Entitlement Culture

[JohnStOnge]

As I've written before: Government "allowing" a person or entity to keep their own money is not government giving someone something. The entitlement culture involves government taking some peoples' money and using it to actually give something to other people. Tax deductions, etc., don't fit into that.

Also don't see a corporate rate of zero as giving anybody anything either. Corporations are ultimately made up of people and if people profit from what the corporations do they pay taxes as persons.

Another thing is the old cliche but true statement that corporations don't really pay taxes anyway. They just pass the cost on to whoever their customers are.

Anyway, there's no "entitlement mentality" thing in that story at all.

[kalm]

As I've written before: Government "allowing" a person or entity to keep their own money is not government giving someone something. The entitlement culture involves government taking some peoples' money and using it to actually give something to other people. Tax deductions, etc., don't fit into that.

Also don't see a corporate rate of zero as giving anybody anything either. Corporations are ultimately made up of people and if people profit from what the corporations do they pay taxes as persons.

Another thing is the old cliche but true statement that corporations don't really pay taxes anyway. They just pass the cost on to whoever their customers are.

Anyway, there's no "entitlement mentality" thing in that story at all.

Hogwash. Some corporations pay a lower effective tax rate than others. Some corporations externalize their risks and costs on society via the government (see big oil and US military intervention or environmental costs) while others are not able to. Honeywell paid zero in taxes for a few years. So did Exxon mobile. They won their loopholes through lobbying and I guarantee you they feel entitled to them.

But heaven forbid that a person who pays into social security and medicare their entire life should feel entitled to those benefits.

[UNI88]

As I've written before: Government "allowing" a person or entity to keep their own money is not government giving someone something. The entitlement culture involves government taking some peoples' money and using it to actually give something to other people. Tax deductions, etc., don't fit into that.

Also don't see a corporate rate of zero as giving anybody anything either. Corporations are ultimately made up of people and if people profit from what the corporations do they pay taxes as persons.

Another thing is the old cliche but true statement that corporations don't really pay taxes anyway. They just pass the cost on to whoever their customers are.

Anyway, there's no "entitlement mentality" thing in that story at all.

Hogwash. Some corporations pay a lower effective tax rate than others. Some corporations externalize their risks and costs on society via the government (see big oil and US military intervention or environmental costs) while others are not able to. Honeywell paid zero in taxes for a few years. So did Exxon mobile. They won their loopholes through lobbying and I guarantee you they feel entitled to them.

But heaven forbid that a person who pays into social security and medicare their entire life should feel entitled to those benefits.

I agree with you on the corporate entitlements but social security and medicare aren't that simple either. Just because someone paid into SS and medicare doesn't mean they paid for all of their benefits. I don't have the exact figures but the amount that the average person paid into SS and the return on investment that it earned does not add up to the benefits they are receiving. The difference is an entitlement and as Gannonfan has pointed out in another thread that entitlement is currently be borrowed and will be paid with taxes on income earned by those people's kids and grandkids.

It's a giant ponzi scheme run by the government. And unless something is done to fix the problem those grandkids are not going to see any benefits regardless of how much they put in.

Maybe grandma & grandpa should be honest that they haven't paid for all of the benefits they're receiving and a little embarrassed about taking money their grandkids haven't even earned yet.

[CAA Flagship]

I just received my tax return for 2011 back from the IRS. It puzzles me!!!
They are questioning how many dependents I claimed.
I guess it was because of my response to the line : "List all dependents"
I replied: 12 million illegal immigrants; 3 million crack heads;
42 million unemployed people on food stamps, 2 million people in over 243 prisons;
Half of Mexico; and 535 persons in the U.S. House and Senate."

Evidently, this was NOT an acceptable answer.
I KEEP ASKING MYSELF, WHO THE HELL DID I MISS?

[AZGrizFan]

I just received my tax return for 2011 back from the IRS. It puzzles me!!!
They are questioning how many dependents I claimed.
I guess it was because of my response to the line : "List all dependents"
I replied: 12 million illegal immigrants; 3 million crack heads;
42 million unemployed people on food stamps, 2 million people in over 243 prisons;
Half of Mexico; and 535 persons in the U.S. House and Senate."

Evidently, this was NOT an acceptable answer.
I KEEP ASKING MYSELF, WHO THE HELL DID I MISS?

You missed Jose, my landscaper.

[CAA Flagship]

I just received my tax return for 2011 back from the IRS. It puzzles me!!!
They are questioning how many dependents I claimed.
I guess it was because of my response to the line : "List all dependents"
I replied: 12 million illegal immigrants; 3 million crack heads;
42 million unemployed people on food stamps, 2 million people in over 243 prisons;
Half of Mexico; and 535 persons in the U.S. House and Senate."

Evidently, this was NOT an acceptable answer.
I KEEP ASKING MYSELF, WHO THE HELL DID I MISS?

You missed Jose, my landscaper.

I thought he was in the "12 million illegal immigrants" category?

[AZGrizFan]

You missed Jose, my landscaper.

