America: We have a REVENUE Problem. Austerity? BULLSHIT.

[Triana]

[Scuba]

1. The USA only has one fiscal problem: The lack of political will to tax those who have all the money.

[Enthusiast]

23. Huge +1!

[Triana]

42. +1 n/t

[jwirr]

84. Absolutely.

[bvar22]

87. I would add Out-of-Control Military Spending,

but we could even afford that if the RICH paid their fair share.

[Enthusiast]

88. Right on!

[Phlem]

93. Spot Fucking On!

[Kang Colby]

2. We have a spending problem.

Federal tax revenues, adjusted for inflation, are about 6x what they were in 1950.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_chart_1950_2015USp_F0t

[Scootaloo]

4. What does your candidate propose cutting, then?

[Kang Colby]

6. Sorry, this isn't GD:P. N/t

[Scootaloo]

8. Nope, it's not. I'm asking what our apparent nominee proposes cutting from the budget

You say it's not a revenue problem, it's a spending problem. If that's so, then I want to know what our nominee - your candidate -plans to cut from the budget to bring it down.

[maxsolomon]

89. proposing to cut the obvious fat (the military) is political suicide

its like telling Netanyahu a painful truth; it's just not done during campaigns.

rah rah Militarism!

[Victor_c3]

104. I've noticed your posts a lot since I joined DU a few years back

Thank you for what you say. I have never read something that I don't agree with or at least brings up a great point.

[Phlem]

94. So basically you have nothing.

Just say it.

It's not that hard.

[Kang Colby]

98. If you're interested...see my other posts in this thread. n/t

[Phlem]

99. Unfortunately I have.

But do go on.

[watoos]

7. Why not ask another question?

U.S. population in 1950 - 152 million
U.S. population in 2016 - 319 million

Of course revenue increased because our population doubled.

[Kang Colby]

9. Our population doubled, but our inflation adjusted tax revenues sextupled (6x).

It doesn't add up, we need to get spending under control.

[watoos]

13. Sorry, but your revenue figures are a % of GDP

We all know that the way we determine unemployment is flawed, the way we determine GDP is worse.

[Kang Colby]

17. No, I purposefully did not use GDP percentage. I just used the nominal values adjusted for inflation

[Indydem]

63. Don't waste your time.

These folks think there is just a bottomless well if we tax evil corporations some more.

[truebluegreen]

70. Yes, we tax them so much! Poor things.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2015/11/13/reality-check-on-corporate-income-tax-rates

http://staging.americansfortaxfairness.org/tax-fairness-briefing-booklet/fact-sheet-corporate-tax-rates/

http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2015/04/fifteen_of_many_reasons_why_we_need_corporate_tax_reform.php#.VyeYpD94OUc

[Indydem]

77. Other nations have deductions also.

These elaborate tax avoidance schemes are established to pay less taxes.

Companies move overseas to avoid paying taxes.

Companies engage in inversions to avoid paying taxes.

Why don't we just lower the taxes and eliminate the loopholes?

[truebluegreen]

79. Fine with me. But the issue under discussion

is raising revenue--i.e. actually getting those poor persecuted corporations to pay taxes. And the fact that other countries can't seem to tax corporations and the wealthy either is part of the problem...and no doubt why wealth concentration is an issue worldwide.

[Enthusiast]

16. Wow! A Republican meme promoted on DU. We need to get spending under control!

[KPN]

86. "New Democrats"

[Triana]

44. If true, most of it spent on DEFENSE and DHS.

Another issue America has: F*cked-up PRIORITIES.

Corporations get WELFARE in the form of little to NO taxes and huge gov't subsidies, the rest of us get AUSTERITY.

As I said, it's BULLSHIT.

If spending needs adjustment then it needs adjustment in a few particular places. We can start with DEFENSE and the behemoth that is now DHS - NOT by gutting Social Security, for instance to "Fix the Debt".

