The problem is spending not revenue

So those are the government tax revenues. The first thing to notice is the Obama tax regime produced an increase of $ 0.5 trillion between 2013 and 2016….between 2017 and 2021 tax revenues increased $0.7 trillion under Trump…….despite the tax rate adjustment. The Trump takings were 40% higher.

The second thing to notice is that tax revenues have gone up from $2.78 trillion to $4.44 trillion over the 10 years. That’s an increase of 60%. Over the same period population has gone up from 319.4 to 340 million. And the consumer price index has gone up from 230 to 300.

So 100 dollars spent in 2013 grows to 106 dollars needed in 2023 because of increased population. And that in turn grows to 138.8 because of inflation.

And of course 100 dollars of tax revenue grew to 160 dollars. So in effect in real terms our deficits should be lower.

But the actual deficit has gone from $0.88 trillion in 2013 to $1.86 trillion in 2023. That despite a 60% increase in revenue that kept pace with population and inflation.

There are many nuances, social security payments, inflation in medical expenses etc. the numbers are probably overstated. Nonetheless blaming revenues and wanting to ramp up taxes is probably not going to increase revenues by much and may reduce overall economic health.

The government like every other spender has to make choices and spend reasonably….blowing a 6%  a year gain in tax revenues by definition can’t be responsible spending, it would be interesting to see what Musk could do with this lunacy.

Not true:

As with any progressive income tax system, U.S. taxpayers with higher incomes pay higher income tax rates. The result: half of U.S. taxpayers pay 97 percent of all income taxes.

The top 1 percent of earners alone pay over one-third of income taxes.

Of course, income taxes are only part of the story. Payroll taxes, sales taxes, and excise taxes are all regressive, meaning lower-income individuals contribute a greater share of their total income towards these taxes than do higher-income individuals.

So, what happens when you take into account all taxes paid? It turns out the U.S. federal tax system remains very progressive. Meaning, Americans with the highest incomes pay the largest share of all federal taxes.

Learn More

• Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data
• Putting A Face on America’s Tax Returns

These charts are absolutely clear….as you go up the income scale your share of taxes becomes much higher than your share of income….a progressive tax rate.

Here is another myth:

It’s true that in some years, certain corporations, often those that appear profitable, pay zero federal income taxes. That’s not due to any tricks or “loopholes” though. There are several legitimate reasons why a “profitable” corporation should not pay income taxes.

For the most part, this misconception comes down to two factors: a misunderstanding of how corporate income is defined, and a misunderstanding of how corporate income is taxed.

First, there’s reason to believe that many of the corporations you think of as being profitable won’t actually turn a profit this year. That’s because companies report what’s called “book income” on their financial statements, which follow typical U.S. accounting standards and are designed to make companies appear as profitable as possible to shareholders.

However, the tax code operates under different accounting rules. For tax purposes, governments use what’s called “taxable income,” which is defined by law and accounts for three important factors:

1. A company’s net operating losses: The U.S. tax code allows companies with losses in one tax year to deduct those losses from their profits in future tax years all the way down to zero, which prevents corporations with long-term net losses from being taxed.
2. Where a company earns its profits: Many large U.S. corporations conduct business in multiple countries, and the U.S. offers tax credits for the taxes they pay to foreign governments on their foreign income to mitigate double taxation.
3. How much a company invests in equipment and machinery:The most important difference between book income and taxable income has to do with the treatment of capital investment purchases, such as for new equipment and machinery. Under typical U.S. accounting standards, when a corporation makes a capital purchase, it is only able to treat a small fraction of that investment as a current-year expense and must write off that purchase over many years. By contrast, the U.S. tax code allows corporations to treat a much larger fraction of the same investment as a current-year expense, which means it can deduct that purchase from its taxes the same year it made the purchase.

So, next time you hear about a “profitable” company paying no income tax, chances are that it had a combination of both zero or negative book income and either net operating losses, significant foreign profits, sizable capital investments, or all of the above.

Of course, it’s also important to remember that federal income taxes aren’t the only taxes corporations pay. Businesses are also liable for state income taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, and excise taxes!

Tax revenues are massive….nearly 40% of  the country’s income taxes are paid by1% of the population who earn 23% of the income. Far from not paying their fair share this group pays almost double their fair share…..wake up to reality.

i must agree with Mozart in this case,    In the usa their are also State Taxes on income - fo r instance you find states like California withtthe highest cost of living in the SA and itha present Deficit that cause pele to lee cfrom the stte at more than tens of thousands of people flee from that state to othe states i the USA were State taxes are lower and living conditions better s well.    As Mozart said he problem in the USA has been growing massively.   

The problem is that higher tax raes doe not mean tht State ibncome increases - fo isance Reagan raised tax raes and the actual taxation income decreases,      SB talks about wealth tax - but that an have a real negative impact. where the vey rich move their opeations tp cpnties that di not tax wealth and where lwer waes and lack f union actitties exist - so the contry ends p with reat losses in tax revenue,   

Mozart also shows something proving the impact o lwe taxation on actual income from taxation cause.    The Democrats favou he problem that death duties nust be paid in advance - n othe wods theywant to use that to boost icome,     In the case of agriculture tat is bound tto impact on foor production as it will become part of input cost increases and since farmers must borrow money to cover imput costs and the death duty costs will inetiabke lead to lower food prduction since imput cost increases firce farmer to take bigger lan s and theya re placing themselves in dnager of not being able to match thei actual income on a loss basis.   So farmes reduce production by taking lower loans to cover imput costs and food costs increase for consumers to paaaaaay.     Take for instance the case of fertilizes - the USA imports 80% of thir fertilizers from Russia and 20% from China.   Fertilizers import from Russia was banned when the Ulrane War started - but it had the potential problem of decreased food production on farms and Biden quietly removed ferilizer import from the list of impor bans,   Putin'd Hpvernment sid fine we will export the ferilizers the USA farmers need by 400% and the USA government was forced to pay the 4oo% increased costs and passed it to the farmers to pay.    That  idditional costs caused by death duty avance payment will orce farmrs to reduce production f food which will case price increases theough shortages in supply annd increased needs to feed more people every year,    

It is a difficult problem for people who do t know why it happened - but increase in tax rates in the main means a smaller actual State income .  I  mentioned farming - but that pattern goes through to industrial and financial isntiutions as well. 

