Googleanalytics

Sunday, December 11, 2011

The latest gimmick to fund the payroll tax cut - stupidity

We have a week left to resolve the issue of extending the 2% break on Social Security taxes (FICA&SECA). I still think there will be a last minute fix on this; it’s too important. Without this tax break the economy will hit a wall next year. Whatever your thoughts are today about the prospects for a recession in the next 12 months, you’ll have to revise the odds way up if congress fails to get a deal. It’s a measure of just how economically vulnerable we are that 2012 is make-or-break as a consequence of how this plays out.

The latest insanity on this topic comes from the WSJ today.



The deep thinkers in D.C. are trying to offset the cost of the one-year 2% reduction ($115B) in payroll taxes by levying an incremental cost onto Fannie and Freddie and therefore those with mortgages. This is the worst kind of whack-a-mole thinking. There is not an economist worth his salt that does not recognize that housing/mortgage costs are central to any long-term recovery for the economy. The knuckleheads in Washington want to add $38billion a year (for the next decade) onto mortgage borrowing costs. I’m sorry, but they’re idiots for even proposing something dumb like this.

My proposal is simple. Make corporate America pay for this tax break. Raise the FICA tax on large corporations by ½%  (from 6.25% to 6.75%) for the next five years. That’s peanuts ($30B a year). They will never feel it.

My suggestion is that smaller companies be excluded from the incremental tax. Those entities that hire less than 1,000 workers or have revenues less than $25 million would be exempt. This group of companies represents about 20% of all companies. The other 80% would foot the bill. It would, therefore take 5 years to “pay” for the 2012 tax-break for workers.

I’m not in favor of any tax increases or more government spending. But if there has to be a tax break in 2012 I can’t think of better way to raise the revenue than from large corporations. Consider the history of tax revenue in this country.  (Data from Congressional Research Service PDF-Link)

1952 corporate tax as a % of GDP = 32.1%

2010 corporate tax as a % of GDP = 1.3%
(A 95% drop)


1952 Payroll taxes (Social security) as a % of total federal revenue = 9.7%

2010 Payroll taxes (Social security) as a % of total federal revenue = 40.0%
(A 400% increase in the burden on workers)

Our political leaders are so deeply in bed with large corporate America that they have not even considered a very small and temporary corporate tax increase to fill an important bucket. Instead, they want to pass the cost onto those who desire to own a home.

This business about the payroll tax cut is hardly worth noticing in our big economy. But we can’t figure out how to pay for even this small step. The reality is we need a plan to raise about $2 trillion of additional revenues over the next decade. If our leaders can’t suck it up and realize that corporate America has to shoulder its share of the burden on a one-year payroll tax cut, then we don’t stand a chance in hell of coming up with the $2T we need.

.

75 comments:

  1. Why don't we just do what we always do and leave it unfunded, add it to our debt and let good old inflation pay for it? (not serious)

    Your second to last paragraph is preaching to the choir (which has been increasing in size for the last few years). Unfortunately, the issue would have been much easier dealt in 2008 or 2009. Now it would be admonishing your dog for pissing on your carpet last week. It just seems nobody cares anymore. The OWS movement is nice, but it misses the point. Wall Street is not the problem; its job is to make lots of money by any means necessary. It was the government who ultimately dropped the ball and more and more, it seems like it was on purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Absolutely agree. This tax cut goes into the pockets of average Americans who are in dire need of money. It gets spent, which creates demand, boosts the economy. It's no mistake that 1.4 million jobs have been created since the tax cut was put in place. These jobs are created to meet the need of an economy seeing increasing demand for products and services.

    It absolutely blows my mind that my Republican Senator stands at the microphone and declares this tax cut to be worthless. He claims it's stimulus, and stimulus does not work. He says we need to put money in the pockets of the rich ... The so called job creators. We did that durning the Bush administration. How did that work out for us?

    In eight years of Bush giving money to the rich and wealthy, we created only 1.1 million jobs. 11 months after this payroll tax cut, we've created 1.4 million jobs. Which is the better policy? Seems a slam dunk to me.

    Our nations problem is the errant way we execute on stimulus. We must create DEMAND. That doest happen when you give a wealthy person money and he turns around and stuffs it in the bank. Banks are so flush now that Trillions of their capital sits on deposit at the federal reserve. We accomplish absolutely nothing by giving a rich guy money that winds up sitting doing nothing.

    Demand. We must stimulate demand.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Robin Hood"? Robin was a redistributionist socialist who overtly stole the money of (wealthy) others and gave it to his friends.

    Perversely, he is lauded for this.

    And what kind of message will that kind of policy send to those thinking of starting a business in the USA?

