If you need extra income, do you cut expenses, or raise income?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
G

Guns Guns Guns

Guest
Washington's revenues are the lowest in more than 60 years.


So does the U.S. have "a spending problem," as Republicans keep repeating in the current debate over how to reduce the nation's record deficits?


Or is the problem that taxes are not high enough?


Some key facts worth considering:


  • Federal revenues are expected to drop to 14.8 percent of GDP this year, lower even than the 14.9 percent attained in both 2009 and 2010. There has been only one year since World War II when revenues have been as low as in any of these years: 1950, when the figure was 14.4 percent.


  • These historically low rates of taxation have produced a chain of deficits that are the highest since WWII.


  • The federal income tax accounted for 41.5 percent of federal receipts in 2010 (down from 49.6 percent prior to the Bush tax cuts of 2001 – 2003).


  • Corporate taxes brought in only 8.9 percent, also down sharply.


  • Payroll taxes and other "social insurance" payments accounted for 40 percent of total receipts in 2010.



Outlays%20vs%20Revenues%20Since%201930(1).png







http://factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/
 
you show your massive ignorance by equating needing more income with more revenues. iow...income and revenue are not the same thing.

if i needed more more income, say to buy another car, there are two things you can do:

1. do something that provides more revenue; or
2. spend less money

it is really that simple. i suggest you learn the difference between the two concepts.
 
· Income-tax receipts are down sharply since the Bush tax cuts. In fiscal 2000, the year before the cuts began to take effect, receipts from the federal income tax on individuals amounted to 10.2 percent of GDP. That figure was down to 6.2 percent of GDP last year.


· Spending for the military and for homeland security has risen substantially since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Spending for national defense rose from 3.0 percent of GDP that year to 4.8 percent last year.


· Non-military spending also has continued to rise. President George W. Bush pushed through an expensive prescription drug benefit for seniors in 2003, the largest expansion of Medicare in its history. In the financial crisis of 2008, Bush also pushed for and signed for a massive banking bailout.







http://factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/
 
I was looking at thte cost of grad school at State Universities. God Good! It costs almost $80,000 to get an MBA at a Big 10 School. Holy Fuck. It cost about $5,000 when I was in college. There's no way middle class families can afford that! that's a 1600% increase in cost! The key to being middle class these days is a quality college education and it has rapidly gone beyond the ability of most families to afford. Top teir programs cost over $100,000! For a fucking MBA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I was looking at thte cost of grad school at State Universities. God Good! It costs almost $80,000 to get an MBA at a Big 10 School. Holy Fuck. It cost about $5,000 when I was in college. There's no way middle class families can afford that! that's a 1600% increase in cost! The key to being middle class these days is a quality college education and it has rapidly gone beyond the ability of most families to afford. Top teir programs cost over $100,000! For a fucking MBA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

That's what happens when unions price people out of the market.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I was looking at thte cost of grad school at State Universities. God Good! It costs almost $80,000 to get an MBA at a Big 10 School. Holy Fuck. It cost about $5,000 when I was in college. There's no way middle class families can afford that! that's a 1600% increase in cost! The key to being middle class these days is a quality college education and it has rapidly gone beyond the ability of most families to afford. Top teir programs cost over $100,000! For a fucking MBA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Odd that costs have gone up so much since student loans cannot be claimed in bankruptcy, and that the government backs them with their own loans. Damned coincidence isn't it?
 
Two economic recessions have had their effect.


The first Bush recession began in March 2001 and lasted until November, and the worst downturn since the Great Depression began in December.


In both cases unemployment remained high for long after business activity began to recover, holding back both wages and the taxes that jobless workers would have paid on them.


​



bush-expression_1016531i.jpg
​







http://factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/
 
Yurt said:
you show your massive ignorance by equating needing more income with more revenues. iow...income and revenue are not the same thing.

if i needed more more income, say to buy another car, there are two things you can do:

1. do something that provides more revenue; or
2. spend less money

it is really that simple. i suggest you learn the difference between the two concepts.
Click to expand...

too much to handle huh
 
  • Taxes make up the vast bulk of federal revenues, of course.



  • Individual income-tax payers supplied 41.5 percent of all federal revenues in fiscal 2010, but Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes paid both by workers and their employers made up nearly as much.



  • Combined with federal unemployment insurance taxes and a few others, these social insurance taxes made up 40 percent of revenues.



  • The income tax on corporations brought in just under 9 percent, while excise taxes, on such things as gasoline and diesel fuel, alcoholic beverages and telecommunications services, brought in just over 3 percent.








http://factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/
 
The most recent complete data cover 2007. CBO figured in that year more than half of all federal taxes was paid by the top 10 percent of income earners.



That's a comprehensive figure, counting the income tax, payroll taxes, excise taxes and even the corporate income tax (borne by stockholders in the form of reduced dividends and appreciation).



However, that comes in spite of lower tax rates at the top, not because of it.



The reason the most affluent 10 percent pay a greater share of taxes is that they are getting a greater share of all income.



Their share of all pre-tax income went from 37.5 percent in 2001 to 42 percent in 2007.










http://factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top