As you can see from the stats, the federal government is already very deep into giving money to other individuals.

Even if you ignore social security and medicare which we ostensibly pay into with our payroll taxes, you still have $367 billion in good old fashioned welfare.

There's 300 million Americans in the USA.  That's over $1,000 per American being given out.  Assuming that only 10% of Americans "need" this, it's more like $10,000 per "needy" American per year.  And that doesn't count the $280 billion being spent on "health like Medicaid. This also ignores STATE based programs.

It's pretty hard to see how anyone can rationally argue that the federal government should be doing more.

Ah, that would be the point of this article flying over the heads of the liberals in the audience (they'll never 'get it', but it is a highly illustrative article that should be informative to all readers).

you are soooo absorbed in your own bias that you keep repeating this kind of pretentious statement.

Here is what the numbers show (and as they say, the devil is in the details):

Since Defense, Int. Affairs and Other expenses including subsidies (lets call it General Categories) are mostly related to promotion, protection and regulations of major corp. affairs, it is not unreasonable to split the income and expenses of these categories 25% individuals and 75% corp. (remember, if the Corp world acts as they should on their own, there would be no need for EPA, OSHA, and other regulatory and monitoring agencies which consume a lot of gov. expenses. The same goes for the defense since corp interests are essentially what the USA protects overseas).

In 1960 the people paid $ 59.3 B (64.1% ) of the receipts. And the people recieved $ 37.9 B (63.9% of what they paid)
In 2007 the people paid $2024.2 B ( 83.8%) of the receipts. And the people received $1862.0 B (92.0% of what they paid)

In 1960 Corp paid $ 33.2 B (35.9%) and received $ 54.6 (164% of what they paid)
In 2007 Corp paid $$391.7 B (16.2%) and received $ 708.0 (181% of what they paid)

Now look at these numbers !!!!! Corp now pay less and recieve more

The corporations ...... the ones who make fantastic profits and pay their CEO's outrageous salaries are being SUBSIDIZED by the citizens. Just in case you think i am opposed to their profits and salaries .... Far from it. I am glad when they do that and get very upset when they are not doing well since the Citizens need them to work and use their products and services.

However ..... shouldn't they, the Corporations, pull their own weight???? and pay at least as much as they receive?

did you ever think of that? or you just mimic what you been fed?

when you tax a company, you are simply taxing individuals since companies pass on those taxes in the form of higher prices which, in turn, make US companies less competitive in a global market.

Not entirely true, otherwise the corp profits would not have increased by the enormous rate we experienced since the 1980's. Free market and global competion will limit their ability to raise prices. because of low taxes they can raise the prices and still be competitive. that is why their profits sky rocketed.

They didnt lower prices as a result of getting lower taxes. Did they?

They didnt lower prices as a result of getting lower taxes. Did they?

You are looking at the wrong end of the horse.  Income taxes on corporations are not COGS and so cant result in lower prices.  They do result in increased dividends, which are double taxed (first at the company level, and then at the individual level). And that is the crime on which the point was made.  You can deny it, but then you can deny that the sun rises in the east as well.

Record profits?  Before or after taking into account inflation?  That is the idiocy I hear from the MSM and liebrals in general.  For some odd reason, no company is ever to make more than some arbitrary baseline figure that resides in the minds of the complainers.  Regardless of the value of the money (inflation).

And your "people paid" stats are wrong.  People paid 100% and got 100%.  It is which people got that you are trying to highlight (and not doing well since the information provided is insufficient for that purpose).  A dollar for defense does not go into some sink hole never to be seen again.  It goes for soliders pay and equipment.  Equipment bought from a company that has employees that get paid as well.

But your "received" (by the people) only indicates a bias on your part (not in and of itself bad) that goes to the function of government.  Anyone throwing up numbers like that see the government as the owner of all wealth and therefore responsible for ensuring that the "received" part goes to their perceived priorities of need in the nation, regardless of the wording, or intent of the founding fathers.

One thing the numbers do clearly show, when all the rhetoric is stripped away, is that the national debt, and the interest on it (which may be the only part that does not go the people as most of it is held by foreigners), is not a function of Defense, but of social programs.  It is going up DESPITE the reductions in defense.  And lays bare the lies of the liberal leaders of why we are in debt, and who is at fault (except right now, yes, Bush is clearly one of them).

This is a good article, Draginol. I was unaware of these numbers and will take this into consideration. While the pie charts certainly appear to speak for themselves, I would like to ask these follow up questions-

1) How much has the population of the U.S changed in the last 47 years?

2) How many retirees and elderly are currently in the U.S today as opposed to 1960?

3) The term "social security" which takes up 23 % of the budget- is this entirely welfare payments, or does this encompass other things as well like food stamps, education assistance etc?

4) As a tie-in to question 3, what is encompassed in the "other" category? Is that where education, police and fire, public libraries, public infrastructure (roads, bridges) fall?