    Instead, why not cut back government spending AND services, cut SS payouts AND taxes and reduce taxes on ALL business activity?

    ReplyDelete
  4. No such thing as a "temporary" tax increase...close a loophole or take away/reduce a deduction.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Any thoughts on the extention of EUC benefits after 12/31/2011? Will this be a harder "sell" than the payroll tax extention?

    ReplyDelete
  6. The 2% tax cut this year was funded by the Treasury's general revenues.
    This is a minor refund compared to the trillions of dollars the Treasury has taken from the trust fund over the years, to pay for current expenses and lower the deficits.
    Unfortunately, the same dynamic of refunding the trust principal and interest is the same dynamic for refunding the 2% tax cut - from general revenues from the Treasury, new monies, AS IF THE TRUST FUND DID NOT EXIST!
    Don Levit

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bruce...so much anger on your post...especially on Zero Hedge. Like you (at 62) I began as a Euro/FX broker in New York in the early 1970's ...Noonan to be specific....80 Broad..then a big regional in Maryland...then Hedge Fund in DC...then self employed in acting and narrations...then Citi Treasury for 15 years.Out at 60 of the gig. I lead my life as an Austrian...saved money..off debt...paid cash for college for my kid...did everything I was supposed to. The wife was an addict....got out after 25 years. Despite my decisions and my financial freedom I miss the family used to be next door and had Coors, burgers and fireworks on the fourth or July...and I miss the family next to me who are in short sale next door to me who had the stupid santa and bobbing head deer decorations eac Christmas. The house is dark, antifreeze down the toilets, power off and house dark. my life despite all my good decisions is poorer. ..there has got to be a compromise somewhere....I got the best seat on the Titanic....so what..

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bruce - I think you have a problem with your numbers here. I like you a lot better than Riholtz but my bet is that his numbers are correct and your's are wonrg: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/08/tax-base-as-of-gdp/

    You are using two different units for corporate tax. It hasn't changed by a factor of 25. Also, it's really disingenuous to look at SS back in 1952. No one was getting benefits back then. Even with lower rates it ran at a surplus; now, as you have pointed out, its in deficit. You omit that SS is supposed to be a savings program, not a welfare program. The way it's supposed to work is that party A pays in X and gets back roughly X, not that rich people pay in so that poor people take out. Even though payroll taxes are currently a greater % of revenue the program is going bankrupt because it is, of course a ponzi scheme and the whole premise (as stated above) was a useful political lie. Turning it into straight welfare for seniors doesn't help the country at all.

    Which gets us to another point, one that is missed by most of the commenters here. Prosperity isn't driven by demand. Throwing money at people and hoping they'll spend it doesn't make our country richer. If you max out three credit cards at six department stores do you come home and say 'man that was a productive day, good thing I was here for my country!' Of course not.

    Raising corporate rates will hurt jobs because it will make corporations less likely to pursue opportunities, expand and take risk. On the other hand, giving less to seniors won't hurt jobs at all. I think it's time for us to start being honest for our children's sake about the fact that we can no longer afford to give seniors, unemployed, sick and poor great handouts. That's what the Greeks did. If we do the same, we suffer the same fate. Its bad economics to punish our kids for the sake of these others.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Isn't there a something a little circular in allowing mortgage interest to be tax-deductible and then charging a mortgage fee to raise tax revenue? Why not just get rid of the deduction? While we are at it, we can probably find about a million pages of tax code full of other counterproductive deductions, credits and loopholes that we can do away with, too. My bet is that it raises revenue, raises the effective tax rate on big corps, doesn't hurt the economy and makes most of us feel like the USA became a much fairer place.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Nice post love your blog.This blog is awesome full of use full information that i was in dire need of. Thanks for this post. Keep it up.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You write really good articles, very attractive, I feel very shocked. I hope you can continue with your work, come on!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Wow. Fantastic article, it’s so nice and your blog is very good.
    I've learned a lot from your blog here, you’re provided blog is very super perfect i really like it. Keep it up and Thanks you for sharing......!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hello,

    Very nice post. I like your blogging techniques and have bookmarked this blog as found it very informative. Keep it up.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Interesting and important information. It is really beneficial for us. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thanks for sharing such useful information. It seems that you did a lot of hard work for this article. Keep it up.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Nice information, many thanks to the author. It is incomprehensible to me now, but in general,
    The usefulness and significance is overwhelming.
    Thanks again and good luck!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Intresting layout on your blog. Best wishes for you future blogging career.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hi, Very nice and useful information shared, this blog is very good to acknowledge yourself and to remain updated, especially your writing style is very attractive, keep it up.

