• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ap survey: Us income gap is holding back economy

Can you tell me how that was a "non-answer"? Because im 10% positive i answered to your rebuttal.

ah, no. what you cited was a copy paste that in no way addressed anything I had said, whatsoever. I pointed out that the metric you were using (the minimum wage) did not demonstrate the point you were trying to make, and your response was to define inflation.
 
Once you begin legislating buying and selling, the first things bought and sold will be legislators.

As for "big business"... not always. Wal-Mart, for example, pays pretty damn close to the nominal tax rate. For some reason, people forget that when they excoriate her for daring to offer jobs to those in our populace who most need them.

Remember a lot of corporations bay little to none US taxes.
Large companies find ways to a zero tax rate
"A surprising number of companies in the Standard & Poor's 500, 57, have found ways to pay effective tax rates of zero, according to a USA TODAY analysis of data from S&P Capital IQ.
The news comes months after after the Government Accountability Office released a report showing that companies in 2010 reported an average effective tax rate of 12.6%, well below the 35% federal corporate tax rate.
Corporate giants such as telecom firm Verizon, drugmaker Bristol-Myers Squibb and power management firm Eaton, all reported effective tax rates of 0% during the past 12 months. The findings underscore that while many companies bellyache about the top federal income tax rate of 35%, in reality, many pay much less than that, says Nick Yee of Gradient Analytics. "Investors hope company management is doing everything they can to generate profit, legally," he says. "But the tax code is gray, and there's often no set guidance."

10 U.S. companies paying the least

26 Major Corporations Paid No Taxes For The Last Four Years
" 26 of the 30 companies continued to enjoy negative federal income tax rates. That means they still made more money after tax than before tax over the four years!
– Of the remaining four companies, three paid four year effective tax rates of less than 4 percent
(specifically, 0.2%, 2.0% and 3.8%). One company paid a 2008-11 tax rate of 10.9 percent.
– In total, 2008-11 federal income taxes for the 30 companies remained negative, despite $205 billion in pretax U.S. profits. Overall, they enjoyed an average effective federal income tax rate of –3.1 percent over the four years.
Amongst the 30 are corporate titans such as General Electric, Boeing, Verizon, and Mattel. The only four companies that slipped into positive tax territory were DTE Energy, Honeywell, Wells Fargo, and DuPont, with DuPont the only one that paid more than 4 percent over the four years.

Bernie Sanders Is Right and the Tax Foundation Is Wrong: The U.S. Has Very Low Corporate Income Taxes | CTJReports
"ata from the Organizations for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) show that the OECD countries other than the U.S. collected corporate tax revenue equal to 2.8 percent of their combined GDPs in 2010. This is another way of saying that the weighted average of corporate tax collected as a percentage of GDP for the countries that are the U.S.’s main trading partners and competitors was 2.8 percent in 2010. (2010 is the most recent year for which the OECD has complete data."

18 Of America's Biggest Companies Using Tax Havens To Skirt $92 Billion In U.S. Taxes: CTJ
"At least 18 companies, including Nike, Microsoft and Apple, are stashing profits in offshore tax havens likely in a bid to avoid paying taxes, according to a new report from the Citizens for Tax Justice, a left-leaning research group. If the companies brought that money home, they would pay combined more than $92 billion in U.S. taxes, the report found."

10 Big Companies That Pay No Taxes (and Their Favorite Politicians) | Mother Jones
"Verizon Communications
Profits: $19.8 billion Effective tax rate: -3.8%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
President Barack Obama: $51,493
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.): $24,450
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.): $23,700
Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio): $22,500
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.): $15,000

General Electric
Profits: $19.6 billion Effective tax rate: -18.9%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
Mitt Romney: $53,750
President Barack Obama (D): $30,493
Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.): $23,900
Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.): $21,860
Rep. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.): $19,750

Boeing
Profits: $14.8 billion Effective tax rate: -5.5%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.): $31,750
Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.): $25,000
Former Sen. George Allen (R-Va.): $23,500
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.): $23,125
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas): $20,986

NextEra Energy: North America's largest solar and wind power operator, based in Florida
Profits: $8.8 billion Effective tax rate: -2%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
George LeMieux (R-Fla.): $9,500
Mike Haridopolos (R-Fla.): $4,800
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.): $2,000
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas): $2,000
Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.): $2,000

American Electric Power: Electric utility based in Columbus, Ohio
Profits: $8.2 billion Effective tax rate: -6.4%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio): $34,750
Rep. Steve Stivers (R-Ohio): $34,050
Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio): $21,700
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.): $19,750
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio): $18,450

Pacific Gas & Electric: California electrical utility
Profits: $6 billion Effective tax rate: -8.4%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
President Barack Obama (D): $6,250
Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.): $5,000
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.): $5,500
Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.): $5,000
Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.): $3,500

