Posted on 06/18/2013 4:49:55 AM PDT by Kaslin
You’d think when the Huffington Post’s top writer on finance writes about the tax code, he’d understand at least how the tax code works. But in an age when “finance” editors, like the HuffPo’s Mark Gongloff, are demonstrably anti-business, pro-Occupy and work as shills for progressive ideas, facts take a back seat to ideology, outrage and agendas.
The latest outrage Gongloff has taken issue with is how little of the U.S. tax revenue, on a percentage basis, is generated by corporate taxes, as opposed to the good old days of the 1950s.
He even has a chart to prove it
“What this shows,” writes Gongloff, “is how dramatically corporate tax contributions have shrunk in the past several decades, and how our personal taxes have risen to fill the gap. Payroll taxes now make up 35 percent of all federal government tax receipts, up from 11 percent in 1950. Corporate income taxes, meanwhile, now make up less than 10 percent of federal revenue, down from about 26 percent in 1950.”
The chart actually shows none of that.
While technically it’s true that corporate taxes as a percentage basis have gone down, individual taxes aren’t going up in order to fund tax cuts for corporations. Corporations are generating more tax revenues then they did in the good old days, in fact.
Payroll taxes are going up because programs like Social Security and Medicaid-Medicare-which are funded by payroll taxes- are growing faster than any other area of the government budget.
In other words, the “garbage in” in the guise of payroll taxes is growing because social insurance programs, like Social Security, are sending the “garbage out” in the form of higher expenses for an aging population.
And as even Gongloff acknowledges in a later update to his story, “[the] chart of course does not reflect the fact that employers typically cover half of the payroll taxes collected by the government. Assuming companies pay half of the payroll taxes in this chart, the total tax burden for individual Americans is reduced to about 63 percent of total federal revenue, instead of 81 percent, as I estimated in an earlier version of this story. But that is up from about 45 percent in 1950.”
Gongloff doesn’t understand how payroll taxes work apparently- or as liberals would say, he doesn’t care.
Payroll taxes are part of employee benefits. The taxes are insurance payments that go to Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security. So, he’s wrong in a couple of areas.
First, to the extent that payroll taxes are an ordinary part of labor costs, workers pay the entire cost of these taxes. And they should, since the taxes pay for benefits that go directly to those workers, generally speaking. But for every dollar in benefits it’s fewer dollars that can go to hire new workers.
But he’s also wrong about corporate taxes in general.
Corporate taxes in real dollars, regardless of the tax rate today, dwarf corporate tax collections from 1950.
In 1950, corporate taxes generated about $10.5 billion, according to the Tax Policy Center- the equivalent, when adjusted for inflation, of about $101 billion today. In 2012 corporate taxes were $287 billion- or 184 percent higher than in 1950 with inflation adjustments- down from a record $370 billion set in 2007 under George W. Bush- or 266 percent higher than 1950.
And this is why conservatives have the superior argument when it comes to tax policy: Unlike Obama and his progressive “fairness” doctrine, most Americans think that tax policy should generate the most revenue with the lowest tax rates. Common sense dictates that one should get the most benefit for the least cost.
Just think how much money the government could generate if corporate taxes were set lower and were paid by companies rather than set high, as they are now, and avoided by companies.
After all, companies have a choice still of domiciling in another, “fairer” tax jurisdiction- and they always will have that choice.
Maybe, like most liberals, Gongloff doesn’t know any better:
“And Rand Paul is kind of right, you guys, as is Tim Cook [of Apple],” he concludes. “We should not be so mad at Apple for doing what the law allows. We should be mad that the law allows Apple and other companies to keep billions of dollars of cash offshore and out of the government coffers, where it could be helping the unemployed and our crumbling infrastructure and such.”
Hahahaha.
I like especially his policy argument expressed as “and such.”
Once we solve that “and such” part, the big money will really come rolling in.
But really: Who will do a better job creating jobs, returns for investors, products and services that people like?
Apple Computers or the federal government?
I know the answer and so do you.
I suspect that Gongloff knows better too.
But like most liberals don’t, I suspect, he just doesn’t care.
There...fixed it. You'd think that, if you're going to write for a living, you might learn the basic rules of English.
Huffington Post lies! No way. What next, President Obummer can’t be trusted?
Yeah I’ve encountered leftists who think the economy was booming when the tax rate was in the 90%. They also claimed no recessions happened in the 1950’s as well.
I do know though, exactly how you feel. One of my pet peeves is when someone says axe instead of ask. What is so hard to say ask?
You wasn’t surprised, was you?
No, I realize that. I was commenting on the professional writer or the article.
Axe...I know what you mean. Same with “whiff” instead of “with”. You also see a lot of “...the people that protested the policy...” instead of the correct “...the people who protested the policy...” Whatever happened to English grammar instruction? I think there are too many teachers who want to talk about the symbolism found in a phone book instead of the rules of grammar.
Arianna Huffington
Radical Left-Wing syndicated columnist and media personality
Founder, editor and namesake of Radical Left-Wing ‘The Huffington Post ‘
Born Arianna Stassinopoulos on July 15, 1950 in Athens, Greece.
Moved to England at the age of 16, and attended Girton College at Cambridge University where she was President of the Cambridge Union Society in 1971 and graduated with an MA in economics in 1972.
Met millionaire Michael Huffington at a 1985 party hosted by Ann Getty in San Francisco.
Married Huffington in 1986, divorced by 1997. Story goes Michael was bisexual or turned gay. Hmm, wonder why?
Member and ordained minister of John-Roger “cult” the Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness
Former disciple of group-sex and germ-warfare guru Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh
discoverthenetworks.org
You wasn’t surprised, was you?
At first I was then after showing them facts and they still repeated that nonsense I was amused at their purposeful ignorance.
Why don’t teachers correct grammar? I was educated in the German school system and my teachers corrected our grammar constantly until we got it right
Because to do so is considered racist and stifling of "self-expression."
Keeping blacks on purpose ignorant is racist
It isn't hard to say.
However, the black community considers a black person an Uncle Tom who dares say, "ask" instead of "axe". Black people generally do not hold Uncle Tom in high esteem.
I spent most of my life teaching in a university environment and every English teacher I knew hated teaching grammar. To teach such a course was the Siberia of the Arts. Instead, they all wanted to show how bright they were by reading far more into a passage than the author ever intended.
Bump
I remember when Airhead Huff ‘n Puff passed herself off as a conservative, before the winds of opportunity blew her on her present course.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.