The president speaks to Africans:
No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top...
I can't improve on David Beito's sarcastic reaction: "Has Obama endorsed a 19 percent maximum income tax rate?"
The full quote was even better:
""Repression takes many forms, and too many nations are plagued by
problems that condemn their people to poverty. No country is going
to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich
themselves, or police can be bought off by drug traffickers. No
business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20
percent off the top, or the head of the Port Authority is corrupt.
No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives
way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy,
that is tyranny, and now is the time for it to end."
No country wants to, but America will have to as payment for their racial sins. I am starting to think Obama does actually understand how economies work and really wants to destroy the American one.
There's only one explanation for the double standard: Obama hates white people.
no-name:
Federal income tax rates range between 10 and 35 percent, not
including medicare. That's before state taxes and sales taxes.
Average income in the US is around $24k median and $35k mean,
meaning that the average American pays 15 or 25 percent. Again
before Medicare, state and sales taxes.
Meanwhile, the airwaves are full of people (like one Senator
John McCain) saying, "We shouldn't investigate these new (or any of
the old) allegations of extralegal government behavior; we need to
look forward, not back. Let's just vow not to do bad things,
anymore."
to which I reply (again):
If we make it plain that there are no consequences whatsoever for
government officials who break the law, what possibly could make
anybody think they will not continue do do as they please?
What's the U.S. tax rate, again?
disingenuous, Jesse
I'll bite. Why is this disingenuous?
The 2009 tax rate for anyone making over $33,950 is 25%, which
would be a full 5% higher than the 20% that Barack Obama thinks is
'immoral skimming'.
No, I think what we really have here is Obama's real message. He's
not talking about the legal skimming the government does, he's
talking about the illegal kind via corruption. That's where
government skims off the top but the money doesn't go into the
general fund for shovel-ready projects. You know, bribes and the
like.
Someone post something about effective tax rate on US businesses now.
Median household income in the US is over $50K now; individual
median income for full-time year-round workers is over $35K for
women and $45K for men. But yeah, that puts most married couples in
or below the 15% marginal tax bracket, and most single people at or
under 25%.
That's just median federal personal income taxes, though. Add in
state and local taxes (and deficit spending, i.e. deferred taxes)
and the median situation gets more complicated, but the mean
government expenditure is up to 40% of GDP and growing.
Funny, I'd be pretty thrilled if I lived in a country where the government only skimmed 20% off the top of me!
The worst part about our tax code is all the explicit social
engineering in it. Just set a *low* flat rate rate, and allow the
civilian population to make their own value judgements.
I'm holding my breath.
"...about effective tax rate on US businesses now"
_______
...well, there are many Federal/state/local taxes/fees on U.S.
businesses-- both direct and indirect... easily exceeding 50% in
true totals.
Average corporate tax is ~35% on profits. After-tax profits are
then taxed again as personal income, when distributed to the
owners/stockholders of the corporation (~20%+).
Then there's excise tax, property tax, sales tax, use taxes,
inventory tax, utility tax, license fees, vehicle/transportation
fees, building permits fees, payroll taxes.... and on and on and
on.....
Americans really work for the government... though few realize
it.
I'm might be wrong but the return on investment/equity is on averge 6 percent. In other words most businesses must spend 94 cents to make a dollar.
What's the U.S. tax rate, again?
disingenuous, Jesse
You'll have to be a little less cryptic than that.
I'm confused. Is he talking about 20% for Africans making *over* or *under* $250K/yr?
The U.S. marginal tax rates on federal personal income are as
high as 35%. That doesn't mean individuals in high tax brackets pay
35% of their total income in federal income taxes, even if they
don't take any deductions whatsoever.
Also, Obama doesn't control local and state taxes.
Yes, the U.S. tax code is fucked up. Yes, we should get rid of all
the deductions and social engineering. Potentially, we could still
have a graduated rate.
According to what I've read recently, the actual average federal
personal income tax rate overall is in the neighborhood of 16-18%,
once deductions are accounted for, even among the top 1% of
earners.
the actual average federal personal income tax rate overall
is in the neighborhood of 16-18%
He didn't say "when the Federal government skims 20%", he
just said "government".