Apache: Houston-based oil and gas company
Profits: $6 billion Effective tax rate: -0.3%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
David Dewhurst (R-Texas): $25,000
Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.): $5,000
Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.): $2,500
Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas): $2,500
Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas): $2,500
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.): $2,500
Brendan Doherty (R-R.I.): $2,500

Consolidated Edison: New York energy company
Profits: $5.9 billion Effective tax rate: -1.3%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.): $15,050
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.): $8,000
Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.): $6,650
Then-Rep. David Wu (D-Ore.): $2,500
Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.): $1,500
Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.): $1,500
Rep. Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.): $1,500

El Paso: Houston-based energy company that operates the country's largest natural gas pipeline
Profits: $4.6 billion Effective tax rate: -0.9%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
David Dewhurst (R-Texas): $7,500
Mitt Romney (R): $5,000
Rep. John Barrow (D-Ga.): $3,000
Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.): $2,750
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.): $2,500
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.): $2,500
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.): $2,500
Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas): $2,500
Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.): $2,500
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.): $2,500

CenterPoint Energy: Electric and gas utility company based in Houston
Profits: $3.1 billion Effective tax rate: -11.3%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
David Dewhurst (R-Texas): $22,050
Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas): $13,458
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.): $10,299
Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.): $7,000
Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas): $4,000"

Companies Paying the Least in Taxes - Yahoo Finance



This is also a historical trend:
Most Companies Pay No Federal Income Tax - CBS News
"Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress.
The study by the Government Accountability Office, expected to be released Tuesday, said about 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the U.S. avoided corporate taxes over the same period."
 
ah, no. what you cited was a copy paste that in no way addressed anything I had said, whatsoever. I pointed out that the metric you were using (the minimum wage) did not demonstrate the point you were trying to make, and your response was to define inflation.

It in fact did demonstrate the the point, hence what i pasted proved that point.
 
ah, no. what you cited was a copy paste that in no way addressed anything I had said, whatsoever. I pointed out that the metric you were using (the minimum wage) did not demonstrate the point you were trying to make, and your response was to define inflation.



I have no metric to offer, but will say--going down memory lane--that when wages were $1.60 an hour, $1.00 bought a lot of stuff.....$7.50 buys practically nothing...
 
Free markets are not causing this disparity. Federal Reserve policy is, as is corporatism.
 
"Ap survey: Us income gap is holding back economy"

I'm not sure a survey is the way to measure this sort of thing but a better argument can be made for the bad economy contributing to the U.S. income gap. Economics works on a supply and demand basis. When businesses have to compete for employees, personal incomes rise. When they are flooded with applicants, personal incomes fall.
 
So you are saying the University of Santa Cruz is lying or were the numbers off by 10? Fact is we had a population of around 110 million in 1920 and have a population around 310 million or so in 2010. The wealth distribution charge is almost the same with the top 1% having about 36% of the wealth in both times. Except that top 1% is nearly 2 million more families today - then in 1920.

I did. And didnt get those #'s.
 
Read more @: AP survey: US income gap is holding back economy

No surprise here. Seems that this trickle down economic theory isnt working at all, also not a surprise.

Our government is holding back economy...

The reason why capitalism isn't working is because we have blatant socialists running our government and they're doing their absolute best to destroy "capitalism" and that creates crony capitalism.

The best part is that these progressives you, other socialists and progressives in general adore are some of the most rich - elitist - assclowns on the planet... They spend everyone elses money just because they're so mentally defected they need to feel needed and could care less if they destroy the economy in the process just as long as they can continue to be aristocrats.

These clowns have their loafers on your head while you lick them clean all for a few bucks of free money that was stolen and redistributed to you... Of course you're absolutely content with that.

That's not even an economic model printing money, pumping unions and creating a false demand for products such as "green cars" and "green energy"... That's called neglecting basic principals of capitalism and using taxpayer dollars to pander to your special interest groups that got you elected in the first place - unions are on the government dole to boot and they are juicing the community reinvestment act. They just tore a road up they built (it took 3-years to boot) down the street from me. They laid concrete and now are ripping it up - the best part was there was nothing wrong with the road to begin with. Meanwhile businesses along that stretch of construction are suffering because the traffic is so horrible, why? because unions needed something to do and unions were Obama's voting base.
 
Last edited:
Our government is holding back economy...

The reason why capitalism isn't working is because we have blatant socialists running our government and they're doing their absolute best to destroy "capitalism" and that creates crony capitalism.

The best part is that these progressives you, other socialists and progressives in general adore are some of the most rich - elitist - assclowns on the planet... They spend everyone elses money just because they're so mentally defected they need to feel needed and could care less if they destroy the economy in the process just as long as they can continue to be aristocrats.

These clowns have their loafers on your head while you lick them clean all for a few bucks of free money that was stolen and redistributed to you... Of course you're absolutely content with that.

