And by break, I mean the "hands off" government of George W. Bush has looked the other way when it comes to their payroll taxes. According to a recent AP report, 1.6 million businesses owe 58 billion dollars in back taxes and penalties. This story caught my eye for a couple of reasons. The first was this quote from my Senator, Norm Coleman
Paying taxes isn't an option for hardworking Americans, yet these businesses act like they are exempt from this basic civic responsibility. Employers shouldn't have to worry about whether or money taken from paychecks is being used to line their employers pockets.
First of all, Norm, FUCK YOU! You and your ilk have encouraged this sort of behavior for the last eight years (six for you) and for you to come and say now that this "bad" is terribly disingenuous.
The other thing that I found interesting was how this proves, through hard evidence, how much our country has gone off track from good capitalism. Many of you have said that American businesses aren't like this.....it isn't common...blah blah blah...sucking any corporate leader's cock is patriotic because that is how success is defined...
It is quite clear conservative ideology encourages this sort of behavior. Examples?
- One company that it said had failed to pay $12 million while the owner diverted business money to buy luxury cars, planes and a mansion.
- A construction firm that owed $2.5 million dating back five years was found to be underbidding contracts while using unpaid payroll taxes to subsidize losses.
- A health-care company owing $2.5 million over 30 quarters filed for bankruptcy three times. Around the time of the bankruptcy filings, officers made cash withdrawals from the business of about $700,000.
- A waste-management firm owing $16 million stretched out over 10 years. The business was investigated for hiring illegal immigrants and the owner was arrested for income-tax crimes.
So, corruption is OK when it happens the free market?
29 comments:
An interesting parallel development is the indictment of Ted Stevens for tax evasion (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/washington/30stevens.html).
The United States is one the least-taxed developed nations. During Bush's reign the tax burden of the rich has declined and their incomes have increased dramatically, while our nation's infrastructure has crumbled, bridges are collapsing, and the economy on the whole has been doing poorly. On average, the high-tax countries have been doing better than the United States during Bush's rule.
Low taxes have not caused our economy to boom. Indeed, the lack of funding in regulatory agencies (FAA, FDA, SEC, USDA, etc.) has led to numerous economic disasters, including the aircraft maintenance scares, mortgage meltdown, poison toothpaste, and the recent collapse of the tomato industry, which wasn't even due to tomatoes.
High taxes, like low taxes, are not good in and of themselves. Finding the proper balance is key. Our number one concern should be to pay for things that we feel are important and need to make the country function properly.
Since the 1990's the Democrats have been the ones demanding the "pay-go" system for funding legislation, while the Republicans have opposed it. This is because taxes would have to be raised to pay for things like the Iraq war (which is going to cost about a trillion dollars).
Instead the Republicans are borrowing that trillion dollars from China. Might that have anything to do with Bush attending the Olympics in a country that oppresses independent religious expression?
Are his fellow conservatives going to mouth his excuse that it's "just a sporting event?" If Bush weren't such a suckup he'd stay home during August and clear brush.
During Bush's reign the tax burden of the rich has declined and their incomes have increased dramatically and tax receipts from them have gone up substantially.
There, fixed that for ya. Wouldn't want people to think you didn't understand the whole picture.
Not really, juris. Please re-read the long argument on Kevin's blog I got into with DJ. I put several links in there on how, over the last 30 years, the wealthy of this nation have paid less and less in taxes.
The reason we are in the mess we have now, to put it simply, is that all the rest of us don't have any money to spend because they have it all.
The reason we are in the mess we have now, to put it simply, is that all the rest of us don't have any money to spend because they have it all.
one of the stupidest things I have ever read, and to think you used to bitch that others simplified things into easily digestible short sound bites. so more money to the government will make things better?
Well, yes sw. There is a clear link between "high" taxes and quality of life. Look at states where the tax rate is low. Do they have good roads? Do they have the highest quality possible for their emergency services? Police? Fire Departments? Education? Health? How well do they take care of their poor and disabled?
