US Tax Rates

[Michael]

US Tax Rates

There's always lots of misinformation out there about taxes.

Here's two graphs to show that, comparatively speaking, US tax rates are among the lowest in the world.

John McCain famously (and foolishly) pointed to Ireland's official corporate tax rate as something the US should copy. No one told McCain that Ireland's official corporate tax rates takes in more money in taxes than the 'higher' US corporate tax rate due to the 'millions' of deductions and loopholes available in the US tax system.

These graphs should also dispel the absurd notion that Obama has shifted the USA over into socialism - according to these charts, the US would have to double government spending to get even close to that goal.

Please feel free to use this thread for any general discussion of tax issues in the USA.

[SMadsen]

I didn't know there is a specific tax rate denoting a treshold to socialism? Neither Denmark nor Sweden are socialist countries. They're just fond of welfare.

[Michael]

I didn't know there is a specific tax rate denoting a treshold to socialism? Neither Denmark nor Sweden are socialist countries. They're just fond of welfare.

Welfare is a fundamentally socialist policy by definition.

As for the specific tax rate, suffice it to say that there is some logic there - one can't run a bunch of socialist-redistributionist schemes with only 25% of GDP tax levels. Pure socialism would represent a 100% proportion of the economy.

In this respect, Denmark and Sweden are more than halfway there.

[SMadsen]

Welfare is egalitarian policy. Collective ownership of means of production is socialist policy. Sweden and Denmark are committed to the first but oblivious to the latter.

[Michael]

Welfare is egalitarian policy. Collective ownership of means of production is socialist policy. Sweden and Denmark are committed to the first but oblivious to the latter.

Which is why they are only (roughly) 60% socialist and not 100% socialist. ;)

By the same token, the USA is only about 35% socialist at the moment.

Btw, the reason production itself isn't socialized is probably because that's essentially impossible. There is no such thing as a "socialist mode of production" (a topic I've raised dozens of times).

[SMadsen]

Which is why they are only (roughly) 60% socialist and not 100% socialist. ;)

By the same token, the USA is only about 35% socialist at the moment.
So if I have black hair I'm almost Chinese?

Or more to the point, can't different ideologies share common traits and still be different ideologies?

Btw, the reason production itself isn't socialized is probably because that's essentially impossible. There is no such thing as a "socialist mode of production" (a topic I've raised dozens of times).
Oh, I agree that such a thing isn't possible. However, pertaining to this case, perhaps the reason production itself isn't socialized is because they don't intend to be socialist countries.

[Michael]

So if I have black hair I'm almost Chinese?

If and only if black hair was a unique genetic marker of Chinese (which it isn't).

Or more to the point, can't different ideologies share common traits and still be different ideologies?
Sure, they do it all the time.

But what one is really doing here is mixing up "political ideologies" and "socio-economic systems".

Oh, I agree that such a thing isn't possible. However, pertaining to this case, perhaps the reason production itself isn't socialized is because they don't intend to be socialist countries.

I consider that point moot. They can't have socialist production even if they wanted it because it doesn't exist.

On that basis, whether one wants it or not is entirely irrelevant.

[SMadsen]

I consider that point moot. They can't have socialist production even if they wanted it because it doesn't exist.

On that basis, whether one wants it or not is entirely irrelevant.
Whether or not a country aims to be socialist seems to me the only relevant point to whether a country is socialist or not.

I don't claim not to be an anarchist just because anarchism is impossible (yeah, Dominick, it is :) ). I claim not to be an anarchist because, well, I'm not. I don't agree with the tenets of anarchism.

[Americano]

US Tax Rates

There's always lots of misinformation out there about taxes.

Here's two graphs to show that, comparatively speaking, US tax rates are among the lowest in the world.

John McCain famously (and foolishly) pointed to Ireland's official corporate tax rate as something the US should copy. No one told McCain that Ireland's official corporate tax rates takes in more money in taxes than the 'higher' US corporate tax rate due to the 'millions' of deductions and loopholes available in the US tax system.

"Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress."

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=5561455

Has to be much higher now considering the economic decline.

These graphs should also dispel the absurd notion that Obama has shifted the USA over into socialism - according to these charts, the US would have to double government spending to get even close to that goal.

Please feel free to use this thread for any general discussion of tax issues in the USA.

Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress.

[Michael]

Whether or not a country aims to be socialist seems to me the only relevant point to whether a country is socialist or not.
East Germany used to describe itself as a democracy (German Democratic Republic).

You are saying that this is the only relevant measure of political reality? I beg to differ.

I don't claim not to be an anarchist just because anarchism is impossible (yeah, Dominick, it is :) ). I claim not to be an anarchist because, well, I'm not. I don't agree with the tenets of anarchism.
This argument just isn't persuasive.

Besides which, projecting a "single-mind" to a nation is absurd. I'm just reading tax data - you are projecting knowledge of motives and goals for millions of people.

[Dominick]

I don't claim not to be an anarchist just because anarchism is impossible (yeah, Dominick, it is :) ).
10 infraction points for trolling :mad:






JK ;)

[Americano]

10 infraction points for trolling :mad:






JK ;)

I guess we should all be thankful you're not a fundie.

[SMadsen]

East Germany used to describe itself as a democracy (German Democratic Republic).

You are saying that this is the only relevant measure of political reality? I beg to differ.
So do I, come to think it. But it's not irrelevant.


This argument just isn't persuasive.

Besides which, projecting a "single-mind" to a nation is absurd. I'm just reading tax data - you are projecting knowledge of motives and goals for millions of people.
And you're projecting a single trait unto an entire ideology. Heck, capitalism needs a fair amount of egalitarian principles (otherwise the methods would ultimately turn from dealing to stealing and thus kill the free markets) but it doesn't make it socialistic.

We are a liberal democracy (and so is Sweden). To North Americans that would most probably mean social liberalism and, sure, it makes sense to denote it as such, given the distortion of the generic liberal label that has grown out of the strong bipolarity in USA. Therefore it can also be said we are a social democracy but that still doesn't replace the liberalistic foundation with a socialistic foundation. It's the assertion that liberalism and socialism are synonymous that's at fault here, not either ideology.

You're absolutely right that what Obama is doing (or would like to do) has nothing to do with socialism but I don't think it can be reflected by tax rates, since the rates you would be referring to are the high rates and those rates belong to liberalistic countries, not socialist countries. That was my simple point.

[SMadsen]

10 infraction points for trolling :mad:






JK ;)
Well, you know I couldn't help it :)

[Michael]

And you're projecting a single trait unto an entire ideology.
No, I'm correctly applying a technical term of political philosophy to real world data.

Heck, capitalism needs a fair amount of egalitarian principles (otherwise the methods would ultimately turn from dealing to stealing and thus kill the free markets) but it doesn't make it socialistic.
It could, but we generally use liberalism instead.

We are a liberal democracy (and so is Sweden).
Yes, that's the general term that applies to the structure of your political system. It is the same term that applies to the structure of the US political system (strictly technical definitions here pertaining to political structures/institutions). This is entirely different than the relative makeup of ideological policies pursued by any given Government.

Denmark, France and USA are all "liberal democracies". They are certainly not identical states. Although they have much in common, there is much that is different between them. Your terms tend to hide these differences - my terms reveal them.

To North Americans that would most probably mean social liberalism and, sure, it makes sense to denote it as such, given the distortion of the generic liberal label that has grown out of the strong bipolarity in USA.
The bastardization of political terms in the USA long predates the rise of 'bipolarity' in the US Congress.

They bastardized "whig" back in the 19th century (for example).

Therefore it can also be said we are a social democracy but that still doesn't replace the liberalistic foundation with a socialistic foundation. It's the assertion that liberalism and socialism are synonymous that's at fault here, not either ideology.
It would appear that you are the one blending liberalism and socialism here. I'm trying to keep the terms separate.

Let me make a couple of points clear here:

1. Government funded welfare policy is a socialist policy.
2. Government funded old age pensions is a socialist policy.
3. Government funding of maternity leave is a socialist policy.

The key characteristic here is the redistribution of wealth. That is ALWAYS a socialist concept that is at the very core of socialist theory.

Liberalism is predicated upon liberty and individual responsibility. There is nothing even remotely 'liberal' about redistribution of wealth. Liberalism is generally quite pragmatic and thus, individual liberals may support various socialist policies, but that doesn't make wealth redistribution a liberal policy.

4. Central banks are a liberal policy.
5. Workplace health and safety regulations are a liberal policy.
6. Laws against child labor are a liberal policy.

That is to say, it is a fundamental liberal policy that unregulated capitalism is dangerous to the liberty of the individual - and as such, regulations and/or limitations upon capital can be justified may be desirable.

A nation with zero tax rate would effectively be an anarchic-capitalist state. A nation with 100% tax rate would effectively be a socialist totalitarian state.
All modern states are somewhere in between.

No modern state is entirely capitalistic, nor is any modern state entirely socialist. All modern states involve a combination to some degree. Thus, it is my habit to describe all modern states in terms of the composition of their socio-economic system.