That's not even an economic model printing money, pumping unions and creating a false demand for products such as "green cars" and "green energy"... That's called neglecting basic principals of capitalism and using taxpayer dollars to pander to your special interest groups that got you elected in the first place - unions are on the government dole to boot and they are juicing the community reinvestment act. They just tore a road up they built (it took 3-years to boot) down the street from me. They laid concrete and now are ripping it up - the best part was there was nothing wrong with the road to begin with. Meanwhile businesses along that stretch of construction are suffering because the traffic is so horrible, why? because unions needed something to do and unions were Obama's voting base.

Capitalism is working just fine as it always has. I do agree, though, that the government is a negative influence on the economy.
 
It in fact did demonstrate the the point, hence what i pasted proved that point.

Okay. How in the world does minimum wage serve as a stand in for the vast majority of wages?

Because both the CBO and the Census Bureau says that wages increased. And your only counterpoint thus far is that in real terms minimum wage is not currently at its' peak. So you better have one helluva tie over that the CBO and Census Bureau both missed.
 
Capitalism is working just fine as it always has. I do agree, though, that the government is a negative influence on the economy.

With government influence we have crony capitalism....

We don't have anything that resembles true free market ideas...

Our government has their hands in just about everything - hell, look at "quantitative easing" er in short - printing money.

Our economy sucks because half of our economy is basically backdoor socialism (printing money to redistribute) and the other half is free market that our government still plays a strong role in through regulation and taxation..

It's only this way because progressives cant grasp the concept of supply and demand, that or they will believe because a commune can survive under a socialist model or even a small country that a nation of 300 million can when both Russia/USSR and China proved otherwise... Also, we have to remember that the United States "capitalism" at least before progressives really pushed their mixed economy idea - funded many small socialist nations due to our purchasing/buying power as consumers and investors.
 
:shrug: It is double taxation, at the nominal rate of 50%. Now, we may say that we want double taxation, or that we want to discourage the dispersal of dividends (in favor, for example, of reinvestment), or that we think it is a good policy for whatever set of reasons, but it is our policy.

Either you do not understand how corporations are treated (as a separate entity) or you don't understand how taxes are levied. Either way, there is no double taxation. I'm not sure why this falsehood continues to exist in America regarding corporations.
 
With government influence we have crony capitalism....
Why are you going to extremes? Without the government there is no capitalism. Sure, they'll be trade, but what we call capitalism cannot exist without some body regulating the system.

We don't have anything that resembles true free market ideas...
Please give us example of the successes of true free markets. I don't believe that is a workable system based on human history.

Our economy sucks because half of our economy is basically backdoor socialism (printing money to redistribute) and the other half is free market that our government still plays a strong role in through regulation and taxation..
I agree. The socialism that's the biggest problem is the payout to the military industrial complex, the massively bloated prison system and massive tax breaks to those at the top.

It's only this way because progressives cant grasp the concept of supply and demand, that or they will believe because a commune can survive under a socialist model or even a small country that a nation of 300 million can when both Russia/USSR and China proved otherwise... Also, we have to remember that the United States "capitalism" at least before progressives really pushed their mixed economy idea - funded many small socialist nations due to our purchasing/buying power as consumers and investors.
You do understand that both supply and demand become progressively suppressed as the growing income inequality increases, right?
 
Why are you going to extremes? Without the government there is no capitalism. Sure, they'll be trade, but what we call capitalism cannot exist without some body regulating the system.


Please give us example of the successes of true free markets. I don't believe that is a workable system based on human history.


I agree. The socialism that's the biggest problem is the payout to the military industrial complex, the massively bloated prison system and massive tax breaks to those at the top.


You do understand that both supply and demand become progressively suppressed as the growing income inequality increases, right?

You see the bolded?

The fundamental problem with progressives is that they believe nothing can exist without government intervention.

Yes capitalism exists without government dictation - government IS an economic model dictated by government - an economic model that has absolutely no ties to resources...

Socialism is nothing more than monopoly money and when the resources get thin they start kicking people out of the country (culls) or let them starve...

Capitalism is called "free market" for a reason - because capitalism doesn't need government dictation to work - government dictation, regulation and taxation only hinder (or stunt/hold back) capitalism...
 
The income gap has nothing to do with "trickle down" theory. It has everything to do with the government subsidizing unproductive behavior.

When you take a low income individual and subsidize their lifestyle it first makes becoming more productive more difficult for the individual and then makes being unproductive more tolerable.

Someone with two kids under the age of 16 and a part time job paying $20k/yr will, with subsidies, end up with the same "walking around" money as someone else in the same situation unsubsidized making $45k. That means that the person receiving these benefits has to make a 200+% income jump to be able to afford the same lifestyle. The result is that LOTS of people just decide to live with the subsidies and make a few bucks on the side to fill in any gaps they might run into.

