I guess we don't know, since BigV seems to be correct in his assertion that these companies don't make the amount of taxes they actually pay public. Have to wait for the next Government Accountability Office study.

However, I'd hazard a guess that if a company found enough legal loopholes to completely avoid paying taxes altogether, that company would continue to use the same techniques year after year.

What a yawn.

He says some words that are currently in the news, but not with a great deal of understanding. Let's go over his "summing up".

Sure, sure, but this is the first unintentionally comic comparison about the country and an individual. Our credit is NOT cut off, and S&P's downgrading notwithstanding, our credit with everyone else on the planet is still the best. They *keep* lending us money. So, this is a comparison FAIL.

***

A better understanding of how the budget got into this shape if he'd expanded his description of the "American" that balances the checkbook to include his parents and his parent's parents. Especially their promises to pay obligations that will last past the time they earned money to pay, and into the time HE was earning money. Furthermore, he should talk about some expenses that were recorded but were never budgeted for, in keeping with his rant about budgeting. Some of these expenses could be like that jerkass kid that was photographed torching a cop car in Vancouver. The expenses for rioting were ... noted but that kid never expected to pay for the car. Or the shops on the block. Or the medical expenses of everyone that was hurt in the melee. That kid knew he was doing things that were super expensive, but he just figured he'd add it to his tab. YouTube guy would be making a better comparison if he included people who took actions like this in his imaginary American family.

***

Well, this is more oversimplification to the point of ignorance. It would be nice if it could be done **POOF** without R or D influences, but that just isn't the case. He can't wish it into the cornfield and wasting one breath imagining it could be the case is ridiculous. His example would be better if he had his imaginary American family create their budget by unanimous consent, and that the people in the family got along like cats and dogs. His comparison is just fucking faulty. Now... he has LOTS of company, people who won't or can't stretch their understanding to encompass more of the reality of our debt and deficit situation than just an angry soundbite or two. Lots of folks just stop there. Like screaming at the little yellow sunshiny icon in the weather app on your iPhone while you stand in the rain at the bus stop. Cathartic, but otherwise pointless, and, you look like a fool.

***

China.

Sweet.

Here's another misunderstanding but much less egregious. China does have a communist government, but they have a stunning grasp of capitalism. Stunning? More like choking. Imagining that China, the political communists can NOT be China the market capitalists is simply mistaken. An easy mistake to make if you just spend your time being informed by shallow four color maps that paint China red and headlines but not articles. Another point, why would we borrow from China? Why not? We "borrow" by issuing Treasury Bonds. Anyone can buy them, including China. A slightly better question is why would China buy our bonds in the first place. That has good answers too, they wanted as close to a guaranteed return as is available and they have oceans of money that needed to be invested. They invested elsewhere too, but lots of it went into T-Bills.

***

Stupid twice.

First stupid. The Federal government isn't not paying ANYONE. So, fail.

Second stupid. Even if the Feds were reneging on some obligations because of a deficit, not paying the Feds, while having a certain symmetry, would be making the problem worse, not better. I get the idea YouTube guy wants the problem solved, but paying less on a loan the government made to him is not the way to balance the budget, B.

***

The next two are really close together.

Wrong. Not just on the numeric assessment, which, is in fact, wrong (we're rated AAA and AAA and AA+.) Not only is that the opposite of "350" from Experian, et al, it's as good as it gets. But it's also wrong in the marketplace. Honestly, this is a very, very good time to be borrowing money. Did you see the rate on TEN YEAR T BILLS? 1.75 % this week. That is very cheap money. I'd be borrowing all I could get my hands on. But it's not about me, my point is that the world thinks our credit is so "bad" that they charge us a premium rate of 1.75 %, locked in for ten fucking years. Show of hands. Who here can get money that cheaply? Anybody got better than a "350"? Yeah, I thought so.