The $17 Trillion Delusion: The Absurdity of Cutting Social Security to Reduce the Debt: http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/21154-the-17-trillion-delusion-the-absurdity-of-cutting-social-security-to-reduce-the-federal-debt

Hillary and the GOP's favorite Socialist program (DEFENSE/War/Military) has cost the US $8.5 TRILLION (conservative estimate) and is BANKRUPTING America: http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/22/gops-favorite-socialist-program-lost-8-5-trillion-bankrupt-america.html

Is she going to change this? NO - except to likely leave unchanged or INCREASE the amount we're spending on that.

As much as it MAY need to "cut spending", America ALSO needs to exact appropriate tax collection from corporations and the wealthy and stop bullshit like this: http://www.alternet.org/print/media/7-rip-offs-corporations-and-wealthy-dont-want-you-know-about

The US is the richest yet MOST UNEQUAL developed country in the world - a direct consequence of unmitigated GREED: http://www.alternet.org/print/economy/consequences-american-greed

US companies stash TRILLIONS of dollars tax-free overseas. WHEN is our gov't going to DO SOMETHING about that? Hillary certainly will NOT as herself and Bill are themselves doing so and also collect MILLIONS from these same corporations: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/foreign-overseas-tax-inversion-evasion-obama

America's top 10 Corporate Tax Avoiders are ALL big contributors to the Hillary Clinton Campaign and/or to the Clinton Foundation: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/top-10-corporate-tax-avoiders

And then let's talk about the TPP - that hideous so-called "trade" agreement that we ALL know Hillary supports (tho she recently said she does not in order to compete with Sanders): http://www.alternet.org/obscure-government-document-shows-elizabeth-warren-right-about-tpp

TPP will cost the US gov't TONS of revenue AND TONS of jobs - it will be a disaster for Democracy (what little of that may be left in the US) and the US economy: http://www.alternet.org/obscure-government-document-shows-elizabeth-warren-right-about-tpp

There is now NO UPWARD MOBILITY in the US anymore and all of the above is why: http://business.time.com/2012/01/05/the-loss-of-upward-mobility-in-the-u-s/

Noam Chomsky stated clearly that Election 2016 (er, Auction 2016) puts us at risk of utter disaster and that's due to ALL of the above and Hillary Clinton will NOT CHANGE any of it: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35138-noam-chomsky-2016-election-puts-us-at-risk-of-utter-disaster

So you see mydear, this is a SYSTEMIC problem, not just "OMG! WE HAVE TO CUT SPENDING! MORE AUSTERITY FOR THE MASSES!"

One HUGE part of this systemic problem is REVENUE - and the fact that we are collecting MUCH LESS OF IT than we used to from corporations and the wealthy.

And Hillary?

SHE and her wealthy owners are PART. OF. THE. PROBLEM.

She isn't going to fix a damn thing about it.

[Kang Colby]

45. I agree with you on Defense spending.

I'm not sure why you need to toss in a few slams of the Democratic nominee...but oh well. You seem smart, you'll come around eventually.

[FoxNewsSucks]

78. Outstanding post,

The contrast with the republicon "cut spending" talking points is clear.

I'd like to know what the DEMOCRATIC nominee whose followers think liberals need to "come around" will do about it. Tax them? Or just expect working Americans to do without and be thankful that our austerity puts more money in the pockets of the super-rich.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

51. Yeah, all that money wasted on food for the poor.

[Kang Colby]

52. Have you seen the defense budget? n/t

[Jackie Wilson Said]

53. Yes, but unless you can cut it, then talking about cutting will mean those most in need.

[Kang Colby]

54. Not necessarily. n/t

[truebluegreen]

72. Yes, necessarily.

There's no slack anywhere else. Well, maybe in foreign aid.

[CrispyQ]

80. Let's start with the MIC. -nt

[Kang Colby]

81. Agreed. n/t

[zeemike]

47. It's even worse than that.

In 1950 there was one worker per household, now there are 2 just to keep pace.

[truebluegreen]

71. "...now there are 2 and they still can't keep pace."

Fixed it for ya.

[zeemike]

100. Thanks and that is true.

[Elmergantry]

101. One thing about that...

in the 1950s, the typical middle class household had one phone, one TV, one car, one bathroom, food was cooked at home, no central air, no cable/internet bill, McDonalds was "eating out" etc, etc. Much easier to make it on one income with that standard of living. Nowadays your considered poor if you live like that.

[mindwalker_i]

10. And what are we spending on?

Also, what is the population difference between 1950 and now? I'll make a guess that it's a whole lot bigger, and therefore the amount of money both earned and taxed is a whole lot higher, plus the amount of money spent on things that keep the country running is a whole lot higher. Your statement fails to take any of that into account.

Lets get right to the point: if you think the country has a spending problem, what do you want to cut?

[leftofcool]

15. How about we start with the Pentagon budget?

And I don't mean deprive our soldiers either. There is a ton of wasteful spending there.

[Kang Colby]

22. I agree with that, 100%. n/t

[Enthusiast]

33. The right always tries to frame it as, "You are depriving the troops."

[mindwalker_i]

36. Agreed, there are a lot of programs that help congressional districts

but don't produce anything useful. We don't need more tanks. Of F35s.

[LiberalArkie]

18. In 1950 we were building highways and hospitals and other public things, Now we are

building multi million dollar bombers that can't fly, giving tremendous amount of money to Israel for their military. 1n 1950 we did not spend over 50% of the budget on the military.

[Enthusiast]

21. Huge +1!

[Kang Colby]

24. I agree with that for sure. n/t

[mindwalker_i]

37. Yup. As Jamie Hynaman would say

Well there's your problem!

[SickOfTheOnePct]

55. All excellent points

except that we don't spent over 50% of the budget on the military now, either.

We spend too much, but not nearly 50% of the budget.

[Indydem]

64. Actually we were.

Spending 2x then than we are now.

[link:|

[LiberalArkie]

68. Most of those charts also include Social Security, Medicare, unemployment in the spending

which is not really part of it as those are self funded. But I guess having to have a check cut for it means that it came out of regular taxes.



Like this one showing how Medicare and Social Security needs to be cut because defense is getting such a small part of the money.

[CrispyQ]

83. Thom Hartmann mentions this.

How money spent on highways & hospitals give huge return value to the community, but bombs & bullets & aircraft that gets shot down, not so much.

Every institution in our country is corrupt to the core by the everything-for-profit model. We are ruining our planet so a few people can make a lot of money. As a species, I think we are insane.

[Kang Colby]

20. Well...

Population is 2x what it was, tax revenues are 6x what they were. We have a spending problem. I think it makes sense to reign in defense spending as a place to start.

[Vincardog]

11. So individuals are sending in 18 X what they used to pay and corporations have avoided their share.

What do you propose to fix this inequity? Tariffs? A VAT? A tax on wealth?

Please let us know how you will fix the situation.

[Kang Colby]

25. You can't really compare the tax code in 1950 to what we have in 2016. n/t

[Vincardog]

27. The OP was about tax receipts. Are you saying that it is wrong? Corps. are not paying their share

[Kang Colby]

32. Yes, I'm saying it's an apples to oranges comparison.

"Corps are not paying their fair share." - that statement on its own is a meaningless phrase upon which sound public policy can not be crafted. It's the kind of nonsense that should never be uttered outside of a Bernie rally. If extraterrestrial taxes were the answer, other major nations would be doing it. Very few if any do.

[Vincardog]

34. What "sound public policy" do you propose based on no corporate income tax? Please child.

[Kang Colby]

43. This is a complicated topic, beyond my willingness to type.

However, if you are truly interested in good tax code, I suggest using New Zealand as a benchmark. Switzerland, Sweden, and Estonia also have good approaches to policy that balance the needs of the public good with a fertile environment for business.

[Indydem]

65. "Fertile Environment for Business"

You assume that these folks want such a thing.

Most of the people you are arguing with on this thread don't like:

1. Businesses
2. Profits
3. Capitalism
4. Free Markets
5. Wealth

Pointing out to them that other nations don't tax businesses at the same level as we do simply makes them lose respect for those nations.

