U.S. Tax Burden is at Lowest Level Since 1958

http://hken.ibtimes.com/articles/142...since-1958.htm

We can have our cake and eat it too. Despite an explosion of services and federal spending, individual taxpayers are paying the lower level of taxes as % of income since 1958. Combined with corporate taxes that are at the lowest level as a % of GDP in generations, it's good times in America. I will be very interested if the 2% payroll tax holiday instituted at the end of 20101 will be allowed to vaporize Dec 31st, or if we throw this one under the barrel of "can't raise taxes in this environment!" as well.

Americans are paying the smallest share of their income for taxes since 1958, a reflection of tax cuts and a weak economy, a USA TODAY analysis finds. The total tax burden — for all federal, state and local taxes — dropped to 23.6% of income in the first quarter, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data.
By contrast, individuals spent roughly 27% of income on taxes in the 1970s, 1980s and the 1990s — a rate that would mean $500 billion of extra taxes annually today, one-third of the estimated $1.5 trillion federal deficit this year.
The latest dip in the tax burden came from a Social Security tax cut included in a December budget deal between Democrats and Republicans. It will reduce taxes $100 billion this year.
"We have a 1950s level of taxation and a 21st-century-sized government," says Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a deficit-reduction advocacy group.

Know how to tell a non-thinking ideologue zombie from someone who is able to accurately process new information? They will disagree with this info and say taxes are still too high. Those people deserve contempt.

We are close to non-taxing ourselves right into a demolished, third-world country. Where infrastructure collapses, services are unable to supply assistance to those that need them and all we do is spend money on defense and goodies for the wealthy.

The Concord Coalition, by the by, is a Pete Petersen org. He is a billionaire and leads the fight to abolish Medicare and all other support programs for people, like Social Security. Support for corporations is okay though.

There are a lot of cretins who hate the average working person. Most are wealthy, like the Koch-suckers. See how that works? That's why the wealthy have to be stopped. Most do not, in the main, care anything for anyone outside their class. Their power must be resisted.

Some people are unable to process this information cause it run counter to everything that they believe is true.
The whiners are awfully silent on this article. if you know what i mean. Lol

Gentlemen: I read this article last week when I was in San Jose trying to help solar companies make their products more reliable. A couple points I'd like to make.

1.) Havakasha's reference to "whiners" is interesting to me in that only he, myself and Atypical post here. I find it childish and counterproductive to the debate - should it be called such. Secondly, a couple days hardly constitutes "awefully silient". Some people have jobs and families that take their time. If it is "ball busting", do a better job.

2.) Since it is the three of us, and I am the odd man out (i.e. not liberal), this information does NOT run counter to anything I believe. I have posted in utter disgust to GE not paying any income taxes as a corporation. I am equally disgusted by millions or other weathy individuals not ponying up the $28,000 my family paid for 2010 income taxes. I have been overly transparent in this regard, and still waiting to see if those who run their mouths do pay their fair share. That conversation has most definitely been avoided (not that is anybodies business, but interesting none the less).

3.) The word "idealogue" has been thrown around yet again. As evidenced in item #1, I can agree with a liberal postion without being liberal. Can either of you say the same? No. You are bound to your liberal ideology without any ability to make a concession. Being absolute and unwaivering your own beliefs is counter intuitive to discourse (which I have to question if you want discourse, or simply want to "rail" on any other contrary belief), and fits "idealogue" very well.

4.) In as much as liberals want to advance their agenda, what is sorely missed here is that tax revenue is a direct function of economic prosperity, or generally, commerce. Commerce drives a tax base, and sadly as it is, commerce has been lost in great amounts. Regardless of blame, not "taxing the rich" is not the problem. That has been shown and universally agreed. Yes, it could help. No doubt. But you fail to see all aspects of the article instead focusing on what supports your RIGID IDEOLOGY (raise taxes).

5.) Lastly, the conservative right are always conscience of our government becoming "socialist", and there is reason for concern. Redistribution of wealth is already in full force, and liberals only want to expand that. Don't believe it, read on...http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/wp1.pdf. What more do the liberals want? I hope you're not looking at me for more, but fear that you do.