Also as an aside the "national defense" portion is probably a little bigger than listed on these charts. This is due to the fact that many billions of dollars spent on ND get classified as secret and are not listed on the official budget. The amount of money spent on these sensitive programs is known but only by select members of both houses, I do believe?

regardless of how you you like to spin the facts, people got less than what they paid. I didnt defferentiate between people. ALL people got that amount regardless of category.

Corp on the otherhand got much more than what they paid. they got in in military contracts, protecting their interests worldwide, infrastructure, regulations, ..etc.



what people paid is included in the gov. receipts. and you ignoring the fact that most corp dont pay dividends. so your point is not valid because of these two facts.

You also ignoring the subsidies the corp recieve. specially oil, Agri Busn and Mining ..etc. NO ONE talks about Corp wellfare, but it is as big if not more than the welfare system for the poor. except those corp are not poor at all, they make billions in profits.

btw, again i am not complaining about those subsidies, it gives them incetives to grow , all i am saying is they should pay their dues. As it stands now and from the numbers shown, they are not.

If rich people pay their dues, why cant corp also pay theirs???? only few people in each corp benefit from their low taxes. I would rather see them pay their dues in rder to reduced taxes on the rich and upper middle class. That will benefit more people not just the higher ups in each corp.

And i did not say defense is only for corp but most of it is for their benefit. The fact that our border's defense doesnt require us to be allover the world as we are now is undeniable. but you can believe what you wish of course.

As the owner of a corporation, please enlighten me as to how defense spending disproportionately helps my company.

Incidentally, corporations are already taxed at higher rates than individuals.

All people got 100%. And Paid 100%. That is not spin, that is fact. I merely pointed out that different people got than gave.



No, your point ignores reality. Whether in dividends or re-investment, people got the money. Money not spent by a company is spent (an oxymoron for simplicity sake) on infrastructure or invested (where you get your mortgage from). My point is valid. Companies, while legal entities in some respects, quite simply are just a confederation of people. And in the end, whether the CEO or the line worker, or the supplier or the home buyer, the people ultimately use the money. The difference is that the company - based on decisions by a committee - decide where to spend it, instead of you, or me, or Uncle sam.



Because it is a myth. There is no corporate welfare. There is just a lessenig of the confiscatory taxes. Welfare is when you pay nothing and get something. Show me a corporation that pays NO taxes, and I will show you Chapter 11. That is good for people, right?

Technically no. and that is my point. multinationals have so many deductions to the point that many of them pay very little even though their profits are dozens of Billions.

But we are not talking technicalities here, we are talking of what are the best policies. I didnt say they are doing something illegal (even though more than few of them are ). Just change the rules so they pay their fair share.

But most subsidies are surely a form of welfare. Some subsidies are justified, but most of them are not (e.g. oil companies, large Agri Busn. .. etc.)

that was in the year 2000. along with the bush tax cut. business mainly the fortune 500 club have to pay a minimum tax as they did when Reagan was president.

come on people if i know this and i don't pay attention to the news. why don't you people who do pay attention. oh that's right you get your news from the ABN.

Do you pay the same amount of taxes every year? No? WHy not?

And like all statistics, that is a snapshot in time on only 1 tax, not all taxes. (although for infalmmatory purposes the writer clearly wanted to leave that impression).

When a company loses money, no it pays no income tax (just a lot of other taxes). If it pays NO tax, then chapter 11 is the least of their worries. A long stint in Sing SIng is more likely their worries (it has been done, but the miscreants are almost always caught - unless pardoned by a president while in exile in Switzerland).

But a company cannot lose money every year. I have my own small company. I do not make a profit every year (so I am one of that 64% sometimes), but if I never made a profit one of 2 things would happen - 1 the business would fold, and/or 2, the government would classify the business as a hobby not a business.

Just because GM did not pay INCOME taxes last year does not mean it never did. Or paid NO taxes at all.

Now, gather up the statistics showing ALL the taxes paid by a corporation - any one that is still a viable concern, over the life of the corporation. Then show how much the government gave them in subsidies (hint - 99.9% of them got 0), and subtract the 2. Now show me how you PAY for welfare. What is called Corporate Welfare is nothing more than not taxing them as much as before, but like all Washingtonian New Speak, politicians, especially those of a particular party, call it WELFARE.

WELFARE is not a lessening of taxes. It is the transfer of money from a producing individual to a non-producing one, with no strings attached (as to its repayment).

Individuals also pay many more taxes than just the fed taxes. and that is what we are talking about.

you asked for facts, i presented it. Now you are spinning it.

Nothing strange about that. Like I said, it is useless to discuss things if there is an obvious bias.

Draginol, this is not a competion. I am sure you know a lot more about corp tax law but what we discussing here doesnt need a brain surgeon to understand.

Of course corp that dont have profits dont pay taxes. That is not what the data is all about. It is about those big guys only paying 5% taxes(as an average of course .... some didnt pay and some paid more than 5%)on their accumulative income.

That general view of what all paid is the point not what each one paid. Rich individuals and small Busn pay more than that, much more than that %, why cant these big guys pay comparable % of their income.

Investment and other justifications are not convincing since it applies to Rich individuals too. In other words, rich corp should pay taxes on a bar with that of rich individuals. that is the main point.