How to Reduce The National Debt Of The United States Without Cutting Benefits

[Loki]

I fail to see how you can talk about it being hard to get the numbers when corporate tax revenue as percentage of GDP take the tax-dodging into account.

Coincidentally, none of your links are to effective tax rates either, so perhaps you can flame yourself now?

[Aimless]

This tax-dodging by corporations, is it a problem in and of itself?

[Loki]

This tax-dodging by corporations, is it a problem in and of itself?

Considering that the US gets 5 times more money from personal income taxes, it's probably less of a problem than individuals tax-dodging.

[EyeKhan]

I fail to see how you can talk about it being hard to get the numbers when corporate tax revenue as percentage of GDP take the tax-dodging into account.

If you want to communicate, you ought to say something along the lines of: "Oh, this is actually a good indicator, because of this this and this... Why the hostility?

You are saying, I think, US companies pay more in taxes than Canada (and implying, at least that's the way it reads, the rest of the world) because they pay an amount equal to X% of the US GDP while Canadian companies pay Y% of Canada's GDP and X > Y. All you're saying is the proportion one pays of their own respective country's GDP that the company's pay is higher than the other, which says nothing about actual tax amounts paid by companies or actual nominal or effective tax rates in comparison to each other.

Coincidentally, none of your links are to effective tax rates either, so perhaps you can flame yourself now?

I think I alluded to that in my post. And I didn't flame you. Or at least I didn't intend that to be a flame.

Considering that the US gets 5 times more money from personal income taxes, it's probably less of a problem than individuals tax-dodging.

Um, couldn't that also indicate, on the surface at least, that corporations tax dodge a lot more than individuals?

[Loki]

Please explain to me how companies can pay more in taxes as a percentage of GDP while paying a lower tax rate. The only possible explanation would be if American corporations earned significantly more in income (as percentage of GDP) than Canada, which is unlikely to be the case.

You alluding to other people's flames and implying they were justified seems like flaming to me. As I recall, this is the second time you do it in the last few days, too.

[EyeKhan]

Please explain to me how companies can pay more in taxes as a percentage of GDP while paying a lower tax rate. The only possible explanation would be if American corporations earned significantly more in income (as percentage of GDP) than Canada, which is unlikely to be the case.

But certainly possible and you won't know for sure unless you look at a better indicator.

You alluding to other people's flames and implying they were justified seems like flaming to me. As I recall, this is the second time you do it in the last few days, too.

Well, it was meant to be chiding and seeing that it didn't come across that way, I apologize. Also, tbh, you do often post very brief things, coupled with links, and don't offer any explanation of what your argument is or how you got there or what's in the link or how it supports your assertions. Can you see how that might be inadequate, especially when you're having a discussion with lay-people?

EDIT: Also, IMO the tone and content of the attacks, and the overall baiting, by you know who were not justified or accpetable behavior. I had no intention of saying they were.

[Loki]

You really have no grounds for attacking the indicator I used as long as you don't provide a better one. I don't exactly have hours to find a perfect proxy you know. Accusing me of dishonesty over it is ridiculous considering that my indicator was far better than yours.

[EyeKhan]

You really have no grounds for attacking the indicator I used as long as you don't provide a better one. I don't exactly have hours to find a perfect proxy you know. Accusing me of dishonesty over it is ridiculous considering that my indicator was far better than yours.

What the fuck. So anything you say goes as long as I don't provide something I think is better. Okayyyyy...... that's interesting logic. How about this, let's just not discuss this anymore. I'll agree not to try to talk reasonably to you about the subject anymore and you agree to go your grumpy way and be unapolgetically pissy with someone else. Done. Everyone's happy.

[Loki]

Edit: Doesn't matter. Can we just get back on topic?

[LittleFuzzy]

You are saying, I think, US companies pay more in taxes than Canada (and implying, at least that's the way it reads, the rest of the world) because they pay an amount equal to X% of the US GDP while Canadian companies pay Y% of Canada's GDP and X > Y. All you're saying is the proportion one pays of their own respective country's GDP that the company's pay is higher than the other, which says nothing about actual tax amounts paid by companies or actual nominal or effective tax rates in comparison to each other.

Uh. . . tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is a fairly reasonable proxy and probably more useful when talking about countries as a whole *particularly in a comparative manner* than effective tax rates which can vary from industry to industry depending on the loopholes. Certainly vastly better than ANYTHING nominal. Just what is it you think the statistic would mask?

[EyeKhan]

Uh. . . tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is a fairly reasonable proxy and probably more useful when talking about countries as a whole *particularly in a comparative manner* than effective tax rates which can vary from industry to industry depending on the loopholes. Certainly vastly better than ANYTHING nominal. Just what is it you think the statistic would mask?

Hmmm..... I presume we are defining the GDP as the total economic output of all the companies? There's nothing else in there that might very from country to country? Like sovereign wealth funds or something weird like that that might add to the GDP but arn't taxed? And if so, then if all corporations collectively pay a certain % of that value then its pretty much apples to apples even though the GDPs are different? Is that it?

[Dreadnaught]

See above vis a vis Dread's inane argument. And why do you need evidence when you've already agreed that yeah there's a lot of fat that can come out? Is this a pissing contest of trivia for you or can we get on with the discussion topic at hand agreeing that yeah, there's a lot of money that can come out of the defense budget? Or would you rather argue what weapons programs can be cancelled or mothballed, how many ships of what class can be mothballed, how many strategic bombers can be mothballed, etc etc ad nauseum? Frankly, I'm not interested in doing the research, but feel free to make a thread about it.

I didn't really put forward a particularly detailed argument. Can we refrain from the attitude?

What argument were you talking about?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't taxation in the USA at the lowest level ever, but still no one dares to increase it, afraid to lose votes? I mean, I can understand being against high taxes, but if you want a functioning government, and your entitlements, you're going to have to pay for it somehow.

That said, I'm not against (gradually) increasing pension age. Life expectancy and life quality, and the nature of employment have all changed a lot, it doesn't hurt to acknowledge that (and hell, even the labour unions here agree with that).

As Loki pointed out, our many of our tax rates aren't that low. Though we also don't have the "tax culture" you get in places like Greece and Italy (which have higher rates, but no one pays).

That said, our federal tax rates have come down a lot in the past two decades. But many local taxes have gone up. More importantly, government spending and future funding obligations for Social Security and Medicare (our pension and medical funding systems) haven't changed in any significant way. Bush pushed to shift future elderly pension contributions into tax-protected savings/stock accounts. The goal was to ensure that the government didn't have a set-in-stone obligation to pay people specific amounts, but rather to incentivize people to save and let the actual payouts "float" a bit. The plan failed. I didn't like the idea much then, but in retrospect it was a very viable option.

[EyeKhan]

I didn't really put forward a particularly detailed argument. Can we refrain from the attitude?

What argument were you talking about?

Nevermind. I don't even remember what the hell it was all about. I think somewhere in there I recanted the attitude already

[Aimless]

That said, our federal tax rates have come down a lot in the past two decades. But many local taxes have gone up. More importantly, government spending and future funding obligations for Social Security and Medicare (our pension and medical funding systems) haven't changed in any significant way.

Er, how has your corporate tax revenue changed in the past two decades? Or just the past decade?

[Dreadnaught]

I believe our corporate tax rates were last significantly lowered in the 1980s, and personal income taxes have fluctuated a bit (went up a bit for some in the 1990s, wend down in the early 2000s).

I was speaking more broadly about our federal tax rates (corporate, income, etc.).