Lloyd, it is well known that you are "well off". Please do share with all of us all the techniques you have used to protect your own wealth from taxation. You can help so many people.......

"2.) Since it is the three of us, and I am the odd man out (i.e. not liberal), this information does NOT run counter to anything I believe. I have posted in utter disgust to GE not paying any income taxes as a corporation. I am equally disgusted by millions or other weathy individuals not ponying up the $28,000 my family paid for 2010 income taxes. I have been overly transparent in this regard, and still waiting to see if those who run their mouths do pay their fair share. That conversation has most definitely been avoided (not that is any of our business, but interesting none the less).'

You claim to know that many wealthy do not pay their share but there is no acceptance of the fact that this MEANS YOU ARE GETTING SCREWED And by those your argue for!. You continue to place emphasis elsewhere. On government, (politicians under the sway of the wealthy did do this) or on those who don't pay their 'fair share'. As if the wealthy are not so powerful as to be able to screw the rest. Doesn’t this tell you the deck is stacked against those not wealthy? No, I didn’t think so.

'3.) The word "idealogue" has been thrown around yet again. As evidenced in item #1, I can agree with a liberal postion without being liberal. Can either of you say the same? No. You are bound to your liberal ideology without any ability to make a concession. Being absolute and unwaivering your own beliefs is counter intuitive to discourse (which I have to question if you want discourse, or simply want to "rail" on any other contrary belief), and fits "idealogue" very well.'

You do not read my posts. I have said this to you before. It’s true, sadly. And if you did, you apparently did not understand or digest them properly. What do ‘conservatives’ stand for primarily? Defense, small government, low taxes and no social programs for ‘those people’. Except for the last sub-human point, dems can do all of them – and have. Add to those all of the vicious, religious, and stark-raving mad ideas conservatives espouse. (the current crop of republican candidates is evidence) what is it about ‘conservatism’ that holds your attention?

Perhaps, it is just because you have committed to hate the word ‘liberal’. Mind control. There are networks, politicians and newspapers that promote that delusion. I understand.

"4.) In as much as liberals want to advance their agenda, what is sorely missed here is that tax revenue is a direct function of economic prosperity, or generally, commerce. Commerce drives a tax base, and sadly as it is, commerce has been lost in great amounts. Regardless of blame, not "taxing the rich" is not the problem. That has been shown and universally agreed. Yes, it could help. No doubt. But you fail to see all aspects of the article instead focusing on what supports your RIGID IDEOLOGY (raise taxes)."

Do you know what, in addition to the Bush tax reductions and war, is mainly causing our financial ‘crisis’? People without money because they’ve lost their job or their house is being foreclosed. Or their savings and pension have been decimated. They are not buying, not paying taxes because they have little income and the support programs are expensive. Who caused that shit. Liberals???

Nope. Greedy Wall Street capitalists! I suggested a book on that so you could get a better perspective. Nope - no sale!

Raising taxes is ‘rigid ideology’? Wrong. Not taxing the rich IS the problem. Unfair IS important but because you see yourself in a picked-upon group you will not accept that FAIR IS A MEANINGFUL CONCEPT! I don't speak for Havakasha, but with all the articles here re what occurs when a country has this level of inequalty, your failure to accept the main points is abhorrent to anyone that values FACTS over ideology. Do you know that inequality causes death and sickness in INDIVIDUALS? Yes, for ONE person. I suspect if I were able to control your life or a member of your family like that you would fight to the death. And rightfully so. But you don't care about anyone else but yourself. EMPATHY!!!! Do you have ANY???

5.) Lastly, the conservative right are always conscience of our government becoming "socialist", and there is reason for concern. Redistribution of wealth is already in full force, and liberals only want to expand that. Don't believe it, read on...http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/wp1.pdf. What more do the liberals want? I'm hope you're not looking at me for more, but fear that you do.