    ReplyDelete
  19. But What do I Know?December 12, 2011 4:43 AM

    @ Don Levit: Great point. I wonder if all those people who claim that SS is a "trust fund" and "theirs" because they "worked hard to put the money in it" will take less of a payout since the Treasury made up the shortfall caused by the 2% tax cut.

    @Anon 9:19. Re: your Republican senator. You've got it all wrong, see. Only capital gains and dividend income tax cuts help the economy--not payroll tax cuts.

    /sarcasm

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anon at 7:46
    They're not my numbers. They come from the CRE.

    Yes, this is the most extreme comparison one could make. And you points are well taken. But you can't argue with the direction that things have gone over the last 60 years.

    I'm not in favor of taxes. And I understand that when taxes are levied there are consequences.

    As I said in the article I think that the tax break for 2012 is make or break. It would be a dumb mistake to not get this done and accept the recession that will follow. I do agree that there should be an offset in the system to fund this.

    I prefer, in this case only, that a small corporate tax be set to fill the bucket. I think it is dumb to but the burden on homeowners.
    bk

    ReplyDelete
  21. To the person who posts links for advertising:

    Get lost. Don't come back. You're not welcome here!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anon @2:50

    The EUC and the payroll break are the same. If one passes, so will the other.

    ReplyDelete
  23. hey bruce .who do you think pays corporate taxes? hint not corporations. s

    ReplyDelete
  24. This should never have been done and it should be stoppped NOW. THis is more progressive redistribution. PAyroll "taxes" are contributions to fixed benefit programs that already favor the lower income brackets.THe Left has been trying to put everybody on a free retirement ride for years and this is part of the gradualism.

    ReplyDelete
  25. DROP THE CORPORATE TAX RATE TO 25 %, ELIMINATE ALL DEDUCTIONS EXCEPT HOME INTEREST. MAKE ALL BANKERS PAY BACK WHAT THEY SUCKED OUT OF THE SYSTEM WITH DERVATIVES AND CDS'S.MAKE ALL POLITICIANS ABIDE BY THE SAME RULES AS THE PUBLIC,ESPECIALLY PELOSI,REID AND B- B -BARNEY. THEY SHOULD BE PROSECUTED. '

    ReplyDelete
  26. Amazing article to suggest the corrective action should be to raise taxes, are you nuts? You and the American public are addicted to government. Is ther anyone sane in our country? What would happen if we ran our country by the constitution? What woud happen if GOVERNMENT reduced spending? Like you and me that reduce spending, it works, and every time it is tried it works. Our government is out of control and has convinced us that we need to give up more of our treasure (read hard work) to fund the problems that our government has created. I just don't get why our citizenry doesn't get it. Government is the problem, reduce government. Thanks for the opportunity to rant.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I don't understand a tax increase for 5 years to offset a tax cut of 1 year. Does anybody think estimates of promises of cuts or increases for 5 years will not be changed by the next congress? Manipulation of the tax code to benefit or to punish one group in preference to another is a big problem to our economy. We need to vastly simplify tax code and stop trying to juggle parts of the economy

    ReplyDelete
  28. WHY DO WE NEED GOVERNMENT IT GOTTEN TOO EXPENSIVE.WHY PAY OVER 200 GOV OFFICIALS TO LIVE LIKE KINGS ON OUR TAX MONEY,WHY NOT HAVE 1 KING ,WE TAKE CARE OF HIM HE TAKES CARE OF US ,LOT CHEAPER ,LET THE COMPUTER'S DECIDE WHO GETS WELFARE,THIS HAS BECOME A JOKE WE ALL KNOW BUT DO NOTHING ABOUT,NO MORE AUNT,UNCLE,NEPHEW,NEICE,IF YOU NEED HELP WORK FOR IT,DAM IT I'ME RETIRED + I HAVE TO WORK ..

    ReplyDelete
  29. Robin Hood was an outlawed Saxon lord who took the gold back from the Norman rulers who had stolen it from the people (almost all Saxons). Steal from the rich? Only like today, take it back from the original thieves.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The government stuck it up the old people's butt and continued to raise it throughout their working years. Now you get a break and want to steal back from the old people and the corporations that did their duty. My God, you people are really screwed up. Go back in history and study Reaganomics. Those that should have failed, should have failed and not been bailed out! THAT'S THE INSANITY OF IT ALL. STOP AND THINK ABOUT SHARIA LAW FOR A MOMENT and how wrong they consider interest on lending! Then ask your self why our Federal Reserve has zero interest rates and is planning to extend them for another year ....... might it be because we have a Muslim President bent on ruining this country??

    ReplyDelete
  31. Well whatever the gov cuts from paychecks will be gone down the "black hole". The workers will never get it back and the more the gov cuts from the checks, the fewer jobs to exist. The gov cuts are expenses and it may just not be worth it to even bother with the whole job BS at all. Just stay in bed, it's not worth it to help people any more. Just too costly.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Is it possible to pay for this tax cut by raising the cutoff rate?