In this respect, Denmark and Sweden have MORE socialist elements than the USA - as evidenced by the comparative tax rates.

You're absolutely right that what Obama is doing (or would like to do) has nothing to do with socialism but I don't think it can be reflected by tax rates, since the rates you would be referring to are the high rates and those rates belong to liberalistic countries, not socialist countries. That was my simple point.
Well, a universal government funded healthcare would be yet another socialist policy and Obama appears to support/favor that policy initiative.

Fact is, even with a universal healthcare initiative, the USA would still have less socialist elements than Denmark or Sweden (for example).

But the USA certainly does contain a large amount of socialist policies in my analysis. This is not a judgemental or subjective distinction - this is a technocratic observation.

[Dominick]

Capitalism does as much if not more redistribution of wealth as socialism. It's only the direction that is opposite. Its very definition even implies it; it's not the value of her work that the worker gets but an amount that is necessarily less than that (otherwise capitalism just wouldn't work). Therefore the redistribution of wealth in the case of capitalism is away from the poor towards the rich by definition.

I find it almost hilarious that this direction of redistribution gets completely ignored in most argumentation about it. It's as if its proponents consider it a natural state; i.e. that some are born entitled to this upward stream. Which is not really sursprising as capitalism is the middle class inheritor of the more blatant rip-off that monarchies and institutionalized churches imposed upon the general population.

Also, I find it a Orwellian rewriting of history and a most distressing travesty of reality to claim child labour laws for capitalism or at least its liberal foundation when it were capitalists that had to be forced by violence to accept them historically and even more so when capitalists are exploiting tens of millions of children today.

[Americano]

Also, I find it a Orwellian rewriting of history and a most distressing travesty of reality to claim child labour laws for capitalism or at least its liberal foundation when it were capitalists that had to be forced by violence to accept them historically and even more so when capitalists are exploiting tens of millions of children today.

Wages have a far lower direct cost than ownership. Direct ownership is now limited to mostly lawless areas. There has been social progression.

[Michael]

Capitalism does as much if not more redistribution of wealth as socialism. It's only the direction that is opposite. Its very definition even implies it; it's not the value of her work that the worker gets but an amount that is necessarily less than that (otherwise capitalism just wouldn't work). Therefore the redistribution of wealth in the case of capitalism is away from the poor towards the rich by definition.
No. The capitalist mode of production creates wealth. Wealth is "distributed" up to the capitalist-owner, and "wages" are distributed to the workers. That is "distribution". Re-distribution involves adding another step to move the wealth around.

In a 'true' socialist system, fully implemented, there would be no 'redistribution' because the wealth would be 'distributed' directly to the state or collective ownership. Wages of course would still be 'distributed' to the workers.

It is important to note here that 'wealth' that accrues to the capitalist in the process is not something that is 'appropriated' from the wage-labor. It is a product of the process. It is not something that was ever in the hands of the laborer. The value of any given commodity is not the intrinsic value of the labor used to produce it (which is classical Marxist dogma). The value of any given commodity is its market value alone - and that is where the real wealth is actually created - in the transaction of trade, not in the labor of production.

I find it almost hilarious that this direction of redistribution gets completely ignored in most argumentation about it. It's as if its proponents consider it a natural state; i.e. that some are born entitled to this upward stream. Which is not really sursprising as capitalism is the middle class inheritor of the more blatant rip-off that monarchies and institutionalized churches imposed upon the general population.
None are born entitled to this 'upward stream'. The 'upward stream' is a function of the human need for leadership and thus, is in fact, natural to human society.

Without the organization provided by leadership, humans are just naked apes. It takes leadership for us to live in skyscrapers, drive cars and listen to symphony music on ipods.

I'd say that 'leadership and organization' is integral to human society. It has always been and likely always will be.

Also, I find it a Orwellian rewriting of history and a most distressing travesty of reality to claim child labour laws for capitalism or at least its liberal foundation when it were capitalists that had to be forced by violence to accept them historically and even more so when capitalists are exploiting tens of millions of children today.
Capitalism and liberalism are totally different things that have no theoretical connection to each other.

Capitalism originates with a process that began with traders in ancient Athens, and was essentially established by the Northern Italians in the 13th-15th century. The system was fully operational under the Dutch and English in the 16th century and achieved economic and political dominance in the 17th century.

Liberalism originates in the 17th century (in many ways a reaction to rise of capitalism) and doesn't gain much power/influence until the 18th & 19th century.

Capitalism is an economic process and liberalism is a political idea. They are entirely distinct.