I personally am sick of people who are so willing to take advantage of the benefits of our society, and so unwilling to cough up their fair share of the check. Like that fat-ass representative of the "Taxpayers League" David Strom. Those who benefit most from our society should shoulder more of the burden for maintaining it. Instead, they whine about how they don't want to pay taxes, and how unfair it is for us to expect them to help with the burden of our democracy.
The neo-con-fidence game that has been perpetrated on us in the last twenty eight years has fleeced those in the middle and lower classes to the benefit of those in the upper one percent. If this is allowed to continue, there could be some really unpleasant things in the future of America.
July 14, 1789.
That's a date that every wealthy person in America would do well to remember. Anyone who doesn't know what that date means, go look it up. When the poorest are oppressed, robbed and starved long enough, rich people die.
...so Dave & Dan walk into the grocery store to each buy a gallon of milk. There is no price tag on the milk, so we take them to the register. The clerk asks Dan how much money he makes in a year…and then charges him $1.50 for the milk. He asks Dave the same question and proceeds to charge him $2.50 for the milk. That is the definition of fair in the “World According to Liberals”.
Capitalism is not a zero-sum game. Money is not finite; it can be created you know. …but if I need to explain that, I suspect you’re all much closer to the “…from each according to his ability, to each..” crowd, anyway.
Dan brings up the ‘better pay up or we’ll revolt’ argument I love so much. Please see my lengthy retort to such drivel many moons ago:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10123622&postID=4805985762948887591&isPopup=true
In other news, our favorite junior senator just returned from abroad. He was able to fit in quite a lot of basketball but unfortunately, since cameras were not allowed in to the hospitals, visiting our troops merely for their sake was not worth the time investment.
"so more money to the government will make things better?"
No, it won't. But more government oversight would help. Actually, any amount of government oversight would help. They have taken the last eight years off because our president and his administration have decided to let the corporate world do pretty much whatever they want.
"If this is allowed to continue, there could be some really unpleasant things in the future of America."
Agreed. And this why conservative ideology doesn't work. Too many conservatives don't understand what's coming. They are going to find out, the hard way, and then we'll see what they are made of. Will they take the reflective road and say that maybe some of their ideas need to be changed? Or will they cling to their beliefs, ignore their responsibility in the matter and blame government? I am hoping for the former and expecting the latter.
"visiting our troops merely for their sake was not worth the time investment.
What's funny about this statement is if he had visited the troops then you would have ripped him for playing politics with the troops...which is exactly what the right did when he played basketball with....the troops. Keep tryin', Dave. I'm sure there are two or three people listening while ted stevens is being indicted, karl rove is about to be indicted, several former members of the justice department are going to go to jail for breaking the law, and a man who hated liberals and gays just shot up a church (my topics for the next few days.
That shooter also was on food stamps and hated Christianlity. Sounds like a typical deadbeat liberal who blamed everyone else for the happenings in his life (like not having enough money because rich people have it all).
waaa waaa waaa
...over the last 30 years, the wealthy of this nation have paid less and less in taxes.
Here's a link that tends to refute that argument. The data is in spreadsheet format, the specific table is 1B, share of total federal tax liability. The top quintile for example went from 56% (of all taxes) in 1979 to 67% in 2004 (including the Bush tax cuts). The top 1% went from 15% to 25%.
Damn pesky facts.
Alright, I have to dig now. Damnit, juris..always keeping me honest...check back here in a day or two and I will have a link.
Just found the link. Juris, are your numbers in actual dollars?
Check these numbers out
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/3Taxes.htm
From the post
"Many supply-siders defend tax cuts for the rich on the basis that the rich pay more taxes in absolute dollars, even at reduced rates. This argument ultimately loses sight of the real issue: massive tax cuts on the rich have fueled growing inequality of wealth and income, as the statistics in the previous section show. What is indisputable is that as our tax system has grown less progressive, and even turned regressive in some cases, middle class growth has stalled while the poor have actually lost ground."