    ReplyDelete
  33. When you add taxes to corporations, who do think pays that? The customers who buy their products, thats who, not the corporation. IOW, the same people who would pay if it were added to mortgages.

    ReplyDelete
  34. It is possible to pay for the tax cut by cutting unnecessary and frivilous spending by that amount.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Yes punish those that have paid into the SS system. Don't punish the politicians who raided the coffers. The fact is SS is not a ponzi scheme. It has been robbed by the thieves in Washington who then tell us that it is welfare for our seniors. Yes lets punish the people who built this country. While we are at it lets do away with Veterans benefits too. After all they just help protect us and in today's screwed up world they protect corporate interests.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I am continually amazed at the complete lack of common sense and understanding of even the most basic economics. We are doomed as a nation.

    It doesn't matter whether you're talking about the Mom and Pop shoe store down the street or BP oil, businesses don't pay taxes, you do when their tax increase is added to the price of the product you buy. Any tax increase is added to the cost of the final product. Either you accept the higher price and buy it anyway, or you don't and the business goes under or leaves the country so it can make the product cheap enough that you will buy it. That's it, there are no other outcomes or results. Please people, try to grasp this concept, I promise it's really not that complicated.

    Whenever I read an article like this I think back to a newsclip I saw of Obama pandering to a crowd about Big Oil not paying its fair share and how he is going to tax them. Of course they applaud and cheer the fact that they will be paying more per gallon by however much tax the government adds on.

    Politicians aren't too stupid to understand this, but they depend on the sheeple to be too stupid so they can keep robbing them blind.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Trusting the morons that got us into this mess to get us out has a low probability of success. The problem is structural. Prosperity in the form of sustainable economic growth comes from stable currency (a trustworthy store of value), savings (source of capital) and healthy business climate (improves ability to put that capital to productive work). Instead, we debase the currency, promote a "consumption based economy" and the business climate is bad and unpredictable. Temporary, targeted, economic stimulants are like "trying to fill the swimming pool by taking water out of the deep end and pouring it into the shallow end." (not sure who I am quoting, but it is the best analogy I have heard).

    ReplyDelete
  38. Old Poop, you are absolutely right. America is doomed because of people who think like you. You make no sense at all and expect people to believe that taxation creates all of the problems we see. In fact lack of taxation and Reaganomics was the start of your problems. America will be the new China soon, and China will be the shining economic light. This must of course be true because, as you point out, there is so little taxation in China. What is also true is that the great majority of Chinese are frugal consumers and you are not. They save their money where you no longer are able to save, your debt is so great you give all of your money to corporations,who are not tqaxed so keep it for their shareholders, 98% of whom are also not taxed. Kaboom!!

    ReplyDelete
  39. (I'm not actually arguing with myself!)
    The Anonymous at 10:38 12/12 is off base so many ways he may be playing soccer.
    "lack of taxation and Reaganomics was the start of your problems" - no, unending growth of government and endless taxation sucking wealth out of the economy was the start - Barry's endless socialism and ObamaCare may be the last straw.
    "This must of course be true because, as you point out, there is so little taxation in China. " China will fail soon, because central planning always fails - taxed or not, economic growth is retarded by central planning: tax rates are arbitrary.
    "your debt is so great you give all of your money to corporations ..." My debts are RELATIVELY small, house note about 50% LTV (at the moment, and rents in this town are higher than my mortgage payment for a house this size), less than $9k on credit cards, and no car note / other debt. I can't save either; I make little (<$25k / yr as a graduate student), have a family of four to support on that and work extra to make ends meet. However, if I did save, it would earn no interest, what it did earn would be subject to income tax on dividends and interest, and lose value every day due to inflation.
    "who are not taxed so keep it for their shareholders ..." You don't own any stocks, do you? Abbott Laboratories, Microsoft and Intel all pay dividends, but not big ones (I think they're all <5% right now, IIRC). Shareholders aren't getting rich unless they own thousands of shares, which take tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to purchase. And if they pay dividends, shareholders get taxed on that (see above). Try investing some of your wealth, and tell me about shareholders getting rich off dividends! By the way, GE paid no corporate taxes last year; coincidentally, they were one of Barry's biggest campaign contributors. Quite a coincidence, eh?
    "...98% of whom are also not taxed." Which planet are you living on, where 98% of shareholders aren't taxed? I make little, and I get taxed on dividends and interest!
    Old Poop has it right; the current crop of politicians has NO understanding of economics, and will drive the economy right off a cliff. When it happens, will you protest Obama / Pelosi / Dodd / Frank / Geithner / Bernanke / etc.'s lack of basic economic understanding? Or will you continue to protest the "rich", who do not write the laws that let Congresscritters trade on inside information?
    Get a clue.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Raise taxes on corporations and they just pass along the cost to their customers. The end user/customer ends up paying for the tax increase. All taxes suck the life and talent out of individuals. Cut government spending $2 for every $1 of tax relief to pay for it.