Obama can't be bothered by petty details like meaning what he says when he's busy gearing up to begin nationalizing America's community colleges.
Americans really work for the government... though few
realize it.
They're starting to realize it now in the IOU issuing state of
California!
The administration is sure lucky that they didn't have Joe Biden deliver that line.
the innominate one | July 12, 2009, 11:06am | #
What's the U.S. tax rate, again?
disingenuous, Jesse
Yo, shut the fuck up Obama defenders. You can't fake credibility
this late in the came.
So, I'm wondering if the apparatchik who loaded up that speech
on the teleprompter has been reassigned.
-jcr
Yes, we should get rid of all the deductions and social
engineering.
I'm with you on that.
Potentially, we could still have a graduated rate.
Except that punitive increases in taxes as you make more money
is social engineering.
-jcr
alan - no, you shut the fuck up. I could rebut you more
thoroughly, but you don't deserve the effort.
Obama deserves plenty of criticism. Real criticism. I'm not
convinced of this particular criticism's validity.
This late in the game - you mean six months into a four-year
term?
JCR - I disagree that a graduated rate is necessarily punitive or
social engineering. I do think the rate should be the same
regardless of income type (wages, salary, capital gains, interest
income, etc.) I also think that people at the very lowest end of
the income scale shouldn't be taxed below a livable income, and
that as income rises, so should one's tax rates.
According to what I've read recently, the actual average
federal personal income tax rate overall is in the neighborhood of
16-18%, once deductions are accounted for, even among the top 1% of
earners.
Yeah, that extra 2% makes all the difference between a thriving
economy and a place where no one wants to invest.
And he wasn't talking about personal income taxes anyway; the
analogy is corporate tax rates which are much higher in the US.
While I think his speechwriters should have done a better job on this one, he's clearly using skimming to mean an unauthorized taking. Now for an anarchist like myself, all taxes are unauthorized. But the rest of you are just whining to whine now because you know damn well what he meant and you're distorting it to suit your needs. Why become like them?
I could rebut you more thoroughly, but you don't deserve the
effort.
Ah, the Playground Wimp Gambit. Haven't heard that one in a
while.
Sorry, when a guy considers himself bound only by the literal, deconstructive meaning of his words, as Obama has demonstrated time and time again, he shouldn't get the benefit of a favorable interpretation of his words. Live by the parse, die by the parse, I say.
the innominate one | July 12, 2009, 4:33pm | #
alan - no, you shut the fuck up. I could rebut you more thoroughly,
but you don't deserve the effort.
You saw the disconnect in Obama's words No business wants to
invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the
top..., yet you played stupid, and you pretended that the
disconnect wasn't there so you could move a goal post or two for a
very slightly more favorable interpretation in which you could make
the spurious case that JW was being disingenuous. You don't deserve
my respect or that of any one else, nor do you deserve this small
allotment of time I'm taking to tell you what a piece of shit you
are for thinking you could get away with a lie that big and absurd
on its face. If you had any integrity you would be asking for an
apology to all of us for your attempt at deception. Don't really
expect it though, so eat shit and live forever you maggot infested
dung heap of a human being.
"no business wants to invest in a place where the government
skims 20 percent off the top"
If you were running a mining operation and just had to hand over
20% xtra of your profits to some government officials in order to
avoid environmental regulations, elf and safety etc, it might be
worth it depending on the cost of cleaning up your mess and market
prices.
Tulpa - if 2% more or less makes little to no difference, why
the arguments over allowing the marginal rate to go back to
Reagan-era rates?
Isn't that only 2% difference?
If today's libertarians truly can't distinguish between federal taxation (where returns on our tax dollars are generally below 100%, but substantially above 0%) and, uh, thugs who take a fifth of your shit and give you nothing in return, then libertarianism is as much of a dead end as modern conservatism. In which case the left is going to win by default.
anonymous coward,
True for many taxes, like for roads and such. But what if the
return on the tax is in the form of a chain around our neck? Are
you going to tell me I am getting something of value?
That is the problem with much of what taxes pay for, they are
things I do not want and find inhibiting. Like the bailouts, I do
not want them and they make getting back to a sound economy even
harder. I would say that in many cases the returns are
substantially below zero.