I thought he was in the "12 million illegal immigrants" category?

You miscounted. It's 12,000,001.

[CAA Flagship]

I thought he was in the "12 million illegal immigrants" category?

You miscounted. It's 12,000,001.

Ahh. Thanks.

[AZGrizFan]

You miscounted. It's 12,000,001.

Ahh. Thanks.

Send in Forms 8275, 1456A, 353, 2614C and an updated Schedule AA to get that mistake corrected, or else they'll soon start garnishing wages for the underpayment.

[YoUDeeMan]

I just received my tax return for 2011 back from the IRS. It puzzles me!!!
They are questioning how many dependents I claimed.
I guess it was because of my response to the line : "List all dependents"
I replied: 12 million illegal immigrants; 3 million crack heads;
42 million unemployed people on food stamps, 2 million people in over 243 prisons;
Half of Mexico; and 535 persons in the U.S. House and Senate."

Evidently, this was NOT an acceptable answer.
I KEEP ASKING MYSELF, WHO THE HELL DID I MISS?

[kalm]

I just received my tax return for 2011 back from the IRS. It puzzles me!!!
They are questioning how many dependents I claimed.
I guess it was because of my response to the line : "List all dependents"
I replied: 12 million illegal immigrants; 3 million crack heads;
42 million unemployed people on food stamps, 2 million people in over 243 prisons;
Half of Mexico; and 535 persons in the U.S. House and Senate."

Evidently, this was NOT an acceptable answer.
I KEEP ASKING MYSELF, WHO THE HELL DID I MISS?

You missed Jose, my landscaper.

Goldman Sachs
JP Morgan
Country Wide
Washington Mutual
AIG
Exxon
Honeywell
Dexia
Barclays
Deutche Bank
Credit Suisse
RBC
RBS

[SDHornet]

You missed Jose, my landscaper.

Goldman Sachs
JP Morgan
Country Wide
Washington Mutual
AIG
Exxon
Honeywell
Dexia
Barclays
Deutche Bank
Credit Suisse
RBC
RBS

Those don't count Kalm, they have skin in the game.

[kalm]

Goldman Sachs
JP Morgan
Country Wide
Washington Mutual
AIG
Exxon
Honeywell
Dexia
Barclays
Deutche Bank
Credit Suisse
RBC
RBS

Those don't count Kalm, they have skin in the game.

Oh. Sorry!

[JohnStOnge]

Hogwash. Some corporations pay a lower effective tax rate than others. Some corporations externalize their risks and costs on society via the government (see big oil and US military intervention or environmental costs) while others are not able to. Honeywell paid zero in taxes for a few years. So did Exxon mobile. They won their loopholes through lobbying and I guarantee you they feel entitled to them.

None of that contradicts what I wrote. "Allowing" an entity to keep its own money is not giving that entity something.

Especially when you're talking about corporations. People who earn income through those corporations pay income taxes whether the corporations pay "corporate income taxes" or not.

This thing of trying to equate "allowing" somebody to keep their own money to actually taking money from somebody else and giving it to "the poor" or something like that is total crap. It always has been and always will be.

Social Security may not be as bad as that but it's still bad. People who benefit from it, on average, get way more out of it than they put into it and not because the money was invested wisely. It's largely just an income transfer from the young to the old.

[OL FU]

I don't want zero corporate tax rates, but it would certainly be nice if we at least had a competitive rate

[kalm]

I don't want zero corporate tax rates, but it would certainly be nice if we at least had a competitive rate

We do. Our effective rate isn't anywhere close to the top of developed nations. It also used to represent nearly 40% of revenues. Now it's around 10.

[kalm]

Hogwash. Some corporations pay a lower effective tax rate than others. Some corporations externalize their risks and costs on society via the government (see big oil and US military intervention or environmental costs) while others are not able to. Honeywell paid zero in taxes for a few years. So did Exxon mobile. They won their loopholes through lobbying and I guarantee you they feel entitled to them.

None of that contradicts what I wrote. "Allowing" an entity to keep its own money is not giving that entity something.

Especially when you're talking about corporations. People who earn income through those corporations pay income taxes whether the corporations pay "corporate income taxes" or not.

This thing of trying to equate "allowing" somebody to keep their own money to actually taking money from somebody else and giving it to "the poor" or something like that is total crap. It always has been and always will be.

Social Security may not be as bad as that but it's still bad. People who benefit from it, on average, get way more out of it than they put into it and not because the money was invested wisely. It's largely just an income transfer from the young to the old.

Your problem is that you think "own money" = gross revenue. There's a price to be paid for having a business in the greatest country on earth, and nobody wants to pay it.

[OL FU]

I don't want zero corporate tax rates, but it would certainly be nice if we at least had a competitive rate

We do. Our effective rate isn't anywhere close to the top of developed nations. It also used to represent nearly 40% of revenues. Now it's around 10.

I guess we don't read the same papers. Our rates are not competitive. (1) Every corporations doesn't get the loopholes to lower taxes, get rid of the loopholes and lower the rates. (2) don't listen to Krugman, comparing corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP (1) doesn't meant the rates aren't higher and (2) is yanking a statistic out of nowhere and using it to make an argument that it doesn't fit.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

None of that contradicts what I wrote. "Allowing" an entity to keep its own money is not giving that entity something.

Especially when you're talking about corporations. People who earn income through those corporations pay income taxes whether the corporations pay "corporate income taxes" or not.

This thing of trying to equate "allowing" somebody to keep their own money to actually taking money from somebody else and giving it to "the poor" or something like that is total crap. It always has been and always will be.

Social Security may not be as bad as that but it's still bad. People who benefit from it, on average, get way more out of it than they put into it and not because the money was invested wisely. It's largely just an income transfer from the young to the old.

Your problem is that you think "own money" = gross revenue. There's a price to be paid for having a business in the greatest country on earth, and nobody wants to pay it.

Really??

I own a small business and pay a heck of a lot of taxes here in MN. The US has the highest corporate rate in the world at 39.2%. Plus all of the 'new' taxes individuals will receive come '13.

[kalm]

We do. Our effective rate isn't anywhere close to the top of developed nations. It also used to represent nearly 40% of revenues. Now it's around 10.

I guess we don't read the same papers. Our rates are not competitive. (1) Every corporations doesn't get the loopholes to lower taxes, get rid of the loopholes and lower the rates. (2) don't listen to Krugman, comparing corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP (1) doesn't meant the rates aren't higher and (2) is yanking a statistic out of nowhere and using it to make an argument that it doesn't fit.

I didn't get it from Krugman, it's how the OECD measures effective rate. Krugman probably got it from them. Regardless, what counts is the rate after loopholes. But I agree about leveling the play field.

The problem, in light of this discussion, is that corporate taxes used to represent a much higher percentage of the overall tax revenue. They have been reduced over the years. But so have other taxes. We somehow lose sight of the fact that you can't continually reduce taxes over a 50 year period and still pay the bills. And as is so often the case with people like a Paul Ryan who benefited from social security and his families fortune came from government rail contracts, it's now become a case of 'Ive got mine now screw you.'

Really, the only taxes that have gone up much are state and local taxes. But then again, states have to balance their budgets and they can't print money.

The bottom dwellers have spent foolishly, not saved, and have become dependent on government. The top have theirs and don't feel inclined to part with one more cent even though they'd never have gotten their on their own.

Selfish behavior on both houses.

Sorry for the JSO post.

[AZGrizFan]

None of that contradicts what I wrote. "Allowing" an entity to keep its own money is not giving that entity something.

Especially when you're talking about corporations. People who earn income through those corporations pay income taxes whether the corporations pay "corporate income taxes" or not.

This thing of trying to equate "allowing" somebody to keep their own money to actually taking money from somebody else and giving it to "the poor" or something like that is total crap. It always has been and always will be.

Social Security may not be as bad as that but it's still bad. People who benefit from it, on average, get way more out of it than they put into it and not because the money was invested wisely. It's largely just an income transfer from the young to the old.

Your problem is that you think "own money" = gross revenue. There's a price to be paid for having a business in the greatest country on earth, and nobody wants to pay it.

There's also a price to be paid for LIVING in the greatest country on earth, and 47% of the people DON'T pay it.

[kalm]

Your problem is that you think "own money" = gross revenue. There's a price to be paid for having a business in the greatest country on earth, and nobody wants to pay it.

There's also a price to be paid for LIVING in the greatest country on earth, and 47% of the people DON'T pay it.

Good point and you're starting to win me over here. Everyone needs skin in the game. But some need more skin than others.

[YoUDeeMan]

There's also a price to be paid for LIVING in the greatest country on earth, and 47% of the people DON'T pay it.

Good point and you're starting to win me over here. Everyone needs skin in the game. But some need more skin than others.

Skin to win, baby!

[AZGrizFan]

There's also a price to be paid for LIVING in the greatest country on earth, and 47% of the people DON'T pay it.

Good point and you're starting to win me over here. Everyone needs skin in the game. But some need more skin than others.

Some already HAVE more skin than others. The numbers vary from analyses to analyses, but in general: The top 1% pay 29% of the tax burden. The top 5% pay almost HALF the tax burden. The bottom 47% pay ZERO percent of the tax burden.

That looks like a VERY progressive tax rate system to me....

[kalm]

Good point and you're starting to win me over here. Everyone needs skin in the game. But some need more skin than others.

Some already HAVE more skin than others. The numbers vary from analyses to analyses, but in general: The top 1% pay 29% of the tax burden. The top 5% pay almost HALF the tax burden. The bottom 47% pay ZERO percent of the tax burden.

That looks like a VERY progressive tax rate system to me....

And those at the top have nothing to complain about. Their current tax rates have been extremely low for quite sometime compared to 20th century standards and their wealth has exploded exponentially. They've had a good run and their next 10 generations will have a good run. Channeling Cleets for a second, it's rather expensive to keep the serfs happy these days.