    ReplyDelete
  41. How about just having an import tax on everything to cover the cost of the income taxes they're not getting by outsourcing our jobs plus the illegal immigrants not paying taxes.

    ReplyDelete
  42. It is a very interesting topic that you’ve written here.
    The truth is that I’m really related to this, and I think this is a good opportunity to learn more about it.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Social Security is not a ponzi scheme, especially for those of us who have paid into this system for all our working years only to have the politicians in DC steal it for other government business. If the trust fund had been left intact as is should have been there would be trillions in it for the workers who may not get a social security check when they retire coz of our thieving politicians who raided the trust fund for their pet projects, etc

    ReplyDelete
  44. The government sucks. Doesn't the constitution say we can fire the government if they become corrupt or screw up too much? All you people calling social security "welfare" need to understand the difference, working people paid into social security and get it back when they retire, taxpayers pay for welfare and get nothing back so people that can't or won't work can live for free. Get rid of welfare, fire the idiotic and corrupt government, put the constitution back in effect, keep the promises made to the retired elderly who built this country with their sweat and blood, and maybe we stand a chance.

    ReplyDelete
  45. (Same anonymous) besides if we get rid of welfare, most of the people that come from other countries to get it will go home. 100 million people have come here since 1970 and we wonder why there's no jobs...

    ReplyDelete
  46. A technical note: Payroll taxes as a % of GDP going from 9.7% to 40% is an approximate increase of 300%, NOT 400%

    ReplyDelete
  47. It's all taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another. You can't tax, borrow, spend or manipulate your way to prosperity.

    Don't criticise the WSJ (and their idea is daft) unless you can come up with something better yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Come on. You're asking us to believe that corporations actually pay taxes. That's absurd. THEIR CUSTOMERS DO.

    I thought that sleight of hand only worked on major political party adherents and other perfect morons.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Robinhood was the opposite of a socialist. He stole money from the government and returned it to the people the government had confiscated it from. The evil party was the government who took it in the first place, just like now.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Some people need a hand. AKA LIMITED welfare. We do not need to raise taxes on anybody. If you live on the government dole, piss in a cup clean or take away the benefit. I bet better then 75% would stay in the the system as opposed too giving it to the undeserved. Every working person keeps taking it on the chin with ANY tax hike. If you can afford the drugs then you don't need the hand out.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I never thought I would agree to increase any tax on the people, given our economy vs. government growth...

    That said, I WOULD support a smallish <5% POLITICAL corporation tax increase.
    (i.e. Only for those with entities with incremental percent of government contracts including government lobbyists cost -or effect, given honest reporting- as 'income'.)

    ReplyDelete
  52. Old Poop, Anon@8:06AM and Anon@1:31PM

    I'm with you guys! Ditto what y'all said.

    Bruce, the evil spammers won't be reading your message to them. Their posts are auto-generated. Don't have a solution to offer but, you might want to look at the Blogger.com Help Center cuz it's likely to get worse, now that they've found you.

    ReplyDelete
  53. All this talk about taxing big business is a crock. The Number One reason so many big companies have moved their operations overseas is not primarily cheap labor. It is a fact that the US taxes corporations at such a high rate that it is cheaper to pay enormous shipping costs on their goods and absorb the cost of setting up new facilities and training unskilled labor to fill those factories and the downtime to make the move occur. Many of those business are paying wages in common with US labor. The corporate taxes are the #! motive for outsourcing or moving big business out of the US. Other Nations' Governments are smart enough to know, that if you don't overtax big business, they can afford to grow their businesses, hire more labor and feed the economy, making it grow as well.
    We must demand that our Government trim its handouts to so many other nations, cut all frivolous programs, streamline welfare programs by putting recipients to work at jobs that "nobody wants" because they don't "pay enough" or "they don't like to do." Such as the millions of jobs now filled by illegal immigrants! If they don't want to work at those jobs, STOP the welfare checks! Unless someone has a legitimate reason for sitting on their asses, drinking beer, smoking like chimneys and wondering when their food stamps are coming.
    Let your Senators and Congressmen/Women know how angry you are with their slacking off! Let them know how you feel NOW. Don't just wait for the next election. That may be too late for change. Let them know, you are serious about FIXING our Government!

