Be a watchdog of your money

---

me@rescam.org

I posted some figures quite a while back on the percentages of government revenues from corporate taxes.
I'm not going to start looking through my bookshelves for the exact numbers but approx 40 to 50 years ago the percentage of revenue from corporate sources was close to 35%.
Now that number is down to about 12%. (perhaps even lower by now)
While corporate tax cuts are the mantra of the neo-con republican libertarian wealthy crowd, it must be kept in mind that the government must make up the shortfall by adding to the personal income taxes on individual wage earners.
That would be you, Mr. and Ms. working person.

Ummmm, you seemed to miss the point entirely. "Mr. and Ms. working person" pay every single penny of every single tax. They pay every single penny of corporate taxes because those taxes are passed directly onto the consumer. Every single red cent of every single tax on corporations goes directly to the price of the good or service sold because a tax on a corporation is just another cost of doing business. For example, in the case of GM, it has to buy metal, glass, plastic, and labor to build a Hummer. And every cent of those raw materials goes directly into the price. If you then tax the corporation, then GM puts metal, glass, plastic, labor, and tax directly into the price. This drives prices up, affects those that can afford it the least, the most, and the corporation hasn't paid one cent of tax. They never do because those taxes are passed directly onto the consumer. It doesn't matter whether that works out to $10 dollars per car, or $100 dollars per car, or $1000 dollars per car.

While Rush needs the corporate world to remain extremely profitable for his own reasons, I think the profits presently going toward monsterous executive salaries need to be redistributed throughout our society by means of heavier taxation of corporate profits.

Once again you don't quite seem to understand a very simple principle. If the gov't taxes a corporation, the consumer pays every single penny of that tax for the reasons presented above. So, if you "think the profits presently going toward monsterous executive salaries need to be redistributed throughout our society by means of heavier taxation of corporate profits," this is what happens: the gov't taxes Nike, who passes that tax directly onto the consumer, and then the gov't then takes that tax, wastes A LOT of it, and, in theory, gives what's left back to consumer. Wouldn't it be better to let the people that earned it, keep it, and let them spend it on what they think is best instead of what Obie or Dubya or Clinton or Reagan thinks is best? Because rest assured, the gov't is going to spend it on waste, and bureaucracy, and the CIA, and the WHISC, and corporate "welfare," and war and $500 dollar hammers.

This should go hand in hand with a progressive taxation system that should heavily tax individual incomes on all earnings above the 4 to 5 million dollar mark.

Anyone in here worried about having to pay 90% tax on any income over the 4 or 5 million dollar ceiling?
I didn't think so.

And yet, you miss these very very simple concepts every single time. As I said before: Both Kennedy and Reagan knew that if you take 90 cents of every dollar, or if you take 25 cents of every dollar, or if you only take 10 cents of every dollar, people will work hardest to make to make many many more dollars where they keep 90% of them, and they will hardly work at all to make dollars where they keep 10% of them. By extension, by taxing people 10% you'll have lots and lots of dollars to tax, and by taxing people 90% you'll have very very few dollars to tax.

You tell me, brainiac--is it better for the gov't to get 90% of ten dollars, or is it better for the gov't to get 10% of a trillion dollars?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Rush what you fail to understand is that prices can only go so High before people just won't buy products. So Corporate taxes keep top wages(executives pay)in check.

look at teh Big picture If I get taxed more the only solution is for me to stop spending. A corporation can cut its top salaries and never blink an eye. You see the difference. I can't just increase my salary to make up for corporate greed

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

"America is not great because of the size of our government, but because of the vision and values of our people. I am convinced that those who believe in big government have little faith in self-governance. Their philosophy says that government should do what a man can't -- or won't -- do for himself. Perhaps I'm jaded, but I believe that the gush of taxpayer dollars issuing forth from Washington is not driven by compassion, but from an unspoken belief that Americans are not smart enough to govern their own lives, strong enough to take some risk or compassionate enough to help neighbors in need. Conservatism has gotten a black eye over the past few years, not because our core principles are less true, but because so many of our leaders lost their way. When conservatives forget the values that got them elected and morph into big-spending, favor-trading politicians, voters will simply vote for whoever offers change, and, in 2008, they did. I don't think such an outcome dictates a redefinition of conservatism. If anything, it is a stark reminder that we need to return to our fiscally conservative roots. Not just in Washington, D.C., but in every state in the nation." --Texas Gov. Rick Perry

"Government has only two ways of getting money other than raising taxes. It can go into the money market and borrow, competing with its own citizens and driving up interest rates, which it has done, or it can print money, and it's done that. Both methods are inflationary." --Ronald Reagan

Actually, it's you missing the point Rush.
The corporations may pass the costs on but they also haven't been passing the savings on.
These past 30 years have seen explosive corporate growth, both in size and profits, and while their taxes are dropping steadily, prices are still climbing.
(with the exception of consumer electronics made by slave labour)

As to your misguided concerns over a 90% tax rate.
The rate doesn't apply to your first 4 million dollars, only to any earnings over and above that number each year.