[Kang Colby]

75. I know, it's really a shame.

I'm happy to have the discussions though. In my view, these threads reflect a lack of critical thinking.

[Indydem]

76. Typical of Bernie Supporters.

Critical thinking has never been the bedrock of their movement.

How will he get these things done? - He will start a REVOLUTION!
How will he pay for these things? - Higher TAXES on the 1%!
How will he get those taxes past congress? - The REVOLUTION!
He's losing the popular vote and the delegate count, now what? A REVOLUTION IS BEGINNING!

etc....

[Phlem]

92. huh, you don't say.

I think I've heard something similar to that. Hm..............

[mindwalker_i]

39. Sure you can

One can look at the taxes and the expenditures from each era and compare them. It's fairly easy.

[Kang Colby]

40. Yes, that is fairly easy. However, I'm talking about the tax code circa 1950 as compared to today.

Case in point, most businesses today are taxed via the individual tax code rather than the corporate tax code. That wasn't the case in 1950. The popularity of S-corps and LLCs exploded in the 1980s. This creates the illusion that businesses today are paying less than they really are. They are paying taxes via individual income taxes and not the corporate code like they were in 1950 using C corporations.

[Enthusiast]

19. See the OP. You are missing the point.

[cannabis_flower]

49. So Kang

Is your candidate Donald Trump, Ted Cruz or John Kasich because you sound like a Republican?

[Kang Colby]

50. Ouch. Read my responses on this thread...

I don't think Republicans support cuts in Defense spending.

[JDPriestly]

58. And prices?

In 1952, my family bought a house for about $5,000 which is now worth over $100,000.

That's 20 times what we bought that house for in 1952.

And the cost of tuition for college? Many, many, many times what it was when I went to school in the 1960s.

Of course the size of the federal budget has gone up many times.

If we got private contractors out of the business of government, we could save quite a bit of money.

[Kang Colby]

60. Good for you.

I agree with your thesis by the way, regarding private contractors.

[HughBeaumont]

62. REALLY???

COME on. Christopher Chantrill?

Try again.

An example of his "work". I understand he's also a climate change denier.

[Indydem]

66. Are you denying the facts?

Do you have a dataset that denies the facts as presented?

[HughBeaumont]

69. WHAT FACTS?

I don't get "facts" from highly biased and wingnut sources. Chantrill has a blatantly obvious agenda; one that doesn't revolve around cutting defense spending and corporate welfare, but around granny starving and sending the unemployed on an ice floe.

[Indydem]

74. The website you are contesting is a clearinghouse for facts.

It's sourced materials.

You are arguing with the facts because the person who compiled them doesn't agree with you.

Find me another dataset, that is sourced, that supports your claim that he's just a right winger twisting the facts to support his case.

Otherwise, you are shouting at the wind.

[HughBeaumont]

82. Sorry, I don't "find" things for economic Republicans.

Do your own homework. I ain't your fucking Google.

I can have a bunch of numbers and skew them any way I please. Doesn't make them any more right than those who say we have a Revenue problem rather than a spending problem. People believed Stephen Moore for years. FactCheck.org never rated any of his "lowering taxes brought more revenue" claims as anything above "half true", yet he remained Heritage.org's chief economist for years.

It has nothing to do with "not agreeing". Have you read his writing? Vitriol suited for Glenn Beck, Red Baiting until the cows come home, ad hominems passing for journalism . . . I mean, if you want to trust a guy with such blatant Libertarian boilerplate masking as articulate thought, have at it.

I question the be-all-end-all term "Clearinghouse" from a Sarah Palin supporter. Sorry, but bias is bias.

[Indydem]

85. Not a single one of those are FACTS.

Every single one is an opinion piece.

I agree with most of them.

That doesn't change the fact that the website you are railing against (not the compiler) is sourced:

Spending data is from official government sources.
Federal spending data since 1962 comes from the president’s budget.
All other spending data comes from the US Census Bureau.
Gross Domestic Product data comes from US Bureau of Economic Analysis and measuringworth.com.
Detailed table of spending data sources here.
Federal spending data begins in 1792.
State and local spending data begins in 1890.
State and local spending data for individual states begins in 1957.