    ReplyDelete
  54. Now, as far as SS goes....., Thanks to Lyndon B. Johnson, taking all of our SS and Medicare funds to fill the government's coffer. He was out of money to finance the bolstering up of troops in Viet Nam, so he stole the futures of hard working Americans for decades to come! It cost the lives of 50,000 more of our Troops before admitting defeat! Social Security was a healthy, self sustaining program designed to assist in the retirement of our work forces. It was an insurance we paid into and collected when we had done our time on the work force and earned our reward! The US Government call it an "entitlement." HA! Our Washington officials don't pay into it or pay for a lifetime of 1st class medical care. After a short term in office, they are "entitled" to outrageous pensions and benefits. Remember; They don't pay into Social Security, their pension is guaranteed at a much higher rate even after a short term in office.
    Most common Government employees make 20% to 40% more than someone doing the same job in the private sector. Their pensions and benefits begin as soon as 10 years on some jobs....., 15-20 years on others. They retire with FULL pensions and medical benefits. They pay into SS and receive that on top of full pensions!
    The average worker is fortunate to have a retirement even partially funded by their employer. He/She may work 40 years before retirement, having paid into SS and Medicare their whole life. Is that what our officials insult us with, calling it "Entitlement?"
    WE HAVE TO SPEAK UP, PEOPLE! YOU CAN CALL, WRITE, FAX, OR SHOW UP ON YOUR REPRESENTATIVE'S OFFICE DOORSTEP! Make your VOICE HEARD! These thieves are stripping you of every bit of dignity you deserve.
    Our President, I believe has an agenda to destroy this "Capitalist" economy. Fact: He will have produced more National Debt that all previous Presidents combined if he is allowed to continue with his socialistic Healthcare, His Welfare for the poor and minorities, his amnesty for 14 Million known Illegal immigrants (of which a major number are on welfare and food-stamps and taking our jobs. All of which are entitled to free medical care at our clinics and hospitals! ....,At the expense of your taxes and/or high medical bills!
    This country has many reasons for its apparently sudden demise. This administration has systematically done everything in its power to circumvent the US CONSTITUTION! It has gone to great extremes to execute reason for the use of TRILLIONS of borrowed dollars on the highest debt ever accumulated by the demands of the executive office. (Actual total debt of $77 Trillion) He threatens Congress and the Senate with his Veto powers if things are not done his way. He and the First "Lady" have scores of personal staff on payroll unseen by any other administration. His personal Czars, many being inexperienced in anything but their loyalty to him are watch-dogging (over-seeing) invented positions which have never existed before. The President operates more like a Mafia Boss with his entourage of aids (king-pins) trying to ward off any threat. His "Silver-Tongue" has worn out its welcome. This Con-man has to go! Last count, the First Lady had 107 personal aids or assistants. Nancy Bush had 1...,yes, ONE.
    The president had 70 Bullet Proof Lincoln Town Cars built for his assistants (Czars), costing approximately $300,00 ea. Normal Presidential aids have common mid-sized leased vehicles.
    We need to clean house from the top, down. in the Senate and Congress of the Liberal junk which has been a huge part of Our Nation's demise. SPEAK OUT NOW! Let Washington know, "YOU'RE PISSED" and changes will be made!

    ReplyDelete
  55. This is not a bad idea, but why not couple this with a complete overhaul of corporate taxes. The US already has something like the second highest corporate tax rates in the world. Get rid of all of the lobbyist-induced deductions and dramatically cut and flatten rates. If this can't happen, than why can't they pay for this tax cut by offsetting cuts in Medicare. Whack a couple of agencies whiile you're at it too!

    ReplyDelete
  56. Come to think of it, do we really need the Department of Education or large parts of the Commerce Dept??

    ReplyDelete
  57. Great Article!
    Social Security is no retirement savings plan. It's a Ponzi scheme, make no mistake. The money collected was never invested in anything, ever. It went into government coffers, where they pissed away about 1/3 of it for administrative costs and immediately redistributed the money to retired & disabled workers. It's promises bought votes then & still does now. I'm near the age when I start collecting my benefits, and will be angry if I don't get any, but its a bad system, and needs to be dumped ASAP, for it will collapse, as all Ponzi schemes do when there are too few people paying in to produce the promised benefits.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "...Last count, the First Lady had 107 personal aids or assistants. Nancy Bush had 1...,yes, ONE.
    The president had 70 Bullet Proof Lincoln Town Cars built for his assistants (Czars), costing approximately $300,00 ea. Normal Presidential aids have common mid-sized leased vehicles."

    Can anyone out there verify these claims?