How do you account for Henry Paulson, Bush's Tres Sec, saying the same thing?
Add in these two links as well
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12699486/paul_krugman_on_the_great_wealth_transfer/print
And now what do we have to say?
But more government oversight would help.
OK - just WHAT oversight? You say it isn't about money - what is it that the govt needs to oversee that it isn't - and be very specific (if you possibly can).
"...inequality of wealth and income..." Therein lies the problem/difference between conservatives and liberals. Equality of opportunity vs equality of opportunity.
Oops...not enough coffee yet this morning. That should read: Equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome.
But just dave, there are forces out of their control conspiring to keep them down! That the definition of victim if I ever saw one.
You mean like the liberal media and the public education system?
And now what do we have to say?
I say where is the data that contradicts what I posted. All you offer is opinion and a page of mostly opinion and scattered, unattributed nunbers.
Are you fucking serious? That's what I have to say. Is that really your idea of ADDRESSING FACTUAL DATA that doesn't accord with the world as you choose to see it?
Or, as Paul Simon put it in The Boxer: a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest, lalalalalala.
I'm not disputing the fact that the wealthy pay a higher dollar amount. Of course they do. They make more money now! They pay less of a percentage than they did 30 years ago. In other words, they are holding on to more of their money and getting richer and richer while easily affording the higher standard of living.
This is not true of the middle class whose overall wealth has stagnated while standard of living has gone up. If they are spending money, as they aren't now, the economy's growth will slow. That is why so many people are hurting right now and why the top 1 percent don't give a shit because they have plenty to cover their losses. Never, in the history this country, have we been so stratified-which is what the articles say.
I still need to find that whole debate I had with DJ. I'm pretty sure I saved it in a word document somewhere. When I find it, I will put it up. It has another link in it that shows the decrease in the amount of the actual tax rate that the wealthy pay.
So how do you know they are all holding onto their money? Do they keep their money under their couch cushions or is it invested in stocks, bonds, mutual funds and so forth? Investing in those things help the economy too, probably more than taking a trip to the mall and dropping a few hundred dollars on clothes.
RLD, the answer to your question is in the Krugman article link above.
They pay less of a percentage than they did 30 years ago.
No they don't. They pay more of the total bill then 30 years ago. That is a fact and you have no evidence contradicting that. The issue, such as it is, is your emotional reaction. That being the case, the only question is: how much do you have to bleed them to sate your jealousy? Because you are jealous of their standard of living.
And the rich do not get rich at the expense of the rest of us. It just doesn't work that way. Warren Buffett has never earned a dollar that would have gone to your pocket instead. BTW - for Buffett to complain that he doesn't pay enough in taxes - he can always pay more then the govt asks for. Apparently he doesn't.
the middle class whose overall wealth has stagnated while standard of living has gone up.
So, if the standard of living has gone up for the middle class - aren't they actually better off? Not to mention that your statement is essentially self-contradictory.
It has another link in it that shows the decrease in the amount of the actual tax rate that the wealthy pay.
Don't bother silly. Of course the RATE has gone down. That wasn't the point. The point is that the rich pay more in total taxes now despite the drop in rates. You just can't understand that, can you? Then again, when jealousy is what your real motivation is - it isn't about them paying their fair share, it's about tearing them down to make yourself feel bigger.
I have no problem with people making more money than me and I am certainly not jealous. Many of my friends are quite wealthy and, interestingly, want to pay more in taxes. When I asked them why, they told me it was because they pay less than their fair share.(Google Minnesota Gang of 200-I know two of them quite well).
This is not what I am basing my argument on. Juris, doesn't it bother you that today's CEOs make 500 times as much as their average employee and 30 years ago it was roughly 20 times as much. All I am asking is a return to 20 times as much. If we don't, it will be the downfall of our economy.