Respectfully, while your argument has merit, there simple isn't a surplus of good jobs for people who ARE motivated.

If everybody crammed a marketable education starting tomorrow, there would be a surplus of qualified applicants. Assuming everybody is equipped genetically and dispositionally for the jobs you rightly advise folks to strive for, which they all obviously are not.

I think we all get a little bit of tunnel vision.

But the phenomena being discussed IS happening. It's what if anything to do about it that is at issue in "scholarly" discussions.

It is a complex, multivariable problem, but it is a problem in a consumer economy.
 
Respectfully, while your argument has merit, there simple isn't a surplus of good jobs for people who ARE motivated.

If everybody crammed a marketable education starting tomorrow, there would be a surplus of qualified applicants. Assuming everybody is equipped genetically and dispositionally for the jobs you rightly advise folks to strive for, which they all obviously are not.

I think we all get a little bit of tunnel vision.

But the phenomena being discussed IS happening. It's what if anything to do about it that is at issue in "scholarly" discussions.

It is a complex, multivariable problem, but it is a problem in a consumer economy.

That, in part, is a symptom of the subsidy mentality. A lot of people are simply more comfortable with other people doing the planning and structuring for them instead of taking a more entrepreneurial view of things and figuring out where they can carve out their own niche in the labor market.
 
You see the bolded?

The fundamental problem with progressives is that they believe nothing can exist without government intervention.
No, not nothing. Capitalism. Without someone to referee capitalism, it is ultimately self-destructive. I ask that you only look up the history of monopolies to see that without the government, as neutral body (supposedly), capitalism with collapse under it own greed.

So, I ask you again, can you produce any evidence of true free market capitalism's success? I can't think of one.

Yes capitalism exists without government dictation - government IS an economic model dictated by government - an economic model that has absolutely no ties to resources...

Socialism is nothing more than monopoly money and when the resources get thin they start kicking people out of the country (culls) or let them starve...

Capitalism is called "free market" for a reason - because capitalism doesn't need government dictation to work - government dictation, regulation and taxation only hinder (or stunt/hold back) capitalism...
Prove your theory. Is there any recorded evidence of the free market succeeding without government intervention and participation?
 
That, in part, is a symptom of the subsidy mentality. A lot of people are simply more comfortable with other people doing the planning and structuring for them instead of taking a more entrepreneurial view of things and figuring out where they can carve out their own niche in the labor market.

The social safety net was converted to a hammock decades ago.
 
Okay. How in the world does minimum wage serve as a stand in for the vast majority of wages?

Because both the CBO and the Census Bureau says that wages increased. And your only counterpoint thus far is that in real terms minimum wage is not currently at its' peak. So you better have one helluva tie over that the CBO and Census Bureau both missed.

The American minimum wage has not increased...
 
Our government is holding back economy...
If you havent noticed we have kept up the pace of trickle down economics..


The reason why capitalism isn't working is because we have blatant socialists running our government and they're doing their absolute best to destroy "capitalism" and that creates crony capitalism.
So these imaginary socialists in your head are creating a different kind of capitalism? Why wouldnt these imaginary socialists want to create socialism?


The best part is that these progressives you, other socialists and progressives in general adore are some of the most rich - elitist - assclowns on the planet... They spend everyone elses money just because they're so mentally defected they need to feel needed and could care less if they destroy the economy in the process just as long as they can continue to be aristocrats.
You calling me "mentally defected" is funny because you think there are socialists running the gov....:giggling:
 
So you are saying the University of Santa Cruz is lying or were the numbers off by 10? Fact is we had a population of around 110 million in 1920 and have a population around 310 million or so in 2010. The wealth distribution charge is almost the same with the top 1% having about 36% of the wealth in both times. Except that top 1% is nearly 2 million more families today - then in 1920.

Thats just blantly not true : How Unequal We Are: The Top 5 Facts You Should Know About The Wealthiest One Percent Of Americans | ThinkProgress
 
If you havent noticed we have kept up the pace of trickle down economics..



So these imaginary socialists in your head are creating a different kind of capitalism? Why wouldnt these imaginary socialists want to create socialism?



You calling me "mentally defected" is funny because you think there are socialists running the gov....:giggling:

"imaginary socialists"

What makes you believe socialism or socialists don't exist?

I love how you and your ilk act so irrelevant but are so dominate....

You act like you're invisible but you're everywhere...

Explaining economics to you would be a waste of time - you have no interest in that, your only interest is in activism and radicalism.

Prairie Fire is your Bible and activism is your hobby...

The simple fact you cant admit that proves who you are (or progressives are), despite the fact you advertise it...

Your ****ing name is demsocialist afterall. Did you forget that?
 
Back
Top Bottom