I understand you don't like the author, or his positions. That is fine. You are disregarding factual presentation for no reason other than the person who compiled it is of a differing political opinion.

This, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with this country.

"I don't believe his factual presentation because he supports another candidate. I have nothing to counter his presentation but my own anger and bias."

[Dont call me Shirley]

91. An out of control military spy complex spending problem.

[Rex]

3. 50 plus years of a militant plutocracy will do that to a democracy.

Hollows out our economy and rigs the system to fail over and over to make a huge profit cleaning up their own mess. And the politicians let them keep doing it, year after year.

And nothing changed after hundreds of thousands of families got evicted and are now living in their cars or on the street with their children, the destruction of the middle class. We will be feeling it for a long time to come.

This is something we GenXers learned in our early teens. Watching Reaganomics destroy the country and then learning in school people knew it would happen 30 years before Reagan. And they still didn't give a shit and went ahead with robbing future generations.

Horrible feeling when you are helpless, a lot of the PTB have no idea and live in the D.C. Bubble. Yet right outside their doorsteps sits homeless vets begging for change.

Someone has to take on the system above the government and sadly that can only happen from one in the ownership society.

Back to work.

[Enthusiast]

14. Huge +1!

[Rex]

29. If the media had picked our voice over the corporations, this would be a different world.

It is and will always be a held believe that the PTB and the wealthy saw how much of an impact media had on the Vietnam war and civil unrest at home as they HELPED Nixon escape prison with a pardon from his VP...setting the standard as low as possible.

The media learned how valuable it is to keep a pretense going even after most people don't believe it anymore and think the system is rigged...something we share in common with China and North Korea. Sadly.

We went in the wrong direction, however there is always time to change. I hate the fact that the change has to happen from the very group that destroyed the middle class, but the media just don't care anymore and the government never did in the first place.

We are back to begging for table scraps.

[Enthusiast]

31. Those in the media that would like to change will find themselves looking for a job.

It has become pathetic.

[Rex]

35. They already do, just look at Donahue and Rather.

You go against the media line, you pay for it with your job. Lie like there is no ending and get rewarded with an anchor spot.

[annabanana]

30. ! . . . . .n/t

[Phlem]

95. That a YEP!

[zentrum]

5. That's it exactly.

[Enthusiast]

12. Kicked and recommended! Very few people are aware of this.

No wonder they did away with the Fairness Doctrine. Keep everyone ignorant.

[Ferd Berfel]

26. And once again the Clinton camp spews Republican doctrine

and still pretend they are Dems

This is just fucking orwellian

[abelenkpe]

73. Wait, what?

Are they advocating for austerity? Or for more cuts to social programs somewhere?

[egalitegirl]

28. We need Austerity but by cutting welfare for the rich

The political class has divided us into fighting about welfare for the poor. We the people need to unite and demand austerity that cuts welfare programs for the rich across both parties. This includes bailouts for corporations as well as grants for universities. Just because universities are aligned with the Democrats does not mean we mindlessly support them and argue that the one percenters should keep getting money.

[Elmergantry]

102. Rich people get welfare???? NT

[egalitegirl]

105. They go by other names

They do not use the term welfare, but yes, corporate welfare and university welfare programs are welfare for the rich. Research grants, Wall Street bailouts, stimulus funding, grants for non-profit groups are some examples of welfare for the rich.

[Octafish]

38. If that.

GE hasn't paid a dime in taxes in decades. And it's current boss advises President Obama on labor and stuff.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/top-10-corporate-tax-avoiders

[hfojvt]

41. that's kinda hard to believe

according to what I can find.

First, my 2001 SAUS only goes back to 1990. In 1990, individual income taxes were $467 billion, FICA taxes were $380 billion, corporate income taxes were $93.5 billion and excise taxes $35.3 billion.