    ReplyDelete
  59. The solution to our economic/political woes is anything but simple, to be sure, and this blog proves that. The numbers, even if you believe government statistics, can be made to say whatever supports the political views of the "mathematician" whose doing the figuring. One thing is clear though, and hard to argue with. Government in this country has grown dramatically faster than the economy. In post-war 1950, federal government expenditures were about 13% of GDP. Today, the percentage is TWICE that high. You may think that's OK if you're one of the 47 million tax filers who had $0 income tax liability in 2009 (I'm sure it's more in 2010), but I don't think it's OK at all. The cost of government is sucking the life out of its tax-paying citizens, and it needs to stop. Government doesn't produce anything. It's a necessary expense, but that expense must be kept to a minimum. The Federal government's functions are constitutionaly limited to providing essential services that could not be provided by private citizens or by the state governments e.g. national defense. They have no right to be involved in ANY redistribution of wealth whatsoever. They should be collecting only enough tax to provide the essential services listed in the Constitution and get their power-hungry, over-regulating asses out of everything else!

    ReplyDelete
  60. BTW, I think the federal income tax is a joke that needs to go away. There is no hope of overhauling, rewriting, simplifying or saving it. It's basic problem is that no one can define "income" in a way that is simple and fair. It takes a whole team of accountants and lawyers to wade through the tax code and deductions to determine how much an individual or corporation actually made. So, I say scrap it in favor of a transaction-based system such as a value-added tax. Everyone who sells anything must pay the tax on the value received. With the GNP at about $14 trillion, a 10% tax would give the Federal government $1.4 trillion income, and that's far more than they'd need after we've cut government down to its proper size.

    ReplyDelete
  61. First payments to people who can work MUST be limited to a reasonable length of time,nobody working because it is a better deal not to. In my line of work I see the waste, 3 visits a day to the er because they don't have to pay,for a reason they didn't even need to come for. My social services friend said they can't deny hardly anyone for any benefits,new Obama rule.Next we will need to cut welfare,then small cuts to social security and medicare most of these people have no way to work,but have not paid in even without the raids, and the interest on the money near enough to pay for medicare costs.Then tighten up on benefit use no trips to ers for non emergency. Next consider that all the countries in the world doing well have low corporate taxes and probusiness environments. This does NOT mean fraud and cheating that needs to stop immediately, starting with big banks! No more hypothecation, derivitives etc Large banks should not be baled out, nor corporations etc, nor able bodied americans.In america you take your chances, and your lumps. You cannot have it both ways folks. vote for freedom which means make your own way ,banks and corporations make their OWN WAY.Pro business policies that are honest. Immediate stop to cronyism,dishonesty, and bailouts. THAT is the way FORWARD.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Fastest way to balance the budget is exterminate all the worthless eaters.

    ReplyDelete
  63. You say, "Our political leaders are so deeply in bed with large corporate America that they have not even considered a very small and temporary corporate tax increase..." How about telling it like it really is. "Our Republican/Tea Party ideologues are so deeply..." Unfortunately the lazy American electorate is getting exactly what they voted for in 2010 because they are unwillng to take their obligation to be INFORMED citizens seriously. Anything that takes more effort than listening to a 10 second sound bite on TV is too much effort. So they vote for the politicians who put together the best sound bites. OK....I'll get down from my soapbox now and go back to being part of the disappearing middle class.

    ReplyDelete
  64. The numbers you cite as the history of tax revenue are not credible. Total federal spending in 1952 was in the neighborhood of 20% of GDP, yet you say that corporate tax alone was over 32% of GDP. The link you gave to the research source was dead, but I believe you must have misinterpreted the data.

    ReplyDelete
  65. What a wonderful suggestion - let the corporations pay for it ...they'll never feel it. What a completely ignorant thing to say when you know that any business will transfer the cost of doing business to the end product user --wait for it...US the consumer. Let me guess, the person writing this article failed econ 101 and got his writing credentials from an on line university and was never vetted.

    ReplyDelete
  66. A couple of counter points. Sure corporate tax rates were a high of 52% in 1952 and now the highest bracket is 39%. But USA has changed much since 1952 so you must consider other factors. One is Free Trade. In 1952 USA workers bought stuff made in America. Now with this world economy our corporations are at a disadvantage competiting with lower cost countries. Remember income taxes are just overhead to a business and are factored into their selling price. If you disagree with me and think our employers are as now as competitive in the USA marketplace as they were in 1952 then OK raise their cost of doing business here. Second, you must also consider state corporate income tax rates in 1952 vs. 2011. In many states it is now around 10% while in 1952 it was zero.

    ReplyDelete
  67. The only real solution is a total overhaul of the system.
    Pass the Fair Tax, abolish the IRS, balance the budget, reduce the Federal government and return the power base to State and local governments to give control back to the people.

