FDXLAG

Again the TX budget will be balanced. Unlike your socialist states TX figures out how much they have to spend and that is the budget. Your 31% is based on the last 2 years budget not the next 2 years. And I guess the answer is no you are not counting the 10 Billion TX has in the bank.

jungle

You are very skilled at taking a half truth and twisting it just the wrong way.

However you seem to always end up with an incorrect conclusion.

Part of our current problem is that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

Ultimately consumers of corporate products pay those taxes.

tomgoodman

They certainly do, just as they pay for labor, utilities, raw materials, and all other costs the company incurs. Does anyone think that executives dip into their own pockets to pay the corporate taxes? It's a regressive sales tax, but attractive to politicians because voters think that "someone else" is paying it.

Pragmatic1

Okay, I will type slow so you can keep up. We were talking about things that caused the collapse of GM or government motors as you like to call it. This would mean we are discussing events preceding[/B] the bailout of the auto industry in 2008. How citing SUV sales in 2011 helps your case is a bit puzzling. You attribute the collapse solely to unions and their pensions. I simply said that high fuel prices destroyed the large vehicle market followed by the credit crunch pushed the company over the edge. Your link citing high suv sales in 2011 only proves the auto bailout, which I'm sure you opposed, worked and was the right thing to do. That being said, suv sales are still well off historic highs. Perhaps you should checkout my "my clueless link" below from the period prior to the collapse.
"After reigning supreme for the better part of two decades, the mighty SUV has at long last fallen, done in by mounting fuel prices that have consumers embracing small cars and automakers scrambling to build them."

"After decades of decline, GM (GM) was finally brought to its knees by the recession and frozen credit markets, forcing the company into the arms of the federal government"

SUVs plunge toward 'endangered' list - CNN

Rising Gas Prices Finally Kill The Once-Mighty SUV | Autopia | Wired.com

GM Files for Bankruptcy - BusinessWeek

Pragmatic1

Speaking of half truths. Yes, the U.S. does have the highest tax rate, however because of tax loopholes it's still cheaper to operate in America than other countries with lower rates without loopholes. Exxon, GE and Bankof America all paid little in taxes to uncle sam. Corporate income taxes accounted for 1.1% GDP in 2010 and the world average is 3.4%. When was the last time you paid zero in taxes. Tax loopholes favor the corporations and the wealthy. The richest 400 Americans that have as much wealth as the bottom 50% of America pay a lower effective tax rate than a person making $29,000 a year. Yet, some continue to push policies that reward corporations and the super rich at the expense of the middle class. That's a recipe for disaster. Again just looking at the end result void of analysis is useless and nothing more than a talking point.

PolitiFact Rhode Island | Whitehouse says richest 400 taxpayers are taxed at a lower rate than a $29,000-a-year worker
High Corporate Tax Rate Is Misleading - Investing - Economy - SmartMoney.com

FDXLAG

"After decades of decline" hmmmm. There is no doubting what pushed GM over the edge. The question is how did they get to the cliff? You refuse to acknowledge that a $5K per vehicle surcharge put GM at a competitive disadvantage during their decades of decline. Was it solely due to the UAW no. I am sure US tax code had something to do with it.

My source for the SUV sales had to do with your post that said that SUV sales were destroyed.

Goes211

Dude, what are you? The last supply-side economist...? Put down "Atlas Shrugged" and stop deluding yourself.... Unless you make 2 Mil/year, you are not part of the capitalist class and don't benefit from defending them.

Lower corporate taxes even further... /snicker. You can type that with a straight face? Low regulation and low or non-existent corporate taxes is what makes America so attractive for corporations... and they aren't in business to be good to the consumer.. only for money, for themselves.

When Ike was in office (a very prosperous time) the highest tax rate was 91%.. How do you square that one? Large middle class, higher taxes for the wealthy. Low taxes for corporations and the wealthy... small/no middle class.

After the middle class is completely decimated, guess what? It'll be the people making less than 1M that are the new middle... and they will be decimated. The goal of capitalism is Monopoly. The role of Government is to counteract that tendency.

We invented liberal Democracy government as a counter to despotism. I cannot understand why so many want to eviscerate it, except for the obvious devotion to that sad Ayn Rand religion, called "Objectivism." (named only because "greedism" doesn't sound as cool)

Your Galtian viewpoint is taken from a 50 year-old idea that has been thoroughly proven false many times over. Probably you should read about real problems in actual reality, and stop believing in this delusion, before the Labor class "Shrugs" you right off the top of the heap...

Pragmatic1

Actually, the state constitutions of most states don't allow states to run deficits. Which means they all will balance their budgets and Texas doing the same doesn't make it special. Also I suggest you review the link I provided earlier States Continue to Feel Recession?s Impact — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. It's pretty easy to read but let me highlight a few things contrary to your argument. Texas current midyear gap is $4.3 billion, 10.1%, 2012 projected $13.4 billion, 31.5% and 2013 projected $13.4 billion, 31.5%. You talk a lot about so called socialist states, which Texas will never be called. But it's ironic that right to work state Texas with it's regressive tax system, low spending on education (47th), low spending on social programs to help its citizens, and ranks 50th among the states in per capita spending on residents ($3959 per residents, $5072 average) still has one of the highest projected deficits in the nation. Only NV and NJ have higher. "Socialist state" MA provides health care for all residents yet only has a 2012 projected gap of $1.8 billion or 5.7%. Texas' shortfall is even bigger than California's.
We can play politics and blame unions, social programs, left vs right polcies etc. But the real reason for Texas' shortfall as well as the many across the nation is the major recession we experienced and haven't yet recovered from. Texas with it's low tax structure depends heavily on state sales tax to fund its government. Relying on sales revenue for funding during a recession is bound to cause some fiscal headaches.
PolitiFact Texas | In a letter, Scott McCown says Texas would have to increase spending by 28 percent just to reach the national average for spending per resident

FDXLAG

All that low spending per resident doesn't keep them from coming does it? State and County QuickFacts

Pragmatic1

Perhaps our supply side friend should read this opinion piece from Reagan's own Budget Director David Stockman.


Here are a few quotes: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/op...ewanted=1&_r=2

"Through the 1984 election, the old guard earnestly tried to control the deficit, rolling back about 40 percent of the original Reagan tax cuts. But when, in the following years, the Federal Reserve chairman, Paul Volcker, finally crushed inflation, enabling a solid economic rebound, the new tax-cutters not only claimed victory for their supply-side strategy but hooked Republicans for good on the delusion that the economy will outgrow the deficit if plied with enough tax cuts."

"It is not surprising, then, that during the last bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1 percent of Americans — paid mainly from the Wall Street casino — received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90 percent — mainly dependent on Main Street’s shrinking economy — got only 12 percent. This growing wealth gap is not the market’s fault. It’s the decaying fruit of bad economic policy."