Looking at the SAUS online from 1955, I find for 1950. Individual income taxes were $17.4 billion, corporate income taxes $10.9 billion, excise taxes $7.6 billion, employment taxes $2.9 billion, estate taxes 0.7 billion, and miscellaneous $1.4 billion. http://www.census.gov/library/publications/1955/compendia/statab/76ed.html (It's part 4, page 352)

It depends on how you calculate that. Does the corporation pay half of the FICA taxes, or do the workers pay all of it? I would say the workers pay all of it, even though we never see the half that our employers pay, it is really just part of our pay. Do corporations pay excise taxes, or do they just pass those costs on to the customer? Anyway, corporate income taxes and excise taxes both used to be much higher relative to personal income taxes. Total appears to be about $21 billion for the people (are they all 'workers'? Some income tax is being paid by the 'owners'.) and perhaps $19.4 billion for the corporations (if they paid all of the 'miscellaneous')

[Warren DeMontague]

46. Did someone say revenue?

http://www.ktvz.com/news/Oregon-reports-marijuana-tax-revenues-nearly-7-million/39126282

[Javaman]

48. shush you! debt is wealth now!

just like...

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength

[Phlem]

96. +1 Spot on.

[felix_numinous]

56. Because the population numbers are higher

does not change the ratios or formulas used to compare tax rates. If anything a higher population should result in more money spent on an overburdened infrastructure, job creation, affordable schools and public programs instead of LESS.

The formula has been changed shunting money away from what America needs to function as a country and off to the rich and military conquering and robbing resources overseas. That has become obvious, and no word parsing can change what people are experiencing and seeing in everyday life.


We have gone beyond debating THAT this robbery exists nationwide and worldwide, the longer nothing is done, more people die and more pissed off people are going to get. Bernie Sanders is offering a way out of an upcoming inevitable collapse of this system--it is on the way out even pretending to be a democracy and will soon convert to a very harsh and unforgiving authoritarian system that will not tolerate any feedback from the people. We are almost there and more and more people can see it coming, and as is human nature there are those who side with the most powerful.

The Pentagon Papers obliterates any claims that there is not enough money to pay for public services or pay employees FOREVER.

Edited mistyped

[snappyturtle]

57. I'm much more worried about the value of the dollar. nt

[warrprayer]

59. Kick

and rec!!!

[bjo59]

61. Global banks have an inordinate amount of power at this

point in history and austerity will be imposed on every "developed" or "first world" (or whatever you want to call them) country. It's the new normal, not a temporary fix for financial problems. Time to bring the wealthy countries into alignment with the poor countries. China is a problem and Russia is a problem in this regard (their governments aren't playing ball). If they can't be brought into the fold, many see a future military solution. The whole thing is ghastly.

[Progressive dog]

67. From economic policy institute,

Last edited Mon May 2, 2016, 08:48 PM - Edit history (1)

While the United States has one of the highest statutory corporate income-tax rates among advanced countries, the effective corporate income-tax rate (27.7 percent) is quite close to the average of rich countries (27.2 percent, weighted by GDP).

So if your numbers are also right, corporations now pay .22 out of 1.22 or 18% of the taxes paid. To go back to 75%, they would have to pay 4.16 times as much. Since 4.16 x 27.7%=115.2% which means that in order to pay the 3 of 4 dollars they used to pay, they would have to raise prices 15% while selling exactly as much and paying no more in wages and benefits in order to make no profit after taxes.

[Ferd Berfel]

90. We have a NEO-CON Problem

and it's a stage 4 cancer in both parties

[Phlem]

97. +1

[colsohlibgal]

103. [phone]!

Yes, yes, yes.

All those enormously rich people and corporations who avoid taxes with every trick in the book, the book that is increasingly just a tool for them.

We need to raise top marginal rates drastically as well as closing all the loopholes. No more filing out of some tax haven where you might have one person in a little room.

The one big spending problem is defense, Ike's military industrial complex. We can safely slash it by at least half.....but anyone put out of work to work repairing our infrastructure and parks, a new CCC.