If you ask me, the emotional reaction is all yours. In your mind, the government is always taxing too much. There is no wiggle room in this theory and you refuse to see any other evidence. I looked through all of your numbers and agree with them. But they only tell part of the story...the story that your confirmation bias leads you to see.
Many of my friends are quite wealthy and, interestingly, want to pay more in taxes.
There is absolutely NOTHING stopping them from paying more than the IRS (or state tax agency) asks for. Nothing. So if they are complaining that they aren't paying enough, they are liars or fools.
doesn't it bother you
Not really. It's a nice gig if you can get it. I'm also not upset that pro athletes and dipwad entertainers make massive amounts of equally undeserved money. Does that bother you? Or is your ire only raised for CEOs?
All I am asking is a return to 20 times as much.
And your basis for this is??? You think the world was better back then - a time when you weren't even alive? That is a really unusual nostalgia. You might inquire amongst folk that were around at the time - whether they were better off then or now. Better yet, ask pro athletes to go back to the situation before free agency - I'd love to see that reaction.
In your mind, the government is always taxing too much.
Quote me to that effect or shut the fuck up. [And that is all the emotion I've put into this argument]
you refuse to see any other evidence.
You didn't offer any. You do know what E V I D E N C E is, don't you M? It isn't Krugman pissing all over the place; (the hypocrite isn't exactly underpaid as a leftwing mouthpiece himself).
But they only tell part of the story
And your story is based on NO numbers and the self-deception that you aren't envious.
hey markadelphia, how many people did those rich people you know fuck over to get their money? details please.
"And your story is based on NO numbers and the self-deception that you aren't envious."
If I find that link with numbers, will you read it or "not bother?"
RLD, well I am not going to name names or companies but one of them is over 70 and did business in the time of good capitalism. Since I am one of those people who respects his elders, a lot of what I say here regarding the economy comes from him. He started the largest investment company in Minneapolis and has watched business quite closely over the last 50 years. This is a guy who has made his life's work making money and he is telling me that if we continue to pursue a conservative ideology when it comes to the economy we are going to completely fall apart.
It's not about competition anymore or making the best product...it's about fucking over your employees so you can look cooler than your CEO buddies on the golf course. It's about making products that break in two years so you can make the consumer by another one. We have shifted from a culture that cares about product to a culture that pursues waste.
He has shown me many examples how companies in my state have broken the law and gotten away with it. If you want to see what I am talking about, find someone you know who is similar and ask him or her. Much of this was told to me in confidence so I'm not sure what details you are looking for exactly.
If I find that link with numbers, will you read it or "not bother?"
I read through the Huppi link and opened the other two (and not finding any data promptly ignored them). So, as long as it isn't another Krugman rant, or something similar, yes, I'll read it. But I have to admit, I don't think you have anything - it just isn't your style.
but one of them
And you respect this rich person who must've fucked over people to get rich, right? Because that's the way rich people do it, right?
Is he complaining about not paying enough taxes too?
so you can look cooler than your CEO buddies
I guess your friend never played golf with other businessmen.
Do you have any idea how stupid your vitriol for successful business people sounds? Why aren't you screaming about how much money Tiger Woods or Michael Jackson makes each year? Hell, what about the entire Twins or Vikings payroll (let alone ownership/management)? And if anyone is undeserving of the money he is making it MUST be Kevin McHale.
I agree with you on the sports salaries, juris. I think it is outrageous. This speaks to a larger problem of how our society is geared towards leisure and fucking around as opposed to doing anything worthwhile.
We are an entire nation that wants to do as little as possible and make the most money. Everything is geared around "taking a break." I think it is why we are so depressed and have so many problems. We have lost touch with what intrinsically motivates each one of us.
I think it is outrageous.
Well, I just don't have the same sense of moral outrage you do. Funny how that puts you closer to the religious right then it does me. You both have that Puritan streak running through you.
Post a Comment