*    Wealth taxation is a definie NO-NO'

*     Inflaion is a problem in an environment where everything gets more expensive for all all te people in the USA.    That in iself caused shortages in the country,

                .                     

Look at the chart again….those aren't tax rates, those are taxes paid in 2016 . I guess that ends the debate.

It is common knowledge that most of the richest people in the US pay little to no tax (Income or Corporate)

The discrepancy between official tax rates and what the wealthiest individuals actually pay has been a subject of significant debate and research. Here's an overview of the situation:

Effective Tax Rates vs. Official Rates

The wealthiest individuals often pay much lower effective tax rates than the official rates would suggest. This is due to several factors:

Unrealized Capital Gains

Much of the wealth of billionaires is tied up in stocks and other assets that appreciate in value over time. These gains are not taxed until the assets are sold1. For example, Jeff Bezos paid no federal income tax in 2007 despite being a multibillionaire, because his wealth was primarily in Amazon stock that he hadn't sold1.

Lower Capital Gains Tax Rates

When the wealthy do sell assets, they often benefit from lower capital gains tax rates compared to ordinary income tax rates4.

Sophisticated Tax Avoidance Strategies

The ultra-wealthy have access to complex tax avoidance strategies that are not available to average taxpayers. These include:

1. Taking out low-interest loans against their assets instead of selling them, avoiding taxable income4.

2. Using offshore accounts and pass-through businesses to hide income3.

3. Exploiting loopholes in the tax code with the help of high-priced tax lawyers and accountants1.

The Scale of Tax Avoidance

Research has shown that:

• The top 1% of earners fail to report about 21% of their income to the IRS3.

• When accounting for sophisticated tax evasion, the tax gap for the top 0.1% of earners approximately doubles compared to conventional estimates3.

• A study cited by the White House estimated that the nation's wealthiest 400 families paid an average effective tax rate of only 8.2% between 2010 and 2018 when including unrealized capital gains2.

Impact on Inequality

This disparity in tax rates has significant implications for wealth inequality:

• While the median American household paid about 14% in federal taxes in recent years, billionaires often pay a fraction of that rate relative to their wealth growth1.

• The ability of the ultra-wealthy to avoid taxes on a large portion of their wealth growth exacerbates existing inequality2.

Conclusion

While the official tax rates are not a "scam" in the sense of being fraudulent, they do not reflect the reality of what the wealthiest individuals actually pay relative to their wealth accumulation. The complex interplay of tax laws, financial strategies, and the nature of wealth accumulation for the ultra-rich results in effective tax rates that are often far below what many might expect based on official rates alone.

Lol...it's a common lie the left is peddling to the free stuf crowd...

The only point of substance here is that taxes aren’t paid on capital gains until they are realized. That’s true. But income taxes were paid on the original amount invested ie on the capital he accumulated by working.

The gain is taxed when realized. Which actually protects people of modest means most, their house is their biggest asset  and if unrealized gains were due on house price increases many people would be forced out of their homes.

Capital gains tax remains payable when assets are sold….the second time that income flow is taxed. The third time is estate tax when the person dies. But capital gains which are 24% are forgiven when estate tax at 40% is due, if the assets are held to death. If not they are taxed on capital gains and on the estate.

So a reasonably wealthy person that accumulates a $ 1 million investment account has already paid $0.6 million in taxes. If that account grows to $2 million  and he sells it to promote his lifestyle he pays another 30% in federal and state taxes….so the amount he clears is $1,7 million.

And if he is hit by a truck and has still not spent the money he pays another 56% estate tax to the Feds and Illinois.

So the $1.7 is reduced to $0.75 million for his heirs. So this poor slob who made $1.6 million originally and another $1 million by investing…$2.6  million in total….and spends none of it, is able to give his heirs $0.75 million. The rest…$0.6 million for income tax….$0.3 million for capital gains …$0.95 million for estate duty…all go to the government whose total haul is $ 1.85 million.

There are ways to delay  some of this by creating Trusts and Family corporations….but ultimately as these Trusts break down after several generations tax is due.

The government earned none of this money. It’s a beneficiary and a damn greedy one at that

That is bloody crazy Moz

Congrats to Mozzie for getting the tax story correct.

Sharktwit is a brainwashed clueless Marxist. 

The problem is definitely overspending. The overspending, wastage etc is of course deliberate.

The Uniparty has made sure the deficit just keeps growing and now the US is close to. Bankruptcy. Hopefully Trump can turn this around. The US going bankrupt would bring the whole house of cards down. Then it's on the the Great Reset and YOU will own nothing and be happy. 

I noticed that before Covid arrived Trump managed to stop the deficit growing but the Plandemic undid his great economy. 

Elon Musk reckons he can strip out 2 trillion in costs per year. Javier Milieu closed down most of the Gov't departments in Argintina with great results. There is huge scope to do this in the USA. 

You need to kick out the Globalists who are hell bent on destroying America and all Western Nation states.  They are the real problem. They are the ones causing the overspend. 

Mozzie of course won't tell you this.