Draginol Draginol

Where your tax dollar goes

Where your tax dollar goes

How the federal government of the United States spends tax payer money has changed dramatically since 1960.  The priorities of the federal government have shifted from national defense and interstate development to providing a social safety net.

image 

At the dawn of the 60s, national defense was 52% of our expenses. Social security and Medicare and Health were relatively small.  A relatively new category of spending called "income security" which is in which the federal government provides a "social safety net" to the poor and jobless, had grown to 8% by 1960.

By 2007 how things had changed:

image

Net interest payments had dropped to only 2% of the budget (they were 7% in 1960).  But now Medicare and social security have taken over. Health has grown to being 11% on its own.   Income security had grown to 14%.

In 2007, the United States spent $392 billion on Medicare, $586 billion on Social Security, $367 billion on "income security". That is a total of $1.35 trillion on those programs (national defense was, by contrast, $527 billion in 2007).

Social Insurance taxes (Medicare and Social Security) were only $884 billion in 2007 meaning that even before taking "income security" spending into account that the US federal government was spending more on these programs than was bringing in.  The remainder is coming out of individual and corporate taxes.

Below are the specifics including sources of income.

image

Source: MSN Encarta.

Other trends that have changed is that corporations no longer pay as much income tax as they once did. Part of the reason for that is the recognition that 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.

16,187 views 32 replies
Reply #26 Top

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.
End of quote

I would agree and yet, you don't see to get the fairly straight forward reason why corporations today don't pay that much in corporate taxes.

You either didn't understand it or you chose not to listen to it.  I'm not going to explain the difference between C-corps, S-corps and LLCs again nor am I going to explain the recent incentive for C-corporations to put profits into taxes that will be filed under individuals.

 

Reply #27 Top

I didnt ignore it. The revenue decline could happen for many reasons. that is not the issue. The issue is and always was Large Profitable corp dont pay their fair share of taxes. That puts the burden on individuals of all income levels.
End of quote

Sigh. You did ignore it then.  First, you don't even define what "fair share" is. That's just emotionalism.  Profits are still being taxed, they simply are being taxes on individual income returns rather than corporate income returns.

Reply #28 Top
you asked for facts, i presented it. Now you are spinning it.
End of quote


Yes, I asked for facts, no I am not spinning. You still have yet to show me where the federal government has PAID the companies in excess of their taxes for staying in Business. I know of one instance, and I am sure there are a couple more (Chrysler), but they are always done by enacting legislation and are sunset quickly.

So your statement about corporate welfare is just a strawman that has no basis in fact, just new speak. You have yet to show where it is in fact a fact.
Reply #29 Top
Yes, I asked for facts, no I am not spinning. You still have yet to show me where the federal government has PAID the companies in excess of their taxes for staying in Business. I know of one instance, and I am sure there are a couple more (Chrysler), but they are always done by enacting legislation and are sunset quickly.
End of quote


Actually, I believe the government has paid farmers to stay in business, as well as wind energy, ethanol (which, btw, is why so many plants are popping up), pharmaceutical companies, abortion clinics.

Note that most of the companies the government DOES pay to keep afloat are companies that support liberal causes. Ironic, isn't it, that if we eliminated "corporate welfare", these companies would be the first to go!
Reply #30 Top
Actually, I believe the government has paid farmers to stay in business, as well as wind energy, ethanol (which, btw, is why so many plants are popping up), pharmaceutical companies, abortion clinics.
End of quote


I will concede all but the pharmaceuticals. I have seen too many go belly up over civil suits. So yes, I will say that corporate welfare exists - in Selected markets. Notably Farming, Alternative Energy, and Abortion.

And being an ethical person, I am calling for the ELIMINATION of all corporate Welfare! Let the Farmers fend for themselves, abandon alternate energy and let the Infanticide pay for itself.

So the next time we hear a politician talk about Corporate welfare, Let them answer the question of why they support it. I guess we can ask, because I do not expect the MSM to ever ask a tough question.
Reply #31 Top
I will concede all but the pharmaceuticals. I have seen too many go belly up over civil suits.
End of quote


Merck has enjoyed massive corporate welfare, Dr. Guy. Can't speak to the others, but holding a monopoly on several vaccine patents allows Merck to profit massively off of the one form of socialized medicine we DO have: childhod vaccinations.

That was part of the problem with Rick Perry's attempted HPV vaccine edict. Merck stood to make billions off of a vaccine that had not been tested as thoroughly as it should because of the order that it be given to all 12 year old girls.

So, some pharmaceutical companies may go up, but others are definitely enjoying corporate welfare.

While we're at it, let's get into the textbook companies that substantially inflate the cost of textbooks (available for FAR lower prices in the private market!) because of the government monopoly on schools.

Reply #32 Top
Merck has enjoyed massive corporate welfare, Dr. Guy. Can't speak to the others, but holding a monopoly on several vaccine patents allows Merck to profit massively off of the one form of socialized medicine we DO have: childhod vaccinations.
End of quote


I dont see patents as corporate welfare. ANd forced vacinations is another whole issue onto itself. WHile one may construe it as corporate welfare, then we are getting into the new speak where anytime the government buys something they are giving welfare. We may not like it, but Merck is receiving payment for a product. And regardless of the price (it may be usury), that is not welfare.