 64% sometimes), but if I never made a profit one of 2 things would happen - 1 the business would fold, and/or 2, the government would classify the business as a hobby not a business.

Just because GM did not pay INCOME taxes last year does not mean it never did. Or paid NO taxes at all.

Now, gather up the statistics showing ALL the taxes paid by a corporation - any one that is still a viable concern, over the life of the corporation. Then show how much the government gave them in subsidies (hint - 99.9% of them got 0), and subtract the 2. Now show me how you PAY for welfare. What is called Corporate Welfare is nothing more than not taxing them as much as before, but like all Washingtonian New Speak, politicians, especially those of a particular party, call it WELFARE.

WELFARE is not a lessening of taxes. It is the transfer of money from a producing individual to a non-producing one, with no strings attached (as to its repayment).
on Dec 18, 2007
You state facts without understanding the underlying cause.


Comon Dragonil, what is not to understand here. 0.82% of the Corp OWN 93% of the assets of ALL corp and these same big guys only paid 5% taxes on their multibillions of income. and you still say i dont understand the facts. What is not to understand.

Spin it as much as you wish. It is still glaring and obvious.

btw, trust me, I know what I am talking about. I know,first hand,how it works and how they avoid taxes. may be you are the one who are not aware of how they manipulate the numbers. Nothing illegal in all of it.and that is what is absurd about it. S-Corp and small busn in general dont have that same loopholes.
on Dec 18, 2007
Now, gather up the statistics showing ALL the taxes paid by a corporation


Individuals also pay many more taxes than just the fed taxes. and that is what we are talking about.

you asked for facts, i presented it. Now you are spinning it.

Nothing strange about that. Like I said, it is useless to discuss things if there is an obvious bias.

on Dec 18, 2007

Well let's see ThinkAloud,  I'm the CEO of a multi-million dollar corporation. What are your credentials?

I think I know a bit more about corporate tax law than you do.  But please feel free to put forth your vast resume on the topic.

Dr Guy also pointed out yet another thing you ignored: When companies lose money, they pay no taxes.

The Big 3 auto makers have massive asssets. But paid nothing in corporate taxes last year -- they lost money.

You also, totally and completely ignored my reply that explained, in detail, why tax revenue from corproations has gone down.

on Dec 18, 2007
I think I know a bit more about corporate tax law than you do.
Dr Guy also pointed out yet another thing you ignored: When companies lose money, they pay no taxes.
The Big 3 auto makers have massive asssets. But paid nothing in corporate taxes last year -- they lost money.


Draginol, this is not a competion. I am sure you know a lot more about corp tax law but what we discussing here doesnt need a brain surgeon to understand.

Of course corp that dont have profits dont pay taxes. That is not what the data is all about. It is about those big guys only paying 5% taxes(as an average of course .... some didnt pay and some paid more than 5%)on their accumulative income.

That general view of what all paid is the point not what each one paid. Rich individuals and small Busn pay more than that, much more than that %, why cant these big guys pay comparable % of their income.

Investment and other justifications are not convincing since it applies to Rich individuals too. In other words, rich corp should pay taxes on a bar with that of rich individuals. that is the main point.
on Dec 18, 2007
You also, totally and completely ignored my reply that explained, in detail, why tax revenue from corproations has gone down.


I didnt ignore it. The revenue decline could happen for many reasons. that is not the issue. The issue is and always was Large Profitable corp dont pay their fair share of taxes. That puts the burden on individuals of all income levels.

it is very simple Draginol. In any town in this USA, if there are good profitabe businesses there, the property taxes are generally moderate or low. Go to any town that doesnt have good profitable businesses and you will find the property taxes are generally high. Apply the same to the Nation and you have the same result. taxes from corp help reduce taxes (Fed, State and Local)on individuals. I am sure many of us experienced that when we move from one location to another.

local tax codes, generally, dont contain so many loopholes to escape taxes but the Fed codes contain many of them that is why the effect on local and state taxes is very clear.



on Dec 18, 2007

Draginol, this is not a competion. I am sure you know a lot more about corp tax law but what we discussing here doesnt need a brain surgeon to understand.

I would agree and yet, you don't see to get the fairly straight forward reason why corporations today don't pay that much in corporate taxes.

You either didn't understand it or you chose not to listen to it.  I'm not going to explain the difference between C-corps, S-corps and LLCs again nor am I going to explain the recent incentive for C-corporations to put profits into taxes that will be filed under individuals.

 

on Dec 18, 2007

I didnt ignore it. The revenue decline could happen for many reasons. that is not the issue. The issue is and always was Large Profitable corp dont pay their fair share of taxes. That puts the burden on individuals of all income levels.

Sigh. You did ignore it then.  First, you don't even define what "fair share" is. That's just emotionalism.  Profits are still being taxed, they simply are being taxes on individual income returns rather than corporate income returns.

on Dec 19, 2007
you asked for facts, i presented it. Now you are spinning it.


Yes, I asked for facts, no I am not spinning. You still have yet to show me where the federal government has PAID the companies in excess of their taxes for staying in Business. I know of one instance, and I am sure there are a couple more (Chrysler), but they are always done by enacting legislation and are sunset quickly.

So your statement about corporate welfare is just a strawman that has no basis in fact, just new speak. You have yet to show where it is in fact a fact.
on Dec 19, 2007
Yes, I asked for facts, no I am not spinning. You still have yet to show me where the federal government has PAID the companies in excess of their taxes for staying in Business. I know of one instance, and I am sure there are a couple more (Chrysler), but they are always done by enacting legislation and are sunset quickly.


Actually, I believe the government has paid farmers to stay in business, as well as wind energy, ethanol (which, btw, is why so many plants are popping up), pharmaceutical companies, abortion clinics.

Note that most of the companies the government DOES pay to keep afloat are companies that support liberal causes. Ironic, isn't it, that if we eliminated "corporate welfare", these companies would be the first to go!
on Dec 19, 2007
Actually, I believe the government has paid farmers to stay in business, as well as wind energy, ethanol (which, btw, is why so many plants are popping up), pharmaceutical companies, abortion clinics.


I will concede all but the pharmaceuticals. I have seen too many go belly up over civil suits. So yes, I will say that corporate welfare exists - in Selected markets. Notably Farming, Alternative Energy, and Abortion.

And being an ethical person, I am calling for the ELIMINATION of all corporate Welfare! Let the Farmers fend for themselves, abandon alternate energy and let the Infanticide pay for itself.

So the next time we hear a politician talk about Corporate welfare, Let them answer the question of why they support it. I guess we can ask, because I do not expect the MSM to ever ask a tough question.
3 Pages1 2 3