No one, and let me repeat, no one can justify annual earnings higher than 4 or 5 million.

I'm quite certain you will now attempt to do just that.
Please try to do so without getting all derogatory. Think you can handle that just once? Good boy.

Rush what you fail to understand is that prices can only go so High before people just won't buy products. So Corporate taxes keep top wages(executives pay)in check.

look at teh Big picture If I get taxed more the only solution is for me to stop spending. A corporation can cut its top salaries and never blink an eye. You see the difference. I can't just increase my salary to make up for corporate greed

Those taxes simply don't keep top wages in check because as a rule, they aren't going to affect the price much. According to the FTC, the average price of a new car in the U.S. is $28,400.00. Last year, GM made about 8.5 MILLION cars. Let's just say we add on $500 bucks per car. That's 4 BILLION, 250 MILLION dollars.

Now, that $500 bucks, of course, comes directly from the consumer and affects those that can afford it the least, the most. When people are buying cars where is average price is nearly $30,000.00, $500 bucks isn't going to stop them or change their buying habits. Well, maybe a very very few people will go, "Ah, I would buy that car for $28,400.00, but $28,900.00!!?? No WAY! I have children to feed!!"

That $4,250,000,000.00 is PLENTY to pay exec salaries and bonuses without any appreciable loss of sales. The type of taxes you would need to make execs forgo their pay package would destroy the company, and if you destroy the company, the gov't gets zero.

To look at it another way, you could take 100 percent of the execs' income away, and, if you divide among the cars, you could bring the price of that $28,400.00 car down to what? $28,300.00? $28,200.00? Are you happy now?

As such, corporate taxes have little to no effect on executive pay, do not limit them, and do not keep them in check.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Actually, it's you missing the point Rush.
The corporations may pass the costs on but they also haven't been passing the savings on.
These past 30 years have seen explosive corporate growth, both in size and profits, and while their taxes are dropping steadily, prices are still climbing.
(with the exception of consumer electronics made by slave labour)

As to your misguided concerns over a 90% tax rate.
The rate doesn't apply to your first 4 million dollars, only to any earnings over and above that number each year.

No one, and let me repeat, no one can justify annual earnings higher than 4 or 5 million.

I'm quite certain you will now attempt to do just that.
Please try to do so without getting all derogatory. Think you can handle that just once? Good boy.

First, you make several outlandish statements. Electronics are not made by slaves, lmao!! In Japan? Honestly? Yes, most electronics are made in Japan...

The U.S. corporate tax rate is ranked as the second highest statutory rate among the OECD countries (the U.S. average rate of 39.3 ranks just behind Japan's 39.5 and well above the OECD average of 28.7). *

And no, corporate income taxes have not gone down recently. (If they have, please cite proof) And that extra "savings" you speak of belongs to the shareholders! They own the company, no one else. If you want a piece of that pie you should buy some stock! Furthermore, the price consumers pay is set by the market, (except in the case of a monopoly). Simple economics.

Moving on...
It is hilarios that you think that all companies big and small should only be allowed to earn 4 or 5 million. Cuz you sez so? For instance, a billion dollar copporation would only yield a 0.5% return! You better off selling the company in that case (if you were a stockholder). Imagine you invest $10,000 of your own money and the government tells you that you can only earn $50 a year in interest. What's worse is inflation is higher than that! Wouldn't you would be pissed? (I know I would).



* Chamberlain, Andrew (2006-05-05). "Corporate Income Tax Rates Around the World". Tax Foundation. http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1471.html.

Actually, it's you missing the point Rush.
The corporations may pass the costs on but they also haven't been passing the savings on.
These past 30 years have seen explosive corporate growth, both in size and profits, and while their taxes are dropping steadily, prices are still climbing.
(with the exception of consumer electronics made by slave labour)

Not in real dollars they aren't. A Model T cost $850.00 in 1908, which is about $21,000.00 today. But today's car has THOUSANDS of parts compared to that old thing. Air conditioning, seat belts, crash cages, wipers, radios, computers, and on and on and on and on. Given that the average cost of today's car is about $30,000.00, in 1908 dollars that would be about $1250.00. So in essence, cars have increased in price by about $400 bucks in 90 years. But you get orders of magnitude more for it than you did.

In other words, the price for cars (and nearly everything else) has fallen precipitously because you get enormous amounts more in the car for your money and because the savings have been passed onto consumers.

As to your misguided concerns over a 90% tax rate.
The rate doesn't apply to your first 4 million dollars, only to any earnings over and above that number each year.

