Just to illustrate the point...

Remember the other day when I said "we don't have a spending problem, we have a REVENUE problem"?
Well this illustration will show you what I'm talking about when I say you and I are being made to pay for GE and ilk:

As David Callahan writes:

But I doubt that there is a single top tax attorney or chief financial officer in the country who was all that surprised. You see, these people are denizens of Loophole Land – a very different place than W-2ville where most Americans live.

In Loophole Land, nothing is quite as it seems. Yes, there is a top corporate tax rate of 35 percent, but it is well understood that nobody actually pays that. On the contrary, many companies pay nothing at all.

How can this be?

For starters, Loophole Land has no national borders and so it is easy to shift money around in ways that avoid taxes. General Electric works all over the world, and under tax law, it isn’t taxed on its foreign profits as long as it says that it is reinvesting those profits abroad. Many companies become expert at shifting profits abroad to foreign subsidiaries in low-tax or no-tax nations. In 2008, Goldman Sachs, had 29 subsidiaries located in offshore tax havens and reported profits of over $2 billion. It paid federal taxes of just $14 million on those profits.

Loophole Land is also a place where past business losses are never, ever forgotten. So, for instance, if you run a giant conglomerate with a profit-hungry credit division that makes a lot of stupid loans to people who can’t pay them back, fear not: you’ll be able to write off those losses – in effect getting ordinary taxpayers to subsidize your gambling debts. General Electric is widely seen as a manufacturing company. But up to half of its profits during the Bush years came from its large consumer lending business, GE Capital, and that business suffered huge losses during the crash – reportedly $32 billion. Now we are all helping GE foot the bill for that unlucky streak.

So, if you're feeling like you're barely able to keep your head above water financially, and you don't have as much money as you used to, you're right! Tax policy over the past 30 years has been designed to shift the tax burden off corporations and the wealthy, dumping it onto - you guessed it -

US.

Now consider that GE got $4B of OUR money in subsidies.

With all this, if you DON'T think our tax structure needs radical reform - YESTERDAY - then I can recommend a good Psychologist for your delusional disorder.

The USA does not have a spending problem -

it has a great big screaming REVENUE problem.
Why do I say this? I say this because my wife and I, (with our low 6-figure income)paid MORE in taxes in 2010 than GE with it's $5.1B in profits (US-based); not only did they pay SWABO in taxes, they got $4B in tax subsidies. Guess who pays for that?
As Chuck Collins puts it:

"Our communities are enduring mammoth state and federal budget cuts because we have, in large part, failed to sufficiently tax America's millionaires and billionaires or prevent aggressive tax avoidance by multinational companies. The rest of us are paying to pick up the slack. (emphasis added)
Congress has blown holes in our tax code, losing hundreds of billions in revenue. Worse, lawmakers have averted their eyes as corporate lobbyists drill new tax loopholes and extract new corporate welfare subsidies."

This is a society that has its priorities seriously bent, as proven by proposals before Congress to cut services for children and the mentally ill while leaving these tax loopholes in place.

Collins proposes $400B/year in new revenues that would impact just under 2% of the nation:

:"There are four revenue raisers that Congress could institute tomorrow that would generate $400 billion a year--or $4 trillion over the next decade. Such programs would restore greater fairness to our tax system and reduce the extreme levels of inequality polarizing our society.

Congress could levy a modest financial transaction tax on the transfers of stock, currency, and speculative investments that do little to strengthen the real economy. This would generate $150 billion a year while exempting smaller investors.

Lawmakers could reduce corporate tax dodging by closing overseas tax havens and requiring companies to pay U.S. taxes on the profits they actually earn in this country. This could generate as much as $100 billion a year.

Congress could establish new top tax rates on households with annual incomes over $1 million, which could generate another $100 billion a year. Under our current tax system, a person earning $374,000 a year pays the same top tax rate as someone earning $10 million a year.

Lawmakers could institute a progressive estate tax on fortunes over $5 million, with higher rates on billionaire estates. That would generate $45 billion a year."

Martha Stewart went to jail for this...

...but how much you wanna bet Clarence Thomas WON'T?

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8331

"Evidence is mounting that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas violated federal law by failing to report his wife's annual salary of more than $120,000 per year from conservative political organizations by checking "NONE" on the box for "Non-Investment Income" for his wife Virginia on judicial Financial Disclosure Reports for the last 20 years."



Under Title 18 of US Code, Section 1001, it is a crime to:

1. knowingly and willfully;
2. make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation;
3. in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States.

This is what Martha Stewart was jailed for. Lying to the Feds is a felony, and carries with it a possible fine, as well as 5-8 years in the slammer.

So now, we see whether or not the Supreme Court Justices are subject to the law. Equal treatment under the law, or special treatment under the law - what's it gonna be, Mr. Holder?

Republicans, taxes, and you...

So, here's what Rep. Paul Ryan (the guy who delivered the pack of falsehood known as "the Republican Response to the State of the Union") wants to do to reduce the deficit:

Basically, everybody sacrifices except the top 10% of income earners - the other 90% of us pay for their tax cuts.
So, people who make LESS pay MORE, and those who make MORE pay LESS. The total opposite of Adam Smith. And Republicans have the gall to call LIBERALS "socialist" and accuse them of "class warfare" when they've been practicing BOTH since 1980.
And after 30 years of Republicans mostly running things, we wonder WHY the economy's in the crapper?

From Steve Benen of "Washington Monthly"

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_01/021802.php
STIMULUS FACTS ARE STUBBORN THINGS....
The American Enterprise Institute is a conservative think tank, which enjoyed very close ties to the Bush White House, and which is not exactly known for its support for the Democratic domestic agenda.

So it was interesting to see the AEI's economic outlook for 2010 and its analysis of the Obama administration's recovery package from last year. (via Jon Chait)

The real economy ... responded to the massive stimulus but remained heavily dependent on it. In the United States, growth during the second half of 2009 probably averaged about 3 percent. Absent temporary fiscal stimulus and inventory rebuilding, which taken together added about 4 percentage points to U.S. growth, the economy would have contracted at about a 1 percent annual rate during the second half of 2009. [emphasis added]

I realize that Republicans and their most strident allies are entirely convinced that the stimulus didn't work. I've also seen the polls that suggest Americans in general are skeptical about its efficacy.

But among economists, we seem awfully close to complete unanimity that the Democrats' recovery effort rescued the economy from collapse, created jobs, and generated economic growth that wouldn't have existed otherwise. Among those who know what they're talking about, this isn't even worth debating anymore -- it's simply an obvious truth.

Which is why the politics of the economic debate can be so exasperating. To reiterate a point from a month ago, the Republicans' track record of uninterrupted failure is rather astounding.

The GOP said the stimulus package would fail to create jobs. We now know the Republicans were wrong.

The GOP said the recovery efforts would fail to generate economic growth. We now know the Republicans were wrong.

The GOP said the stimulus "failed." We now know the Republicans were wrong.

The GOP said the government should cancel unspent recovery funds. We now know the Republicans were wrong.
The GOP said tax cuts are more effective at stimulating the economy than government spending. We now know the Republicans were wrong.

Had Republicans been in the majority a year ago, the results for the United States and the global economy likely would have been devastating. That GOP officials and their allies continue to pretend otherwise serves as a reminder of just how little role reality can play in our discourse.