(where returns on our tax dollars are generally below 100%,
but substantially above 0%)
And our return on the Iraq war were what, oh liberal one? I thought
it was a belief that the war had negative returns.
"Tulpa | July 12, 2009, 4:35pm | #
I could rebut you more thoroughly, but you don't deserve the
effort.
Ah, the Playground Wimp Gambit. Haven't heard that one in a
while."
Yes, I'm deeply afeared that alan is going reach through the tubes
and get me.
If today's libertarians truly can't distinguish between
federal taxation (where returns on our tax dollars are generally
below 100%, but substantially above 0%) and, uh, thugs who take a
fifth of your shit and give you nothing in return, then
libertarianism is as much of a dead end as modern conservatism. In
which case the left is going to win by default.
From a recent Reason article on the state budget matters:
In 2002 total combined state revenue was $1.097 trillion.... In
2007 this figure had risen to almost $2 trillion. That's an 81
percent increase, at a time when prices plus population increased
19 percent.
An increase of that magnitude can only occur through arbitrary and
capricious means. So whatever that figure of worth where
returns on our tax dollars are generally below 100%, but
substantially above 0% stands now at previous value minus
greater than 50 percent of previous value for that time periond,
and thus, well on our way to banana republic status.
I'm not arguing that you can't parse within that frame of reference
Obama intended which Libertarians for reasons I just explained
place little credence, but to not acknowledge the disconnect in
Obama's thought processes and to also counter with a charge as
inominate1 did is dubious.
Yes, I'm deeply afeared that alan is going reach through the
tubes and get me.
I told you to go live forever, fool, so what are you worried about?
Oh, being exposed.
Oh, and AC, another thing, I don't think you appreciate that the average independent when he sees that quote will also the disconnect (Obama doesn't acknowledge that there are far more barriers than a 20 percent skim that the state imposes on business entry into the market). It doesn't take a special set of conditions, exposure to a little Hayek, a little Friedman, or little John Stossel to get it. So, no, libertarians are not imperiled, but are helped by the oppositions obtuseness as Obama displayed in this case.
True for many taxes, like for roads and such. But what if
the return on the tax is in the form of a chain around our neck?
Are you going to tell me I am getting something of
value?
Seriously. We're expected to pay the government so they can
regulate us out of business.
Please, take my money and use it to pay a thug to beat me unless I
make products to the specifications of a bunch of delusional
hippies! I really want to be forced to use wind power and eat
organic. Please, force me to behave. Oh holy State. I have sinned.
I must now donate to redeem my soul. May the priests whip me for my
disobedience, with whips paid for by myself.
t-i-o sez a graduated rate is necessarily punitive or social
engineering
Fail.
It is premised on utility theory - assuming an intellectual basis.
Many of the proponents of progressive taxation that I've discussed
this with ultimately fall back on jealousy as the need to "even the
playing field".
If he was referring to the corporate tax rate the average combined federal and state tax rate is nearly double 20%, while the federal rate is 35%. But he is slightly vindicated if he was referring to overall rate of federal taxation on everyone as compared to GDP. Federal revenue in 08 being 2.5 trillion and 96 percent of that taxes, and the GDP being something like 14.2 trillion than the percentage is 16.9. Once you add state taxes you'll be well over the 20% line which underscores something important about Obama's message to Africa and the US. Fiscal responsibility and accountability for war criminals is good for Africa and bad for the U.S.
Ian,
He clearly wasnt referring to total rate - since he said "no
business" that implies that any business being taxed (although, I
think he was referring to graft, but tomato,tomato) more than 20%
would avoid investing there.
His statement leads to a MAX rate of 20%, not an overall rate of
20%.
Obama is One Of Us™. He is a superstar! He was the first black president on MTV!
errr
he didnt mention tax once
that 20% figure is clearly meant to be corruption not tax
"No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the
economy to enrich themselves, or police can be bought off by drug
traffickers"
"where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and
bribery"
The statement is off-course bullshit as corruption is clearly no
obstacle for industry as you usually get something back in return
for it, lapse environmental standards, things that shit on workers
conditions etc
I also think that people at the very lowest end of the
income scale shouldn't be taxed below a livable income, and that as
income rises, so should one's tax rates.