    ReplyDelete
  68. To Anonymous, I assume that since you are gun ho on reducing Soc Sec for Seniors, who paid into the system their entire working career, that you have come up with a plan to keep them warm in winter, and a way to put food on their table, OR, do you think they should be whacked in the head or given the SHOT, like some of Obama's cronies and thugs want done.

    ReplyDelete
  69. First - corporations do not exist, except to pass along any increases in cost (taxes/whatever) to us consumers - we pay!
    Second - the social security trust fund is nearly $3 trillion, but it consists of all paper IOU's from the federal government to the trust fund - there is no cash there! - so eventually we will pay there as well. As long as the feds spend a trillion dollars a year more than they take in, we are doomed, as there are only 3 ways out of the mess:1. cut spending by same amount (yeah right)! 2. Grow the economy (haven't seen that lately)! or print more dollars and inflate our way out of it (happening now)!

    ReplyDelete
  70. First, Social security is not welfare. It was collected from us during our entire working lives at the point of a gun. If you refused to pay it you went to jail. Want to fix Social Security? Remove the cap. Presently the highest wage earners suffer the least amount of time from the Payroll Tax. In the extreme case where an individual earns 1.2 million dollars a year their Social Security obligation (Payroll tax) ends on January 30th each year. Those who never earn enough to reach the cap end up paying all year. Second, consumers, all of us, need to understand that we ultimately pay all the taxes that are levied on business or our personal income. Try as it might government cannot require a business to operate at a loss or break even. Therefore business simply adds the cost of increased taxation on to us, the consumer.

    ReplyDelete
  71. There are plenty of ways to make up $100b. We could sell that in federal land. We could stop the bailouts of Freddy or Fannie. We could set the department/agency budget increases to $0 for next year. We could stop protecting the Middle East for a year. We could skip a year of UN payments/foreign aid. We could stop printing the Federal Reserve's currency for free. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  72. And the likes of GE who didn't pay taxes, WalMart, Microsoft, Coca-cola, etc...GO GET 'EM !!!

    ReplyDelete
  73. Fundamentals ... as a nation, we are broke. Does it make sense to go out to a large section of country that IS working and say you'd like to raise there wages, when the biggest problem is the UNEMPLOYED? With our infrastructure in the toilet, wouldn't it make more sense to hire additional people to improve it ... by closing tax loopholes to pay for in in the SAME year the extra spending is going to happen (close loopholes ... mostly bought by the rich for the rich). The best way to bolster MFC in this country is reduction of tax rates (Santorum - although i would never vote for him) for MFC and NOT tarriffs which only start trade wars (seems Huntsman and Romney seem to agree with this).

    The republican plan of no capital gains, no dividend taxes, no inheritence taxes seems pretty simple ... the rich should simply be allowed to get richer and never have to pay taxes.

    If you want to see what a really high level of government involvement can mean to an society, consider Singapore (we just returned from a week's vacation) ... WOW! On virtually an level ... WOW! The 2nd highest population density of all nations. One of cleanest, socially aware and advanced, crime free (in all the time we were there we saw 1 police car and NO cops on the beat), greenest, most advanced places your will ever visit. Riding the mrt in Singapore makes NYC, Philly and DC look like 3rd world enclaves.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Please read the US Supreme Court decisions (opinions) of Helvering v. Davis, Steward Machine Co. v. Davis (both in 1930s), and Fleming v. Nestor (1960). Then your comments and opinions about Socialist Insecurity could be accurate. After reading the entire decisions, including the dissenting opinions, please decide on tha accuracy of these statements:
    Social Security is an Article I, Section 8 excise tax; such taxes cannot Constitutionally go into a separate account apart from the general fund. No one has a right to Social Security benefits; SS taxes are not an insurance premium, because SS is not insurance.
    SS is a WELFARE scheme. The I and the C in FICA are LIES because excise taxes are not insurance premiums and taxes are not contributions because you do not risk being shot to death by tax collectors if you do not make a contribution; you risk being shot to death by tax collectors when you do not pay taxes.
    AND/OR divide the stated and the unstated federal debt figures by the current US population.
    AND/OR note that Karl Marx, in his "Communist Manifesto" stated that one of the 10 ways to "wrest" power is to implement a progressive or graduated income tax.
    Were your great grandparents, grandparents, parents, you, your children taught the above in the communist brainwashing, er, government, er, public, or even private schools?
    Now, consider the truth or falsity of this statement: The Ten Commandment morality of the population, or its elected leadership, or its non-elected leadership, or its government administrators, is not an effect or a cause of the problems of this country.
    Proposed Solution: First - Get on the road to eternal salvation. Second - Consider supporting the Fair Tax plan.
    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  75. In the words of Crowquill, “Do not allow idleness to deceive you; for while you give him today he steals tomorrow from you.”

    ReplyDelete