Do you know how long conservatives have been using the word 'socialist' as a hammer against doing anything for those that need it? Approximately 100 years. You're using tired bullshit for a talking point. Is it 'socialist to have Social Security? Then I am a raving, mfing socialist. And if you don't like programs that keeps people alive and healthy F you. You are a pig who cares nothing for others.
Redistribution of wealth IS going on – ALL UP!!! And you don't care. Everything that has been posted here supports that. ARE THEY ALL LIBERAL ARTICLES THAT LIE?

I have suggested books for you to read to get an enlarged perspective. You refused, using typical bullshit reasons – it’s a liberal book; it’s slanted. I now have another I’m reading that you will also ignore. Winner-Take -All Politics. Hacker and Pierson. Full of facts – not liberal or conservative – just facts. Yes, there are some facts that are not liberal or conservative.

I guess every book about this subject is written by liberals; all slanted; all are lies to promote liberal ideology. You better never pick up a book about these facts because they will contaminate your mind. EVERY ONE IS A LIBERAL PLANT, FULL OF LIES; THERE IS OBVIOUSLY A CONSPIRACY TO POISON EVERYONES MIND; TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD AND DROWN THE TRUTH. The world is much more complicated than your posts belie. Simplistic behavior is the hallmark of conservatives. Nuance is liberal apparently. Another plot.

Or maybe, it’s just what the facts say.

Wow. What a concept!

You and I have shared some fun times and comments, mostly about music. I enjoyed that. I have nothing against you personally. You are a family man, who cares apparently about children and family, who works, and is, productive and responsible. But except for your very grudging acceptance of things that are facts you can’t refute as being ‘liberal’ you have nothing to say.

If you were informed, there could be a dialogue. There would be a give and take. But my concerns and facts are always ‘liberal’ and so easily dismissed by those who see them in a black and white way. I know – that’s your opinion about me. Thought I would save you the trouble.

Too bad you don’t really know what I think, even though my posts have been very open and specific. There is more but I don’t have to say it – it is in my posts.

Just blame this rant on my “liberalism’ I won’t be surprised that way.

Don’t respond. I know what you will say.

I didn't want to do this as I have work to do, but, here it goes.

1.) "You claim to know that many wealthy do not pay their share but there is no acceptance of the fact that this MEANS YOU ARE GETTING SCREWED And by those your argue for!. You continue to place emphasis elsewhere. On government, (politicians under the sway of the wealthy did do this) or on those who don't pay their 'fair share'. As if the wealthy are not so powerful as to be able to screw the rest. Doesn’t this tell you the deck is stacked against those not wealthy? No, I didn’t think so"

I don't argue for the rich. That is a silly statement - well, it's plain wrong. I am getting screwed by those who make the policy. As for the rich, I mind my own business and control that which I can. Did your parents ever tell you to mind your own business, and work hard? I don't vote for the rich. If you want to talk about control of the masses, simply look at the democratic party, and see how they derive power. Only government can implement a solution.

2.) "Perhaps, it is just because you have committed to hate the word ‘liberal"

No, not really. There are items on the liberal agenda that I loathe. A continued focus on taxing the rich for instance. It's petty. It's a mob mentality / class warfare. I'm not saying this as conservative talking points, I'm saying it because it does really appaul me. Again, mind your own business, and keep your own back yard clean. Collectively, if everyone did that, the world would be a better place.

We do need a fairer tax code for BOTH corporations and individuals. PERIOD. Where is this effort? Instead we have liberals walking around espousing to tax the rich, and the conservatives saying no. It's all BS. Where are the results?

3.) "Do you know what, in addition to the Bush tax reductions and war, is mainly causing our financial ‘crisis’? People without money because they’ve lost their job or their house is being foreclosed. Or their savings and pension have been decimated. They are not buying, not paying taxes because they have little income and the support programs are expensive. Who caused that shit. Liberals???

Nope. Greedy Wall Street capitalists! I suggested a book on that so you could get a better perspective. Nope - no sale!"

On the book, Lloyd was to send it to me to return a favor. He welched.