Except that's not how the tax system works. The total tax burden DOES apply to every penny you make because of all the taxes hidden in the price of living.

Again, as Kennedy knew and as was evident from the economy, once one had earned the 4 million (or whatever the cut off was) they ceased earning more as much as possible. Why? Because no one wants to go to work for 10 cents on the dollar. Which means, as I said, that there are very very few dollars to tax at 90%.

No one, and let me repeat, no one can justify annual earnings higher than 4 or 5 million.

Sure they can. They only have to justify it to the people that will be paying them. Just as you have to. No one else matters. Those that justify it don't care what you think. Those that pay it don't care what you think. You aren't paying it, you aren't bargaining for it, what you happen to think has no bearing whatsoever.

I'm quite certain you will now attempt to do just that.
Please try to do so without getting all derogatory. Think you can handle that just once? Good boy.

You seem to like the sneering tone, since your posts are riddled with it. For example, this particular quote. Since you seem to like it, I respond in kind.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Bigger government is not the answer!

"Anyone who thought the recession and financial market turmoil would moderate President Obama's policy ambitions discovered the opposite last night. Far from suggesting limits on Congress or federal spending, the new President made clear in his first State of the Union address that he believes in government power as the answer to our current difficulties, and he intends to use it. ... Mr. Obama is slowly revealing himself as a President who meant what he said going back to the primaries. He believes in the power of the state to drive prosperity, to reform the financial system and health care, and even to transform the entire energy economy. Mr. Obama said at one point that he didn't believe in government for its own sake, but his policy emphasis showed otherwise. ... Mr. Obama clearly believes the recession has created a political moment when Americans are frightened enough to be open to a new era of expanded government. The question is whether his vast ambitions will allow the private economy to grow enough even to begin to pay for it all." --The Wall Street Journal

A new ERA? You mean the Post -Bush borrow, spend and conquer foreign nations Era. Lets get this straight. You actually believe that the gov't didnt expand in the last 8 years and that whats coming bothers you. We can stop looking for ET. He's just arrived from living on another planet. does this world have a reality like ours or is it a Karl Rove reality. Where passing talking points to talking heads and having those talking heads parrot the same message over and over and over makes the unreality a reality? That must be a fun planet to live on. Confusing but fun. Don't belive your eyes just believe what they tell you!!!

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

A new ERA? You mean the Post -Bush borrow, spend and conquer foreign nations Era. Lets get this straight. You actually believe that the gov't didnt expand in the last 8 years and that whats coming bothers you.

It was wrong when Bush did it and it is wrong now. Yes, the growth of government is bothersome.

A new ERA? You mean the Post -Bush borrow, spend and conquer foreign nations Era. Lets get this straight. You actually believe that the gov't didnt expand in the last 8 years and that whats coming bothers you.

What are you, some sort of partisan hack?

The gov't expands nearly every year and always trends up. Dramatically. Be the president a Democrat or a Republican. It doesn't matter which. Frankly, historically, Democrat presidents have led the U.S. into MASSIVE wars, but that doesn't matter much either. They ALL just spend you into the ground.

It doesn't matter that Dubya did it. They all do. Just like Obie will.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

bush led you to two massive wars which were to you really costly, and funny, he´s father did the same(one but..), oops there is a pattern here, do not vote rebublican to president.(next one will lead you to three)

What we aren't looking at isn't Gov't growth. This is inevitable. As the population grows so does the gov't. When gov't expands faster than the population then we have a problem.

I've not seen anything that shows the gov't is expanding faster than the country is growing

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I've not seen anything that shows the gov't is expanding faster than the country is growing

It doesn't matter that Dubya did it. They all do. Just like Obie will.

For example, Obie didn't sign an order pulling anyone out of Iraq or Afghanistan, any more than Gordon Brown did. They do it whenever it makes sense to do it, just like Dubya did. Here, Obie signed an order to INCREASE the troops in Afghanistan.

Seems like Obie is pretty much just like Dubya. The status quo is dead, long live the status quo.

From the NYT:

February 18, 2009
Putting Stamp on Afghan War, Obama Will Send 17,000 Troops
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/washington/18web-troops.html?scp=1&sq=17,000&st=cse
By HELENE COOPER

WASHINGTON — President Obama said Tuesday that he would send an additional 17,000 American troops to Afghanistan this spring and summer, putting his stamp firmly on a war that he has long complained is going in the wrong direction.

The order will add nearly 50 percent to the 36,000 American troops already there. A further decision on sending more troops will come after the administration completes a broader review of Afghanistan policy, White House officials said.

Mr. Obama said in a written statement that the increase was “necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires.”