A flat tax with a large personal deduction accomplishes that just
fine. A person making $200k pays a higher percentage of their
income in tax than a person making $100k.
While I think his speechwriters should have done a better
job on this one, he's clearly using skimming to mean an
unauthorized taking.
We all know that. It doesn't make his choice of words any less
entertaining, or the fact that taxes too are a disincentive any
less of a legitimate point.
that 20% figure is clearly meant to be corruption not
tax
Well, duh.
But if your taxing people for the sake of "wealth redistribution"
what's the difference? What is a needy group other than one that
has the political connections and power to take what it wants from
those that don't? What's the difference between taking money from
people that don't have the votes to stop you, and those that don't
have the guns to stop you?
He was clearly talking about corruption graft rather than taxation. Some people see a distinction between the two, though I'll grant that some do not.
"But if your taxing people for the sake of "wealth
redistribution" what's the difference?"
Well, one may be done through the the rule of law and the consent
of the majority for public purposes chosen again via the rule of
law and the consent of the governed, which many folks think make it
legitimate.
"What's the difference between taking money from people that don't
have the votes to stop you, and those that don't have the guns to
stop you?"
See Locke, John et al., on consent of the goverened making
government power legit and the consent of the governed being
determined by majority rule.
Jesse's disincentive point is the stronger way to go than the "hey both are the same morally" argument, though the counter to his would be that when the 20% goes to taxes it may provide a benefit to the public which outweighs the negative effects of the (admitted) disincentive while with straight up graft it usually does not provide any potentially offsetting dsincentives.
that 20% figure is clearly meant to be corruption not
tax
If you can pay some apparatchik 20% and disappear from the tax
rolls, that's a bargain in most countries.
-jcr
that 20% figure is clearly meant to be corruption not
tax
From the standpoint of the person paying the tax - what is the
difference? The economics of disincentive are identical.
Federal income tax rates range between 10 and 35 percent
That's naive. Say you make $100. Your tax rate is 25%. This leaves
you $75 of the $100. Now you buy plumber's services. You pay the
plumber $75, but the plumber also has a 25% tax rate, and so
another $18.75 of your money goes straight to the feds (and it is
also worth keeping in mind you only actually got $56.25 worth of
pluming services for your $75.00) Your total federal tax rate here
is actually 43.75%; and as mentioned, that doesn't count
the double dipping the state does, or the various separate taxes,
such as fuel taxes and so on.
Income tax is an intentional double dipping method; when state and
feds use it, it becomes quadruple dipping.
This is why an up-front tax that *replaces* income tax would be
better; if the average citizen had any idea what they were *really*
giving up in taxes, they might be a little less forgiving of the
political maneuvering that sucks them so dry. Of course, that's
exactly why we don't have an upfront tax.
The numbers I've seen for the US tax burden are usually over
20%. Not including all tax or coerced payments in such a
calculation, like omitting sales or local tax, is making a false
comparison.
Arguably payments made in bribery and kickbacks are hard to
quantify at a national level. But thankfully they are usually so
egregious when present they are not hard to see or they obviously
out pace documented payments.
Well, one may be done through the the rule of law and the
consent of the majority for public purposes chosen again via the
rule of law and the consent of the governed
Consent of the majority = democracy with strict supermajorities
needed to pass anything (i.e, something that not a single country
on earth actually has)
consent of the governed = free market anarchocapitalism
These two phrases are not the same thing, MNG, and neither means
what you think it does. Having 51% of the 50% or so of the adult
population who are members of the 50% or so of the total population
who are eligible to vote, using the ballot to take stuff from
everyone else, isn't even close to "consent of the majority", much
less "consent of the governed". It's the tyranny of 1/8 of the
population over the remaining 7/8ths.
Little late to the party, but no one seems to have made
precisely this point yet, though Ben is in the neighborhood.
Someone post something about effective tax rate on US
businesses now.
The effective tax rate on businesses is 0%. All costs, including
both tax and graft, are rolled into the cost of doing business and
calculated when determining prices for the the end consumer, who
ends up paying it all.
But when a business has a choice between setting up in one area
that charges A taxes and another that charges 2A, the first area
allows them to offer products at lower prices.
He was clearly talking about corruption graft rather than
taxation.