Blame is not a solution, but it is good to see that you understand how the tax base has been reduced. And I am telling you yet again that if my taxes where reduced, I would SPEND more. I'm not BS'ing you for some higher cause. $28,000 is a lot of dough. I tend to think there are a lot of people like me (as you have characterized me). Collectively, we could spend a lot.

4.) "Raising taxes is ‘rigid ideology’? Wrong. Not taxing the rich IS the problem." Well, it looks as if rigid ideology has indeed struck lol. Nope, no other solutions!!! Empathy? Do you have children? Not to be corny, but I never knew real love until I had a child. For the record, every christmas I save all my $1 bills to give to the "bell ringers". I give the money to my children to have THEM put it in the can. Get it, see where I'm going here? My wife has worked weekends in a food bank. Spare me -- as if only you can understand empathy. That's sooooooooo arrogant. We live it.

5.) "Do you know how long conservatives have been using the word 'socialist' as a hammer against doing anything for those that need it? Approximately 100 years. You're using tired bullshit for a talking point. Is it 'socialist to have Social Security? Then I am a raving, mfing socialist. And if you don't like programs that keeps people alive and healthy F you. You are a pig who cares nothing for others.Redistribution of wealth IS going on – ALL UP!!! And you don't care. Everything that has been posted here supports that. ARE THEY ALL LIBERAL ARTICLES THAT LIE?"

Two words, anger management. Get a lid on it Atypical. Ok, the point was that redistribuion is already happening in massive amounts, and some want more. Sorry, already said that.

As for the rest, you live it (being a liberal), and that's fine. As noted above, I accept many liberal idea's and let me add that I'm on record for increasing the cap on social security (I think it is capped at $106,000). Oh that's right, I hate social security, and want to to kill the sick and weak........... The difference between you and I is that you are absolute. There is no God. Conservatives are evil. The rich need to be taxed - that's the only problem.... There can't be give and take with you. There's only one truth, and you are in possesion of it (or seemingly so).

Lastly, and I really do have to do some work. Havakasha has turned me on to Krugman. I read it. Don't necessarily agree with it, but I take it in. Would you do the same for an Ann Coulter column? LOL. (no I don't read Ann Coulter).

Have a great day.

Wow S&L. Despite what you say I am not an "absolutist". But if it makes you feel better to be able to pigeonhole me by saying such things please proceed.I have never said taxing the rich is "the only problem". Thats really quite silly and completely disingenuous. Its one issue among many.
Your mantra is govt is evil. Now thats absolutist and beyond simplistic.
Sorry i never sent you any books, but it really seemed like an exercise in futility. The book you sent me by peter Schiff was
ridiculously inane as i said at the time and if you believe half of what that guy says then good luck (i think its interesting to what lengths you have gone to distance yourself from him after sending me this book. I have also noticed how quickly you have dropped talking about his predictions. Among other things he predicted was a major stock market crash in Jan. He is a hack.
I still think this article I posted is very informative and a contradiction of what you hold as one of your core beliefs.

U.S. Tax Burden is at Lowest Level Since 1958
http://hken.ibtimes.com/articles/142...since-1958.htm

We can have our cake and eat it too. Despite an explosion of services and federal spending, individual taxpayers are paying the lower level of taxes as % of income since 1958. Combined with corporate taxes that are at the lowest level as a % of GDP in generations, it's good times in America. I will be very interested if the 2% payroll tax holiday instituted at the end of 20101 will be allowed to vaporize Dec 31st, or if we throw this one under the barrel of "can't raise taxes in this environment!" as well.

Americans are paying the smallest share of their income for taxes since 1958, a reflection of tax cuts and a weak economy, a USA TODAY analysis finds. The total tax burden — for all federal, state and local taxes — dropped to 23.6% of income in the first quarter, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data.
By contrast, individuals spent roughly 27% of income on taxes in the 1970s, 1980s and the 1990s — a rate that would mean $500 billion of extra taxes annually today, one-third of the estimated $1.5 trillion federal deficit this year.
The latest dip in the tax burden came from a Social Security tax cut included in a December budget deal between Democrats and Republicans. It will reduce taxes $100 billion this year.
"We have a 1950s level of taxation and a 21st-century-sized government," says Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a deficit-reduction advocacy group.