(socialism or fascism are the 'opposites' to liberalism as political ideas).

Thus, by the logic of capitalism, it is entirely reasonable and rational to employ children in horrific conditions. This is why liberalism postulates regulations on the operation of capitalism.

I will retract the assertion that classical liberalism is the origin of regulations upon capitalism - that honor belongs to religion and/or feudal-aristocratic landowners.

But my primary point here is that classical liberalism is the oldest and most successful form of regulating capitalism. Religion & feudal landowners have always tried but has mostly failed to regulate capitalism. Socialist reformers come very late to this party - virtually unknown before the 18th century.

[Greendruid]

Without the organization provided by leadership, humans are just naked apes. It takes leadership for us to live in skyscrapers, drive cars and listen to symphony music on ipods.

I'd say that 'leadership and organization' is integral to human society. It has always been and likely always will be.

I would agree with this to a certain extent. I would qualify Michael's statement on leadership producing the means to live in skyscrapers, drive cars, etc. by saying that it is a particular mode of leadership that allows these things. Some leadership can force the society to level the playing field, such as that found in cultures that are essentially egalitarian. These are few and far between and are eroding each day as capitalism promises something different and/or as expansionism forces something different. We see with many of the North American west coast tribes that the ceremony of the potlatch was a culturally enforced and recognised way of destroying wealth so that differences between people could not develop. Similarly, hunter and gatherer groups (of which there are very many but representing a small percentage of the human population) use leadership to promote equality in the group and never formalise their roles of leadership. They are always part time, opportunistic roles.

This brings up another point alluded to about the fact that H&G groups are indeed many but small in number. Any human group that uses this type of organisation is bound to be small. It cannot exist with egalitarian values in large numbers - or perhaps it is better to say, it's never been seen. This is where I have to strongly agree with Michael in saying that in order to achieve excess wealth and, seemingly, technological advancement, any human group that has done this holds to a pattern of central leadership.

A point to counter this all though and give props to Dominick's position. Humans were hunters and gatherers for 99% of human history. We may again see a return to this as our current economic system and societal organisation comes against the wall of environmental unsustainability. H&G, I would have to argue, is the natural state of subsistence and these systems always start out as egalitarian organisational systems. They don't always end there of course - many examples of chiefdoms and tribes that have hierarchical leadership.

[Michael]

Just a little chart outlining Obama Administration fiscal fantasies...

Does anyone think that Obama is going to get his deficit cut in half by fiscal 2012?

I could fill this whole thread with politicans who made (and failed to keep) this promise. G.W. Bush was the most recent one.

A second point to keep in mind is that an political leader who raises government spending NEVER achieves a balanced budget.

*NOTE: Clinton's apparent success at a balanced budget had ZERO input from Clinton's Administration - fiscal 2000 was balanced, but only due to windfall tax payments on capital gains from the dot-com stock bubble. And of course, Clinton didn't promise to do this.

Likewise with Canada's successful budget-balancing under Chretien-Martin. No promise was made to balance the budget.

I conclude that people who promise to balance the budget never do so and the only people who have ever succeeded in actually doing it, never promise to do it.

Obama is on the wrong side of all of these. And please note that even after four years of projected massive budget cutting, the US fiscal deficit will still be some 50% higher than most economists consider the high-end of reasonable (3% of GDP maximum).

Fact is, given US fiscal position, I'd have to say that I'm totally against the US adopting a universal healthcare policy at this time. The USA desperately needs that policy, but the US government and US political leaders are just too irresponsible to handle that.

[Americano]

It's the what has become normal position of cutting government spending meaning reduced GDP and increased unemployment. The US is currently running a GDP that's in negative territory (-6% annualized according to commonly cooked to a positive flavor government numbers). Further weakening of that number will adversely affect consumer confidence and equally important treasury bond sales.

I don't agree with maintaining that facade, IMO let the chips fall where they may and bite the bullet now rather than incurring additional debt and prolonging the inevitable.

[Michael]

Btw, China just announced that the yuan can be used for paying for exports/imports from China. Because of this, China has reduced their purchases of US Treasuries.

The Chinese are doing what they need to do to deal with the massive current and future deterioration in the quality of the USD. The Chinese are cutting loose.

[Americano]

Btw, China just announced that the yuan can be used for paying for exports/imports from China. Because of this, China has reduced their purchases of US Treasuries.

The Chinese are doing what they need to do to deal with the massive current and future deterioration in the quality of the USD. The Chinese are cutting loose.

USD lost another 14% to the Euro in just the past year, with IMO much more to come.