Just like he clearly said he would not opt out of the FEC campaign
finance system during the campaign, and that he would end raids on
med MJ dispensaries in state where they're legal, and that he
wouldn't raise taxes on people earning $250,000 or less, and that
he would try or release all the prisoners at Gitmo, et cetera. He's
weaseled out of all those pledges by insisting on a literal
interpretation of his words rather than the obvious meaning.
So guess what? I'll take a literal interpretation of his words this
time. The guy can't have it both ways.
Tulpa,
I was rolling my eyes at some of the most literal interpretations
of this quote until I read your last post. Fair enough and good
point.
"...which many folks think make it legitimate." -MNG
Which is a different notion than a sound and constructive economic
policy, which is what is being talked about here.
"Well, duh.
But if your taxing people for the sake of "wealth redistribution"
what's the difference?"
I see so if British Petroleum suck oil out of the Niger Delta and
pay no tax on it
then that's good for the Nigerians
but if British Petroleum suck oil out of the Niger Delta and pay
tax which the government use to build a prison or finance their
judiciary
then the Nigerians are being ripped off?
Its obvious that charging loads of corporation tax on a company
manufacturing mars bars for local consumption gets transferred back
to the people as higher prices for Mars bars
but I can't see that logic applying to oil or raw minerals that are
shipped overseas for processing
The skimming 20% thing is a funny observation
but just in the sense of
"what's the capital of iceland?
about $4.50"
Taking something out of context to highlight a different
situation
Rip on Obama's speech because it was condescending as fuck. It
failed to mention many of the West's real contribution's to African
poverty, such as McNamara's World Bank and its Keynesian policies,
Agricultural subsidies in the West and US/EU protectionism in
general that prevents the industrialization of Africa. (we've
definitely had this conversation before on another thread :))
Rip on Obama's speech for saying the "days of colonialism are over"
and then forgetting mention about Obama's plans for United States
Africa Command
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Africa_Command
a prospect that should disturb any libertarian
Well, one may be done through the the rule of
law and the consent of the majority for public purposes
chosen again via the rule of law and the consent
of the governed, which many folks think make it
legitimate.
[inigo mode]
You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think
it means.
[/inigo mode]
Rule of Law does not mean "following the rules to pass a
law".
As the Obama appointees have made very clear, the rule of law does
not apply in taxation.
MaterialMonkee,
To be fair, AFRICOM is more the same sort of effort as all the
other Unified Combatant Commands. Yes, it does raise the ugly
spectre of colonialism, but it's supposed to mirror the stuff the
US does with EUCOM, NATO partnerships and the like. Of course,
Italy and Germany brought the U.S. building bases in their
countries on themselves(whether we should still be there, is of
course, debatable). BTW, I saw your British 1st Armoured Division
down in Germany on exercises (when I was with the U.S. 1st
Armored). Pretty cool.
I also think that people at the very lowest end of the
income scale shouldn't be taxed below a livable income, and that as
income rises, so should one's tax rates.
You could accomplish that with a standard deduction that makes
sense (like 8K per dependent) and then a flat tax after that. The
graduated tax rate serves mainly to rip off lower-income people.
Sometimes I think they deserve it seeing that they continually vote
for it.
I see so if British Petroleum suck oil out of the Niger
Delta and pay no tax on it
then that's good for the Nigerians
Well, its good for the Nigerians they employ, buy goods and
services from, and pay royalties to, anyway.
Now, I don't know who actually owns the mineral rights to Nigerian
oil. If its private landowners, then they should be getting paid
royalties for production from their land, and I don't see why the
state has some extra special right to an additional tax.
If its the state, then it should get whatever royalties it
negotiated.
Tulpa,
I was rolling my eyes at some of the most literal interpretations
of this quote until I read your last post. Fair enough and good
point.
Literalism had nothing to do with my critique. This is Obama doing
a Bush. Like when Bush warned Iran not to meddle in the affairs of
other nations. Hence, disconnect.
However, you may have meant that to be aimed at those who were doing comparative tax rate analysis. Might not have deserved eye rolls, but it was literalist.
I'm not sure they ever mentioned the specifics, but I'm willing to bet the Sheriff of Nottingham's tax rates were tame compared to current rates.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245