At least for now, Mr. Obama’s decision gives American commanders in Afghanistan most but not all of the troops they had asked for. But the decision also carries political risk for a president who will be sending more troops to Afghanistan before he has begun to fulfill a promised rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Many experts worry that Afghanistan presents an even more formidable challenge for the United States than Iraq does, particularly with neighboring Pakistan providing sanctuary for insurgents of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Under Mr. Obama’s plan, a unit of 8,000 marines from Camp Lejeune, N.C., will be deployed in the next few weeks, aiming to be in Afghanistan by late spring, administration officials said, while an Army brigade from Fort Lewis, Wash., composed of 4,000 soldiers, will be sent in the summer. An additional 5,000 Army support troops will also be deployed in the summer.

Antiwar groups criticized Mr. Obama’s decision even before the White House announced it.

“The president is committing these troops before he’s determined what the mission is,” said Tom Andrews, director of the coalition organization Win Without War. “We need to avoid the slippery slope of military escalation.”

Mr. Obama said in his statement that “the fact that we are going to responsibly draw down our forces in Iraq allows us the flexibility to increase our presence in Afghanistan.”

American generals in Afghanistan had been pressing for additional forces to be in place by late spring or early summer to help counter growing violence and chaos in the country. Of the 30,000 additional troops that the commanders had initially sought, some 6,000 arrived in January after being sent by President Bush.

The administration’s review of Afghanistan policy is supposed to be completed before early April, when Mr. Obama heads to Europe for a NATO summit meeting at which he is expected to press American allies for more troops and help in Afghanistan.

In an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on Tuesday, Mr. Obama said he was “absolutely convinced that you cannot solve the problem of Afghanistan, the Taliban, the spread of extremism in that region solely through military means.”

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

What we aren't looking at isn't Gov't growth. This is inevitable. As the population grows so does the gov't. When gov't expands faster than the population then we have a problem.

I've not seen anything that shows the gov't is expanding faster than the country is growing

Heh heh. You haven't seen it, so it couldn't be happening. Smart plan. Hey, tell us all again how taxes on corporations puts a limit on executive pay.

Just look at the Federal Budget as compared to the population. The deficit as compared to the population. The debt. The number of regulations. The number of gov't employees.

It trends up, and it trends up faster than the population does. Remember when everyone was all up in arms about Dubya raising more money than Jeebus for his first campaign? Obie raised more than double in one campaign than Dubya did in TWO. It doesn't matter what the Republican raises, it doesn't matter what the Democrat raises, as time goes by this stuff continues to get bigger.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Smart plan. Hey, tell us all again how taxes on corporations puts a limit on executive pay.

Taxing corporations doesn't limit executive pay.

The incentive to negotiate these 50 million dollar contracts for ceo's would be eliminated with a progressive tax that hits it's highest levels on income above the 4 million dollar mark.

The first 4 million is taxed at the regular rate but everything above that 4 million is subject to the highest levels of taxation.
I like the 90% level.

Don't you want to protect the shareholders?
You speak very highly of them when the subject comes up.
Why should they be held hostage to the avarice and greed of the executive class?

Smart plan. Hey, tell us all again how taxes on corporations puts a limit on executive pay.

Taxing corporations doesn't limit executive pay.

Duh. Try telling others here that.

The incentive to negotiate these 50 million dollar contracts for ceo's would be eliminated with a progressive tax that hits it's highest levels on income above the 4 million dollar mark.

The first 4 million is taxed at the regular rate but everything above that 4 million is subject to the highest levels of taxation.
I like the 90% level.

You seem to want to refuse to note the point: you will gain nearly nothing in tax dollars because no one will be trying to earn any money that it taxed at 90%. Kennedy knew it. Reagan knew it. All the Presidents know it. It's just populist Barbra Streisand.

Don't you want to protect the shareholders?
You speak very highly of them when the subject comes up.
Why should they be held hostage to the avarice and greed of the executive class?

No, I don't want to "protect the shareholders," because they don't need to be protected. Because they aren't being "held hostage" to anything or anyone. Unlike the gov't which takes your money by force, shareholders in corporations invest and buy shares BECAUSE THEY WANT TO. Conversely, if they feel that the company isn't being run the way that they want it to be run, they can sell their shares. Or they can buy more. Or they can sell some and keep less than what they had. Or they can do whatever they wish to do.

The difference being that they aren't forced to do anything. They aren't forced to buy. They aren't forced to sell. They aren't being held hostage because the corporation cannot control what they do, or force them to invest, or anything else.

They ARE protected because all the ever have to do is hit the "SELL" button in their Schwab account. Or their Ameritrade account. Or, of they feel that strongly about it, they never ever had to hit the "BUY" button in the first place.

They are protected because they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, and they are free to do so. They don't need you, using gov't force, to tell them how to invest or not invest in the companies they freely choose to invest in.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

as we have learned by current crisis in finance market, the people there who run the corporations and those who invest to them are incompetent for the job.
and the investors are greedy and stupid.