.

Dude - I was talking to Atypical. Isn't that obvious? I mean, he was quoted......? And I didn't mention you by name in my response to him. Did he call you a pig who cares nothing for others? No, that's what he called me.

But feel free to explain how the article is "a contradiction of what you hold as one of your core beliefs." I am interested.

The Peter Schiff book isn't ridiculous. It is sad that you wouldn't put in the energy to understand a contrary point of view (Von Mises vs. Keynesian). I found it very interesting about how interest rates are really supposed to work (i.e. supply and demand of currency at a bank). Anyway....... He wasn't a hack when you used to him to agrue with John about Art Laffer. I see, you were simply being opportunistic to build support for your arguement. Now it's time to move back to your "core beliefs".

And here is a link to the actual article, and it works (for anyone who may want to add their 2 cents).

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/...cord-low_n.htm

And it's the whole article. Complete with a quote from the Heritage Foundation lol.

The Heritage foundation? Its a very well know right wing foundation.

Sorry, I thought you were talking to both Atypical and myself. You do tend to lump us together.
i thought you mentioned "the three of us?" in this context.

Once again....
Anyway, S&L im sorry you see "us" as "absolutists". I couldnt disagree more.
I find you to be much more of one particularly as it comes to your views about gov't.
Sorry i didnt send you a book. I really didbt think you needed a book from a progressive like me.
I say that in all seriousness because i would be sending you something that completely disagree
with your right leaning philosophy and based on what you post on these threads i dont see how that would change your mind one bit.
You sent me a book by Peter Schiff and i found it pretty lame. Again sorry but thats exactly what i felt. When i further investigated his website what i saw was another Conservative using his stock site to push ideological positions. Mr. Schiff actually is interested in running for Senator and quess what he is registered in the REPULBICAN PARTY. Surprise, surprise. lol. Mr. schiff is an individual who makes wild and outlandish claims (such as the stock market will CRASH around Jan.(?), and who hyperbollically talked about inflation running rampant. You talk a lot about being a moderate and yet AlMOST every position i see you push tends to have a Republican point of view.

My article contradicts what i believe you have been saying by explaining how low the tax rates are.historically.
You like many others have been yelling non-stop and in an almost mantra like way that the tax rates are too high. At least we can both agree that the tax system needs reform, though i am sure we will disagree about the reforms that are necessary. :)

Go to Peter Schiff's website and please tell me that what you find there is the kind of calm reasoned analysis you would recommend that all people follow. Sorry but he was WAY off about his recent predicitons and his site his one of those doom and gloom websites thats designed to scare people and attract atteniton.
I used his other prediction about the recession against John to show that LAFFER was wrong about his economic prediction. It could have been anyone arguing against laffer. So please dont turn this into a silly grade school argument. You are smarter then that.

Heck, I didn't think you would want a book on Von Mises economics from a non liberal like me, but I sent it anyway even with your left leaning philosophy......... knowing that you wouldn't change one bit.....

Now for the article. The tax burden is at it's lowest because of the reduction of Social Security Taxes (which is a mistake) from 6.2% to 4.2%, lower tax rates from the Bush Era tax cuts, AND a weak economy. You seem to want the reason to be only tax rates. it's what the article says anyway.

As for me and the "evil" government, you needn't look very far to see what a mess they can make. Two unfunded wars, giant debt, no solutions........ just party politics. That is SOOOO reassuring.

Let's talk about reform. I like a simple system of taxing all earnings (EARNINGS) at a low rate but progressively higher for higher incomes with very limited deductions for everyone. It is time to stop using the tax system to implement policy. The tax system should be solely used to generate revenue.

Lastly, central to a simple system of taxing all earnings, middle class folks like me would PAY LESS so we could SPEND MORE and generate COMMERCE (which creates a strong tax base).

Now go on an tell why this is so objectionable???