***
FUCK. YOU. Simple motherfucker.

***

For an encore, I have give props for speaking his mind. But if he has a friend who makes $500,000 a month, why didn't he learn that instead. Coulda paid the light bill, B.

The man has a ton of charisma. He has a ton of passion. He's *clearly* involved and that is awesome, and necessary to make the changes happen that he wants to happen.

But he's misinformed. He has a poor grasp of the facts. I wish he knew more of the truth, he could really make a difference, a positive difference.

I'll take this as my answer. It produced shit for Ireland.

Why would I want to follow them into the shitter? I don't. You don't. So, let's don't.

But this way, he is understood by more people, white and black, than if he were to speak the "technical truth".

(Unfortunately)

what the fucking difference does UNDERSTANDING matter if what I understand is wrong?

I start with the belief that most people tend to say they are fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
Balancing a checkbook and paying debts are easy concepts to fit these values.
The government might not NEED to have a deficit, but it's also not a necessity.

Also, the idea of a credit score on the US government is easily understood,
particularly when headlines talk about China "owning" the US debts,
and potentially "calling" that debt by not buying the Treasury bonds.

The same is true when the news media can not find any other way to measure the status
of the economy than the simplistic value of today's Unemployment Rate.

Their message is simple... the US is struggling with many problems that need to be addressed.
These fiscal-conservative/social-liberals don't pretend to have the "true" technical solution,
they just want governmental leadership to solve their perceived problems,
so they can go back to the serenity of their TV, golf, Nascar, etc,

football too, don't forget the football!

:lol2:

A taxation question for the room:

Why have we chosen to favor capital over wages, as demonstrated by the dramatically different tax rates applicable to the different kinds of income?

Not just the obvious like "cause the system is owned by Capital, and they're just trying to keep Wages bent over, man!" /hippy voice.

Really. Why is capital more important than wages?

"Why is capital more important than wages?"
 

Hell if I know.

How one gets his or her money seems irrelevant to me, just as how one spends his or her money seems irrelevant to me.

This is why I favor some kind of simple, direct, no exemptions/no loopholes, point of purchase tax (to replace ALL others)...tax the transactions (ALL of them, for EVERYONE), not the method of making money, or the amount made, or way it's spent.

I know damn well that'll never happen (supposedly regressive on the 'poor'; the 'rich' pay like everyone else*; those in government don't get nearly the revenue they want).


*And the appetites of the 'rich' are, well, just plain more 'expensive' than those of the 'poor'...they'll pay more and they won't like it.

Wait a sec... Please elaborate, V.

I don't think this is a good idea, if you insist on REPLACE as the course of action. I think it is far better to have a tax base that is diversified, capital, consumption, property, use, etc. I'm not saying I want all these taxes, I'm saying I live in a state that has no income tax. Yay, no tax. Our state revenues are almost completely based on sales tax. That's great and all, but... in times like this our revenues are dropping dramatically. I am not lobbying in this post for MORE TAXES MORE TAXES MORE TAXES, I'm saying that large fluctuations in the revenue stream makes for practically impossible budgeting, and large changes in state services, including things that "everybody" wants, law enforcement, education, etc. There's talk of closing two prisons and letting murderers walk free. I shit you not.

Anyhow, my point is that a diversified "portfolio" is less likely to suffer dramatic and troublesome fluctuations.

Also, it's true that consumption taxes, VAT, sales, etc. are regressive, are more unfair, and I would like to minimize the unfairness as much as is practical.

Income from wages is taxed at rates ranging from 10 to 35 percent.

Income from capital gains is taxed at one rate, 15 percent.

To me, this is evidence that capital is ... "preferred", or more important, or more protected, .... I should stop, I'm letting an uncomfortable amount of my bias show.

I just want to hear your thoughts as to why capital is taxed at a rate that is a lot lower than wages are taxed.

OMFG. Thats what I thought you meant. I have been saying for MONTHS if not longer to raise the cap gains rate.
I even said so recently, here , here and here in this thread and over here as well.