Taxes at lowest level since 1959

[crufus]

Despite these problems of data definition, the headline's claim about 2009 being a year of historically low taxes isn't far off. Tax Freedom Day, which is calculated by taking total taxes divided by a broad income measure, NNP (which is somewhat close to personal income), had a rate of about 26.6 percent in 2009, which was the lowest since 1959.

Guess I'm in sort of a tweaking mood today.

[Tagterp]

That is collected tax revenue. Why would we be surprised given this double dip recession we are in. The economy is in the dumper for many. With deflation in values in real property, the tax on same is substantially down as assessed value is recalculated to new fair market value. Obviously with millions unemployed, state, federal and local income taxes are also down.

Are you setting up an arguement that we should let the Bush tax cuts expire based upon this analysis?

[Wojo Cult]

I love these comparisons.

"We are the third lowest sales tax state."
"Only four other states do not have this regulation."
"Compared to so&so, we're not that bad."

Yeah, and compared to Satan, Hitler was a pretty good guy.

[crufus]

(07-24-2010 01:27 PM)Tagterp Wrote:  That is collected tax revenue. Why would we be surprised given this double dip recession we are in. The economy is in the dumper for many. With deflation in values in real property, the tax on same is substantially down as assessed value is recalculated to new fair market value. Obviously with millions unemployed, state, federal and local income taxes are also down.

Are you setting up an arguement that we should let the Bush tax cuts expire based upon this analysis?

The recession is obviously big in this, but given that it's a % of the broad income measure rather than a raw figure, I don't see how that explains the low figure other than write offs and such (as you sort of allude to). It's one of those that can be argued a million different ways obviously (and is), but the figure runs a little counter to the claim that the tax burden has skyrocketed recently.

Re the last post, you can obviously always argue that you are taxed too much since 'too much' is defined by the person doing the arguing, but saying it's more than another time in history is subject to mathematical assessment.

[BornAJacket]

unfortunately governmental spending continues to increase.

[tarheelbillie]

(07-25-2010 04:37 PM)BornAJacket Wrote:  unfortunately governmental spending continues to increase.

Heck, just put it on the card. Meanwhile, the USA tax phobia rolls on. And, we get further and further in debt. What happens when China forecloses on the White House.

[jws]

(07-25-2010 07:12 PM)tarheelbillie Wrote:  

(07-25-2010 04:37 PM)BornAJacket Wrote:  unfortunately governmental spending continues to increase.

Heck, just put it on the card. Meanwhile, the USA tax phobia rolls on. And, we get further and further in debt. What happens when China forecloses on the White House.

Your first sentence clearly demonstrates that the real problem is not taxes being too low, it's spending being too high.

And your usual wild kneejerk hyperbole notwitstanding, china cannot change the terms of the treasuries and other debt instruments it has purchased. Just like everyone else, it has no choice but to abide by the contracts it has signed on to.

[davidson deac ii]

Japan actually owns more US debt than China.

But our relationship with China is symbiotic. They need us now as much as we need them.

[Terp7475]

[Tagterp]

(07-24-2010 02:34 PM)crufus Wrote:  

(07-24-2010 01:27 PM)Tagterp Wrote:  That is collected tax revenue. Why would we be surprised given this double dip recession we are in. The economy is in the dumper for many. With deflation in values in real property, the tax on same is substantially down as assessed value is recalculated to new fair market value. Obviously with millions unemployed, state, federal and local income taxes are also down.

Are you setting up an arguement that we should let the Bush tax cuts expire based upon this analysis?

The recession is obviously big in this, but given that it's a % of the broad income measure rather than a raw figure, I don't see how that explains the low figure other than write offs and such (as you sort of allude to). It's one of those that can be argued a million different ways obviously (and is), but the figure runs a little counter to the claim that the tax burden has skyrocketed recently.

Re the last post, you can obviously always argue that you are taxed too much since 'too much' is defined by the person doing the arguing, but saying it's more than another time in history is subject to mathematical assessment.

I think the bitching about being taxed too much arises because the people don't like what their taxes are being spent upon nor the accelerated deficit which gobbles up alot of tax revenue to support the increasing debt service for unwanted social programs.

[BornAJacket]

(07-26-2010 10:02 AM)Terp7475 Wrote:  

we all know that none of the spending on the graph is mandatory except those expenditures strictly called for in the US Constitution. Everything else, while called "Mandatory", can all be cut with good fiscally sound financial decisions.

IMO each category can be cut significantly, except maybe the VA expenditures which has suffered sever underfunding for decades. But that opinion is debatable.

[crufus]

Great graphic actually and thanks for posting it. The $895B for defense surprised me. I figured defense was ~$750B including the VA (where I agree with Jacket in terms of not cutting - I usually figure budget deliberations should start with 'What does the VA need?" and go to other stuff once that is taken care of).

Coupla questions here:
i) was this for 2009?
ii) what goes into "other" for ~$600B under Mandatory spending? That's some serious jack to be filed under "miscellaneous".

[Redstuff]

(07-26-2010 05:58 PM)crufus Wrote:  Great graphic actually and thanks for posting it. The $895B for defense surprised me. I figured defense was ~$750B including the VA (where I agree with Jacket in terms of not cutting - I usually figure budget deliberations should start with 'What does the VA need?" and go to other stuff once that is taken care of).

Coupla questions here:
i) was this for 2009?
ii) what goes into "other" for ~$600B under Mandatory spending? That's some serious jack to be filed under "miscellaneous".

The VA is usually not included in defense spending. Nor is the nuclear weapons program which is usually under the budget for DOE.

[Redstuff]

Wondering why the figure for the TARP is listed as only $11 billion....

[Redstuff]

Wondering if the figure for defense spending includes our "off budget" spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan......