CBO Reports RECORD SURPLUS After Tax Cuts

[Swordsmyth]

Tired of winning yet? All the doom and gloom (https://nypost.com/2018/04/09/trump-tax-cuts-expected-to-raise-federal-deficit-to-804b-this-year/) over the dreaded TRUMP TAX CUTS (http://www.progressivepolicy.org/projects/center-for-funding-americas-future/a-tax-day-review-of-tax-cuts/) has proven, once again, to be WRONG. The Congressional Budget Office has released the numbers for April, and, as it turns out, the federal government has collected record revenue along with a record one-month surplus.



Part of the CBO report reads (https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53821):
Estimated Surplus in April 2018: $218 Billion

The federal government realized a surplus of $218 billion in April 2018, CBO estimates—$35 billion larger than the surplus in April 2017.
CBO estimates that receipts in April 2018 totaled $515 billion—$59 billion (or 13 percent) more than those in the same month last year. Individual income and payroll taxes rose by $73 billion (or 20 percent), on net. Nonwithheld payments for those taxes, largely final payments of 2017 taxes, rose by $60 billion. Withholding of individual income and payroll taxes rose by $7 billion (or 4 percent). Withheld taxes rose both because wages and salaries were higher and because April 2018 had one more business day than April 2017. However, those factors were partially offset because the share of wages withheld for taxes was lower, CBO estimates, reflecting the new withholding tables issued in January. Corporate income tax payments declined by $14 billion (or 24 percent).

The only bad news is that spending was up to $297 Billion, which was $24 Billion more than this time last year.
According to Market Watch (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/cbo-forecasts-largest-ever-monthly-surplus-as-record-tax-receipts-pour-in-2018-05-08), this breaks the previous surplus record set back in 2001, which was $190 Billion. These latest numbers are $40 Billion MORE than what the CBO had projected. In fact, these numbers prove the original CBO estimate wrong, as they had predicted a record deficit (https://www.vox.com/2018/4/10/17215440/deficits-rising-congressional-budget-office-ceo-debate).


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/05/maga-cbo-projects-record-surplus-after-tax-cuts/

[angelatc]

LOL @ "surplus." It isn't a surplus. It means we are paying more taxes than ever before. But spending is up too, sooooo

[dean.engelhardt]

Balanced Budget Amendment or GTFO.

[dannno]

LOL @ "surplus." It isn't a surplus. It means we are paying more taxes than ever before. But spending is up too, sooooo


Yes, but with significantly lower tax rates the only way to realize a surplus like this is to have increased income/production.

It's sorta like your boss gave you a big raise because the company is doing well, because everybody's taxes are lower, and yes, you will have to pay more money in taxes than last year because you made more, but your tax rate is lower so you are keeping a lot more also.

[angelatc]

Yes, but with significantly lower tax rates the only way to realize a surplus like this is to have increased income/production.

It's sorta like your boss gave you a big raise because the company is doing well, because everybody's taxes are lower, and yes, you will have to pay more money in taxes than last year because you made more, but your tax rate is lower so you are keeping a lot more also.

LOL @ "a lot more."

I was an accountant when I worked in corporate America, so you'll have to trust that I have an inkling of how budgets work.

You forgot to address the increase in spending. Bro.

[angelatc]

Balanced Budget Amendment or GTFO.

#TaxationIsTheft

[dannno]

LOL @ "a lot more."

I was an accountant when I worked in corporate America, so you'll have to trust that I have an inkling of how budgets work.

You forgot to address the increase in spending. Bro.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?522061-Trump-administration-proposes-143-5-billion-in-compensation-cuts-for-federal-employees

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?522045-Trump-proposes-15-billion-spending-cuts

[angelatc]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?522061-Trump-administration-proposes-143-5-billion-in-compensation-cuts-for-federal-employees

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?522045-Trump-proposes-15-billion-spending-cuts

Sorry, but all semblance of fiscal responsibility ended when he signed the budget. His budget added 1 TRILLION to the debt in the first year, so forgive me if I don't get excited by some chatter about maybe cutting back 15 billion.

Obama did the same thing, and he structured it so the effects wouldn't be apparent for a decade after his term ended. Trump doubled down on that.

[dannno]

Sorry, but all semblance of fiscal responsibility ended when he signed the budget. His budget added 1 TRILLION to the debt in the first year, so forgive me if I don't get excited by some chatter about maybe cutting back 15 billion.

Obama did the same thing, and he structured it so the effects wouldn't be apparent for a decade after his term ended. Trump doubled down on that.

$160 billion is a pretty good chunck of the $1 trillion for one fell swoop, and a sign of things to come in the future (after the wall gets built)

[TheCount]

Sorry, but all semblance of fiscal responsibility ended when he signed the budget. His budget added 1 TRILLION to the debt in the first year, so forgive me if I don't get excited by some chatter about maybe cutting back 15 billion.

Obama did the same thing, and he structured it so the effects wouldn't be apparent for a decade after his term ended. Trump doubled down on that.

He's debated this exact same topic and the exact same details in multiple threads. It's willful disbelief.

[TheCount]

$160 billion is a pretty good chunck of the $1 trillion for one fell swoop

It's almost like it's tax season or something.

[Zippyjuan]

More people paid their taxes later this year. March was a different story from April. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-runs-budget-deficit-of-209-billion-in-march-treasury-says-2018-04-11


U.S. runs budget deficit of $209 billion in March, Treasury says


The numbers: The federal government’s budget deficit was $209 billion in March, the Treasury said, up 18% from the same month a year ago. Receipts were $211 billion, down 3%, and spending rose 7% to $420 billion.

What happened: The new tax law continues to widen the deficit, with withholding of individual income and payroll taxes off by 2% in March. In January, the IRS issued new withholding tables based on the law enacted by President Donald Trump in December. Spending was higher in March on Social Security, Medicaid and interest on the public debt. Interest payments were 11% higher, Treasury said.

Big picture: For the first half of the fiscal year, the shortfall is $600 billion, up 14% over the prior fiscal year’s first six months. The Treasury’s latest release comes after the Congressional Budget Office forecast a deficit of $804 billion for the current fiscal year — and a return to trillion-dollar deficits in 2020.

[heavenlyboy34]

$160 billion is a pretty good chunck of the $1 trillion for one fell swoop, and a sign of things to come in the future (after the wall gets built)

$160B/$1T= 16%. If you think that's a "pretty good chunk", you and I have different understandings of "big".

[Swordsmyth]

$160B/$1T= 16%. If you think that's a "pretty good chunk", you and I have different understandings of "big".

1/7th-1/6th of something is a big chunk, we will see if he does more.

[TheCount]

we will see if he does more.

He who? Which part of the $160B came from Trump?


Did he host a telethon? Pledge drive?

[dannno]

He who? Which part of the $160B came from Trump?


Did he host a telethon? Pledge drive?

The links I gave are for budget cuts in that range.. but the threads I linked to are probably automatically filtered out of the results you are allowed to view.

[TheCount]

The links I gave are for budget cuts in that range.. but the threads I linked to are probably automatically filtered out of the results you are allowed to view.

Do they exceed his proposed increases elsewhere in the budget?

[oyarde]

He who? Which part of the $160B came from Trump?


Did he host a telethon? Pledge drive?That is actually an excellent idea . Trump could do a Jerry Lewis style telethon . I vote yes . Set the precedent .

[Jamesiv1]

ETGAGOA

Experience The Great American Greatening of America

[Zippyjuan]

Yes, but with significantly lower tax rates the only way to realize a surplus like this is to have increased income/production.

It's sorta like your boss gave you a big raise because the company is doing well, because everybody's taxes are lower, and yes, you will have to pay more money in taxes than last year because you made more, but your tax rate is lower so you are keeping a lot more also.

Lower tax rates have never in the past been offset by higher growth rates.

April is always the best month in terms of deficit/ surplus because that is the month most tax revenues come in. For the current fiscal year we are already running a $600 billion shortfall (fiscal year runs through end of September).

https://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/blog_deficit_2009_2017.jpg

[Swordsmyth]

Lower tax rates have never in the past been offset by higher growth rates.



LOL

[Zippyjuan]

LOL

Links showing when they have?

[Swordsmyth]

Links showing when they have?
You made your claim without links.

[TheTexan]

but your tax rate is lower so you are keeping a lot more also.

Thank you government, for letting me keep half of a percent more of my income!

This favor will not be forgotten!

[dannno]

Thank you government, for letting me keep half of a percent more of my income!

This favor will not be forgotten!

For me and specs, it's a few thousands dollars - a lot more than a half percent more.

Did you calculate your tax savings yet?

[Zippyjuan]

For me and specs, it's a few thousands dollars - a lot more than a half percent more.

Did you calculate your tax savings yet?

I paid $20 more this year.

[dannno]

I paid $20 more this year.

Uhh, ya, the tax breaks are for 2018, so the taxes you paid this year on your 2017 return doesn't include Trump's tax breaks.

[Zippyjuan]

When Reagan signed what was then the largest tax cut in history, the deficit started to soar. So he agreed to sign what was at the time the biggest tax increase to try to reduce that deficit.

[EBounding]

I'm paying less in fed taxes each week. Which is good because there's a bunch of local property tax millages coming up this year.

The tax cut is great on it's own merits, but this admin can hardly be considered fiscally responsible.

[dannno]

Links showing when they have?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/#5e42fc564bf2

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/#5e42fc564bf2

"Top marginal rate" does not effect many people. In 1961 (the first year on that chart) the rate applied to 0.00235% of the population (and only to the amounts of their income above a certain level). It is not a good basis for trying to see how much taxes were cut.

https://taxfoundation.org/some-historical-tax-stats/


The top marginal tax rate in 1960 was 91%, which applied to income over $200,000 (for single filers) or $400,000 (for married filers) – thresholds which correspond to approximately $1.5 million and $3 million, respectively, in today’s dollars. Approximately 0.00235% of households had income taxed at the top rate.

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2017/12/08/what-we-learned-from-reagans-tax-cuts/


Q. Did the 1981 Reagan tax cut spur enough economic growth that it paid for itself?
A. When Ronald Reagan arrived in Washington in 1981, circumstances were very different than they are today. Inflation was nearly 10 percent. The Federal Reserve had pushed interest rates into double digits. The federal debt was about half what it is today, measured as a share of the economy. The Reagan tax cut was huge. The top rate fell from 70 percent to 50 percent. The tax cut didn’t pay for itself. According to later Treasury estimates, it reduced federal revenues by about 9 percent in the first couple of years. In fact, most of the top Reagan administration officials didn’t think the tax cut would pay for itself. They were counting on spending cuts to avoid blowing up the deficit. But they never materialized.

Q. So the spending cuts never materialized, the deficit increased, and then what?

A. As projections for the deficit worsened, it became clear that the 1981 tax cut was too big. So with Reagan’s signature, Congress undid a good chunk of the 1981 tax cut by raising taxes a lot in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1987. George H.W. Bush signed another tax increase in 1990 and Bill Clinton did the same in 1993. One lesson from that history: When tax cuts are really too big to be sustainable, they’re often followed by tax increases.

[enhanced_deficit]

Balanced Budget Amendment or GTFO.


In terms of messaging, current GOP team doesn't seem to capitalize on such things as Dems did.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Hyaz4bZw0S4/hqdefault.jpg


http://pics.livejournal.com/kensmind/pic/001wt5gh


https://n7.alamy.com/zooms/c639e1749a7540edacb2b0f5efb313b6/2-7-00-budget-president-bill-clinton-during-the-announcement-of-the-b713jf.jpg


What happeened, Isreal-Palestine conflict fallout balooned military spending and killed debt free projections?

Today Debt is how many $Trillions?

[TheCount]

What happeened, Isreal-Palestine conflict fallout balooned military spending and killed debt free projections?

We decided that we needed a couple of decades-long wars, plus some smaller wars on the side.

[Zippyjuan]

We decided that we needed a couple of decades-long wars, plus some smaller wars on the side.

Bush tax cuts combined with starting major wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush wanted to "return the money to the (rich) people".

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-economy-budget/u-s-government-posts-147-billion-deficit-in-may-idUSL1N1TE1MB


U.S. government posts $147 billion deficit in May

WASHINGTON, June 12 (Reuters) - The U.S. government had a $147 billion budget deficit in May, an increase of 66 percent from the same month last year as the ledger took a hit from declining revenue and higher spending, according to Treasury Department data released on Tuesday.

Treasury reported a budget deficit of $88 billion in the same month last year, the department’s monthly budget statement showed.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast the Treasury recording a $144 billion deficit in May.

When accounting for calendar adjustments, the government’s deficit was $131 billion compared to an adjusted deficit of $88 billion in the same month in the previous year.

Economists caution that the Trump administration’s corporate and individual tax cuts along with an increase in government spending will drive up the country’s deficit despite a robust economy in which the unemployment rate has fallen to an 18-year low.



More at link.

[Madison320]

I've had a habit of checking the total debt for many years. One thing I've learned is that the numbers jump around a lot. The debt will barely grow for awhile, then it'll balloon like crazy. You almost have to look at it annually for it to make sense. We've been stuck at 20.1 T for a couple months but I expect by the end of the year it'll be pushing 21T.

Democrats think lowering taxes always lowers revenue and republicans always thinks lowering taxes raises revenue. Both sides have it wrong. We're close to the peak of the laffer curve so it won't make much difference whether we lower or raise taxes. The real problem is the spending and Trump is increasing that like crazy.

You know what's funny? I can always predict when Zippy and TheCount will reply to a thread. Anytime someone makes an easily refuted false claim in favor of republicans or against democrats, BOOM, like stink on poop, here comes Zippy and TheCount!

[Zippyjuan]

I've had a habit of checking the total debt for many years. One thing I've learned is that the numbers jump around a lot. The debt will barely grow for awhile, then it'll balloon like crazy. You almost have to look at it annually for it to make sense. We've been stuck at 20.1 T for a couple months but I expect by the end of the year it'll be pushing 21T.

Democrats think lowering taxes always lowers revenue and republicans always thinks lowering taxes raises revenue. Both sides have it wrong. We're close to the peak of the laffer curve so it won't make much difference whether we lower or raise taxes. The real problem is the spending and Trump is increasing that like crazy.

Revenues and even spending do vary from month to month. April is a a high revenue month due to people paying income taxes then. Compared to last year, the May figures for the deficit was up 66%- a big increase.

But do tax cuts lead to higher revenues? Short term, they definitely reduce them. Any economic stimulus of growing the economy- adding jobs which expands the tax base- takes a very long time to show up. It also depends on what people do with their tax cuts. If cuts are spend on goods and services, the economy can grow- people buy stuff so the stores need to order more goods from producers who need to hire more people to produce more. That happens if most of the tax cuts go to those at lower incomes since they spend more of their income on goods and services. If you cut taxes for the wealthy, they are not likely to increase their spending on goods and services so will not create more jobs. If Bill Gates gets another $100 million from tax cuts, he won't go buy more things. Give a million poor people another $100 and they will go to the stores and spend it.

Trump cuts (like Bush cuts) went mostly to the wealthy so will have limited impact on stimulating the economy and expanding the tax base and thus tax revenues.

Do you end up higher than if the tax cuts never happened? What percent of that growth was due to the tax cuts and what percent due to other factors?

[angelatc]

Bush tax cuts combined with starting major wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush wanted to "return the money to the (rich) people".

I'll give you Iraq, but there's no realistic scenario in which we were not going to war with somebody after 9/11.

[Madison320]

Revenues and even spending do vary from month to month. April is a a high revenue month due to people paying income taxes then. Compared to last year, the May figures for the deficit was up 66%- a big increase.

But do tax cuts lead to higher revenues? Short term, they definitely reduce them. Any economic stimulus of growing the economy- adding jobs which expands the tax base- takes a very long time to show up. It also depends on what people do with their tax cuts. If cuts are spend on goods and services, the economy can grow- people buy stuff so the stores need to order more goods from producers who need to hire more people to produce more. That happens if most of the tax cuts go to those at lower incomes since they spend more of their income on goods and services. If you cut taxes for the wealthy, they are not likely to increase their spending on goods and services so will not create more jobs. If Bill Gates gets another $100 million from tax cuts, he won't go buy more things. Give a million poor people another $100 and they will go to the stores and spend it.

Trump cuts (like Bush cuts) went mostly to the wealthy so will have limited impact on stimulating the economy and expanding the tax base and thus tax revenues.

Do you end up higher than if the tax cuts never happened? What percent of that growth was due to the tax cuts and what percent due to other factors?

I agree that in the short term tax cuts tend to reduce revenues. In the long run it depends on where you are on the laffer curve (all things being equal).

You're totally wrong about tax cuts for the wealthy. Tax cuts for the wealthy is the main driver of economic growth. Poor people spending money does not grow the economy. Rich people investing in production is what grows the economy.

[Zippyjuan]

I agree that in the short term tax cuts tend to reduce revenues. In the long run it depends on where you are on the laffer curve (all things being equal).

You're totally wrong about tax cuts for the wealthy. Tax cuts for the wealthy is the main driver of economic growth. Poor people spending money does not grow the economy. Rich people investing in production is what grows the economy.

So growth comes from not from demand but from investment. If Ford Motor Company doubled the amount of cars they produce, would that would grow the economy- even if nobody could afford to buy any of those cars and they sat on sales lots? On the other hand, if people are buying more cars from Ford, they will start making more cars. You need both investment and demand. But without demand, the investment is wasted and produces nothing.

If Bill Gates took his $100 million and bought Ford stock shares, how many jobs would that create? His broker will be delighted with the commission but won't add any jobs anywhere. If people bought $100 million worth of Ford cars, how many jobs would that create? Which has the bigger impact on jobs and hence tax revenues?

[Madison320]

So growth comes from not from demand but from investment. If Ford Motor Company doubled the amount of cars they produce, would that would grow the economy- even if nobody could afford to buy any of those cars and they sat on sales lots? On the other hand, if people are buying more cars from Ford, they will start making more cars. You need both investment and demand. But without demand, the investment is wasted and produces nothing. If Bill Gates took his $100 million and bought Ford stock shares, how many jobs would that create? If people bought $100 million worth of Ford cars, how many jobs would that create? Which has the bigger impact on jobs and hence tax revenues?

Investment grows the economy, not trading stocks. Demand is infinite. If Bill Gates invested 100 million in a super efficient car factory, that made super cheap cars, people would buy them.

If we stole 100 million from Bill Gates and passed it out to poor people, would it grow the economy more than allowing Gates to keep his money?

[Zippyjuan]

Investment grows the economy, not trading stocks. Demand is infinite. If Bill Gates invested 100 million in a super efficient car factory, that made super cheap cars, people would buy them.



So Ford can make an infinite amount of cars and sell all of them. Why don't they? Because demand isn't infinite? Because there are limits on how many they can sell? Ford adjusts their output based on how much they expect to be able to sell- not based on how many they can produce.

Infinite demand assumes people have infinite resources to buy things with. But incomes are limited so people have to limit what they buy. If you give them more money, then they can increase their demand/ purchasing. Then producers will increase their output to fulfill that increased demand.


If we stole 100 million from Bill Gates and passed it out to poor people, would it grow the economy more than allowing Gates to keep his money?


If your goal is to add more jobs, yes. Money being spent creates more jobs than money sitting around in a bank or stocks. Is it proper to take $100 million from Bill Gates is a separate question.

[oyarde]

I paid $20 more this year.

No change for me.

[juleswin]

So Ford can make an infinite amount of cars and sell all of them. Why don't they? Because demand isn't infinite? Because there are limits on how many they can sell? Ford adjusts their output based on how much they expect to be able to sell- not based on how many they can produce.

Infinite demand assumes people have infinite resources to buy things with. But incomes are limited so people have to limit what they buy. If you give them more money, then they can increase their demand/ purchasing. Then producers will increase their output to fulfill that increased demand.



If your goal is to add more jobs, yes. Money being spent creates more jobs than money sitting around in a bank or stocks. Is it proper to take $100 million from Bill Gates is a separate question.

I have always seen this as a chicken vs the egg dilemma. I truly think both are equally important and dependent on each other. The investors and producers cannot sell their good if the consumers do not have the money and the consumers cannot spend their money if there are no producers. So I would be distributing the money back back to both classes if I had to return surplus money from the govt.

No one group is more important than the other.

[Madison320]

So Ford can make an infinite amount of cars and sell all of them. Why don't they? Because demand isn't infinite? Because there are limits on how many they can sell? Ford adjusts their output based on how much they expect to be able to sell- not based on how many they can produce.

Infinite demand assumes people have infinite resources to buy things with. But incomes are limited so people have to limit what they buy. If you give them more money, then they can increase their demand/ purchasing. Then producers will increase their output to fulfill that increased demand.



If your goal is to add more jobs, yes. Money being spent creates more jobs than money sitting around in a bank or stocks. Is it proper to take $100 million from Bill Gates is a separate question.

Raising the standard of living not adding jobs should be the goal. Communist countries have 100% employment but they have to eat dirt. Taking 100 million from Gates and giving it to the poor LOWERS the overall standard of living because the producer (Gates) now has less resources to produce stuff. More stuff = higher standard of living.

[Madison320]

I have always seen this as a chicken vs the egg dilemma. I truly think both are equally important and dependent on each other. The investors and producers cannot sell their good if the consumers do not have the money and the consumers cannot spend their money if there are no producers. So I would be distributing the money back back to both classes if I had to return surplus money from the govt.

No one group is more important than the other.

That may be true, if the entire tax burden was on the poor the overall productivity level might be lower. But the fact is that we're nowhere close to that. Currently the most productive pay almost the entire tax bill so any additional wealth redistribution from rich to poor is only going to lower the standard of living even further.

That's why I prefer a flat tax where the law is the same for everyone. I hate laws that only apply to certain minorities.

[Zippyjuan]

Raising the standard of living not adding jobs should be the goal. Communist countries have 100% employment but they have to eat dirt. Taking 100 million from Gates and giving it to the poor LOWERS the overall standard of living because the producer (Gates) now has less resources to produce stuff. More stuff = higher standard of living.

Adding jobs raises the standard of living. Giving Bill Gates another $100 million in tax breaks only raises his standard of living. Giving one million people a $100 tax break raises the standard of living for a lot more people- granted directly not by much but once they take that money to the hardware store to buy some stuff, the hardware store owner has more money to spend at the grocer's and then he has more money to spend... it multiplies through the economy.

You get more bang for the same buck by giving it to poorer people than to rich people.

[Madison320]

Adding jobs raises the standard of living. Giving Bill Gates another $100 million in tax breaks only raises his standard of living. Giving one million people a $100 tax break raises the standard of living for a lot more people- granted directly not by much but once they take that money to the hardware store to buy some stuff, the hardware store owner has more money to spend at the grocer's and then he has more money to spend... it multiplies through the economy.

You get more bang for the same buck by giving it to poorer people than to rich people.

That explains why communist countries have such high standards of living. They take your logic to the extreme.

[Zippyjuan]

That explains why communist countries have such high standards of living. They take your logic to the extreme.

Taking yours to the extreme we should give all the money we have to the already rich and everybody will be better off. When the top one percent have all of the money and the rest none, the standard of living will be amazing.

[Madison320]

Taking yours to the extreme we should give all the money we have to the already rich and everybody will be better off. When the top one percent have all of the money and the rest none, the standard of living will be amazing.

No, my extreme would be that everyone gets to keep their own money. Taking everything from one group and giving it to another is your idea. And your idea fails because there's no incentive to produce since it's just going to get stolen from you anyway.

[angelatc]

No, my extreme would be that everyone gets to keep their own money. Taking everything from one group and giving it to another is your idea. And your idea fails because there's no incentive to produce since it's just going to get stolen from you anyway.

North Korea is the only country I know of that doesn't tax income.

[juleswin]

North Korea is the only country I know of that doesn't tax income.

Saudi Arabia also doesn't tax income at least for foreign workers.

[Zippyjuan]

North Korea is the only country I know of that doesn't tax income.

They will still find other ways of taxing you. They need money to fund their government.

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Asia-and-Oceania/Korea-Democratic-People-s-Republic-of-DPRK-TAXATION.html


All direct taxes were abolished in 1974; the DPRK thus became the first country in the world to abolish income taxes collected from its citizens. As a result, the population is dependent on the government for many services. The government collects a percentage (turnover tax) on all transactions between producers and state marketing agencies. Fees are charged to farmers for seeds, fertilizer, irrigation water, and equipment. Consumers pay a tax for the use of water and certain other household amenities. The tax on collective farms is 15% of the harvest, paid in kind. Refugees from North Korea report that a similar in-kind tax was being assessed on the private plots that proliferated during the 1990s, but there is no official confirmation of this assessment.

All foreign-invested enterprises are subject to income, property, turnover, and local taxes. In the four special economic zones established by the government, one in 1991 and three in 2002, the tax on profits for most enterprises is set at 14%; for enterprises involving high technology, infrastructure construction, or light industry, the tax rate is 10%. Resident aliens in the DPRK must pay personal income taxes; the rate varies from 4% to a top rate of 20%.



https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/04/10-countries-with-zero-income-taxes.aspx


In no particular order, the 10 countries with no income taxes are:

United Arab Emirates
Oman
Bahrain
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Kuwait
Bermuda
Cayman Islands
The Bahamas
Brunei

Notice a trend?
With the exception of Brunei in Asia, this entire list of income-tax free countries is dominated by Middle Eastern or tropical tourist destinations that rely on essentially two factors to help generate revenue. For the six Middle Eastern countries and Brunei, it's oil and natural gas deposits that contribute to a significant portion GDP, while the Bahamas, the Cayman Islands, and Bermuda rely on tourism and the extremely high living costs to drive wealthy individuals into their country.

In many cases, however, oil and gas revenue and tourism aren't enough to keep the economic hamster on its wheel. Although these countries don't directly tax their citizens with an income tax, there are other forms of revenue collection.

Many countries, for instance, require citizens to contribute to a national social security fund while also requiring employers to make contributions on behalf of their employees. You'll find this practice in place in Kuwait, Oman, the Bahamas, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, just to name a few.

[juleswin]

They will still find other ways of taxing you. They need money to fund their government.

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Asia-and-Oceania/Korea-Democratic-People-s-Republic-of-DPRK-TAXATION.html



https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/04/10-countries-with-zero-income-taxes.aspx

And its not just the fact that there is no income tax but they also have a very generous welfare system. free post secondary education, healthcare, housing etc etc. Thanks the fact that they socialized their oil wealth. I know some people would prefer that some individual had taken over said oil fields and enrich themselves with it.

And yes, I get the irony that even with it being socialized, the majority of the people making the most benefit from oil are well connected govt officials.

[Madison320]

North Korea is the only country I know of that doesn't tax income.

Yeah, because there's no income to tax!

[angelatc]

Yeah, because there's no income to tax!

No, it's a little more complicated than that. But I hope that capitalism slips in and the government leaves it like that.

[TheCount]

Thanks the fact that they socialized their oil wealth.

'Their' oil wealth? Who is they and how did they come to collectively own all of the oil?

[juleswin]

'Their' oil wealth? Who is they and how did they come to collectively own all of the oil?

Good question. It is just happened to be that way and trying to take away from the collective will surely lead to a bloody war. So things remain they way they are

[Madison320]

And its not just the fact that there is no income tax but they also have a very generous welfare system. free post secondary education, healthcare, housing etc etc. Thanks the fact that they socialized their oil wealth. I know some people would prefer that some individual had taken over said oil fields and enrich themselves with it.


In a capitalist society individuals don't "take over oil fields", they buy them voluntarily. It's only when things get "socialized" that property is stolen from the rightful owner.

[juleswin]

In a capitalist society individuals don't "take over oil fields", they buy them voluntarily. It's only when things get "socialized" that property is stolen from the rightful owner.

Buy them from whom? it was discovered after the country had been founded and assuming it was discovered under govt land, how do you make the break now? To be honest with u, I see things like oil and underground water tables as the same, the person who happened to won the land above it did not create, they just discovered and extracted it. So maybe the owners of the land above it can get some finders fee/royalty deal but I just have issues with individuals having outright ownership of such natural resources.

Maybe I will come around to it, just not there yet.

[Madison320]

Buy them from whom? it was discovered after the country had been founded and assuming it was discovered under govt land, how do you make the break now? To be honest with u, I see things like oil and underground water tables as the same, the person who happened to won the land above it did not create, they just discovered and extracted it. So maybe the owners of the land above it can get some finders fee/royalty deal but I just have issues with individuals having outright ownership of such natural resources.

Maybe I will come around to it, just not there yet.

First of all I don't think you should assume the starting point is that the government owns all the land. But assuming the government did own all the land probably the best way to convert it to private property would be to auction it off to the highest bidder. If it might contain oil then it would demand a higher price. What's wrong with the owner of the land profiting from oil found on it? Many people besides the owner will benefit. He'll need workers to extract the oil. He'll need buyers for the oil. He'll buy things with his profits. Why is that worse than having the state divide it up (assuming they'd even be able to figure out how to GET the oil!)? How would that be different from a farmer who buys some fertile land and farms it? Should the food that's grown belong to the state also? Why should the farmer profit from the natural resource he owns?

[juleswin]

First of all I don't think you should assume the starting point is that the government owns all the land. But assuming the government did own all the land probably the best way to convert it to private property would be to auction it off to the highest bidder. If it might contain oil then it would demand a higher price. What's wrong with the owner of the land profiting from oil found on it? Many people besides the owner will benefit. He'll need workers to extract the oil. He'll need buyers for the oil. He'll buy things with his profits. Why is that worse than having the state divide it up (assuming they'd even be able to figure out how to GET the oil!)? How would that be different from a farmer who buys some fertile land and farms it? Should the food that's grown belong to the state also? Why should the farmer profit from the natural resource he owns?

The problem is that they have all those benefits in the system now. Many more people are benefiting from it than would have benefited if the state did not own the land. Saudi Arabia has a very generous welfare system for its citizens(my dad had stories that would blow your mind), they have workers and lots of them in the oil sector and those billionaires buy loads of stuff with their oil profits. The only way you can convince the people to privatize the oil industry is to convince them that they would benefit more from privatization and that would be a very hard sell.

Another question is, how is it different from a farm. Well, one is extraction(think aquifier) and the other is cultivation(even on the most fertile land). I think the 2 are different and I am OK with one being used to benefit all of society rather than it solely benefiting a private group. This is one area where my position has devolved since I joined the movement.

[Zippyjuan]

May budget deficit was $147 billion. Year to date deficit- $532 billion. On track for hitting $1 trillion. MAGA. Go big or go home.

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/mthTreasStmt/mts0518.pdf

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[AZJoe]

Surplus? It’s just as idiotic as the cheerleaders for Obama’s “surpluses”. The government usually posts a “surplus” each April. Remember, Obama had his April “surpluses” during his term including “the largest surplus in seven years (https://www.deseretnews.com/article/765673751/US-records-biggest-budget-surplus-in-7-years.html)”. Denying reality does not change it.

When the government is running $ Trillion annual deficits and $20 trillion+ debt using government’s fake accounting methods, there is no surplus.

The CBO’s rosy deficit projection for 2018 is $808 billion, and that’s with extremely rosy growth estimates. When all is settled, it could top $1+ trillion – and that’s using government’s phony accounting methods, not GAAP. Any rising interest rates would further compound the budget deficit and debt.

The problem is not cutting taxes. Cutting taxes is good. The problem is the spending. And with the Republicans in charge, They turned out to be just as bad if not worse than the Dems on spending. The only budget reform the Republicans (with the exception of a few including Paul, Massey, Amash), was to increase spending, spending, spending, and increase government.

Trump killed the budget when he signed the Republican's $1.3 trillion spending bonanza bill, increasing military spending, increasing deep state agency spending. In the span of a single day, March 16, 2018, the deficit jumped $73 billion. The debt (https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/at-21-trillion-the-national-debt-is-growing-36-faster-than-the-us-economy-23157/) grew $215 billion in February of this year alone. Trump himself called for even more increased military spending. The deficit is nearly $600 billion (http://thehill.com/policy/finance/382033-deficit-nears-600-billion-in-first-half-of-2018) just for the first six months of fiscal year 2018.

[AZJoe]

North Korea is the only country I know of that doesn't tax income.

Countries without income tax:


Andorra
Monaco
Bermuda
Cayman Islands
The Bahamas
United Arab Emirates
Oman
Bahrain
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Kuwait
Brunei

[Madison320]

Many more people are benefiting from it than would have benefited if the state did not own the land. Saudi Arabia has a very generous welfare system for its citizens(my dad had stories that would blow your mind), they have workers and lots of them in the oil sector and those billionaires buy loads of stuff with their oil profits.

How do you know less people would benefit if the oil fields were privately owned? I think it's obvious that more people, even the poorest, would benefit if they were privatized. Whenever you compare 2 similar countries, with similar resources where one is mainly capitalist and one is mainly communist, the capitalist one has much higher standard of living even for its poorer citizens. Look at former west germany vs east germany. Or south korea vs north korea.

[juleswin]

How do you know less people would benefit if the oil fields were privately owned? I think it's obvious that more people, even the poorest, would benefit if they were privatized. Whenever you compare 2 similar countries, with similar resources where one is mainly capitalist and one is mainly communist, the capitalist one has much higher standard of living even for its poorer citizens. Look at former west germany vs east germany. Or south korea vs north korea. [Or Haiti and Dominican republic?]

Lol, I have seen those comparisons before and its never compares like countries to like countries. Take for example East and Western Germany. One country experienced the US sponsored Marshal plan and the other did not. One side's industry was looted by the thieving Soviets and the other was not. So yea, I see how the 2 countries ended up with totally different economic results. That is because many other factors other than the economic system a country adopted played a role in their economic success. I bet you $10000 had we switched everything but the economic system, Eastern Germany would have ended up being more prosperous than Western Germany.

Do even need to talk how N and S Korea cannot be compared to each other? sanctions, economic aid, threat of invasion, trade policies and good foreign relations with more successful countries play a much bigger role in determining the economic success of a country than their economic system. Stop listening to the people making these silly comparisons, they are frauds.

But with Saudi Arabia, your biggest obstacle will be in convincing them that they would receive the same or greater benefits from merely holding citizenship of the country if the oil fields were privatized. I am a capitalist through and through and you cannot convince me that would happen. You know why? cos if I owned those fields I wouldn't be giving my money out to complete strangers, I would give out some charity but that would be a very small portion of what I make and most if not all the recipients would need to do something for that charity money.

[juleswin]

Surplus? It’s just as idiotic as the cheerleaders for Obama’s “surpluses”. The government usually posts a “surplus” each April. Remember, Obama had his April “surpluses” during his term including “the largest surplus in seven years (https://www.deseretnews.com/article/765673751/US-records-biggest-budget-surplus-in-7-years.html)”. Denying reality does not change it.

When the government is running $ Trillion annual deficits and $20 trillion+ debt using government’s fake accounting methods, there is no surplus.

The CBO’s rosy deficit projection for 2018 is $808 billion, and that’s with extremely rosy growth estimates. When all is settled, it could top $1+ trillion – and that’s using government’s phony accounting methods, not GAAP. Any rising interest rates would further compound the budget deficit and debt.

The problem is not cutting taxes. Cutting taxes is good. The problem is the spending. And with the Republicans in charge, They turned out to be just as bad if not worse than the Dems on spending. The only budget reform the Republicans (with the exception of a few including Paul, Massey, Amash), was to increase spending, spending, spending, and increase government.

Trump killed the budget when he signed the Republican's $1.3 trillion spending bonanza bill, increasing military spending, increasing deep state agency spending. In the span of a single day, March 16, 2018, the deficit jumped $73 billion. The debt (https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/at-21-trillion-the-national-debt-is-growing-36-faster-than-the-us-economy-23157/) grew $215 billion in February of this year alone. Trump himself called for even more increased military spending. The deficit is nearly $600 billion (http://thehill.com/policy/finance/382033-deficit-nears-600-billion-in-first-half-of-2018) just for the first six months of fiscal year 2018.

This is what happens when people think you can increase govt revenue by cutting taxes. If that was the case, everybody would do that. I think we are about or near the most efficient tax rates to govt revenue and lower the rate at that point and govt revenue will decline.

[dannno]

My federal tax went up almost three grand ... but then my AGI went up 11 grand, which accounts for some of it. Overall, my federal tax rate increased by 0.4%

Did you calculate what your taxes would have been the previous year with the 11 grand AGI increase?

[nbhadja]

In terms of messaging, current GOP team doesn't seem to capitalize on such things as Dems did.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Hyaz4bZw0S4/hqdefault.jpg


http://pics.livejournal.com/kensmind/pic/001wt5gh


https://n7.alamy.com/zooms/c639e1749a7540edacb2b0f5efb313b6/2-7-00-budget-president-bill-clinton-during-the-announcement-of-the-b713jf.jpg


What happeened, Isreal-Palestine conflict fallout balooned military spending and killed debt free projections?

Today Debt is how many $Trillions?

Don't you ever get tired of being a INCORRECT brainwashed liberal?

Clinton did not balance the budget. It is a lie. Federal gov accounting standards laughably leave out long term debt. Clinton merely raided money that was meant for social security and used it to pay the short term debt. He transferred the debt from long term to short term and since FASB (the accounting standards the fed gov uses) doesn't account for long term debt Clinton lied and said he balanced the budget. He is a lying rapist after all. The real government debt including unfunded long term liability is much higher than the 10 trillion dollar total that is reported.

[nbhadja]

Taking yours to the extreme we should give all the money we have to the already rich and everybody will be better off. When the top one percent have all of the money and the rest none, the standard of living will be amazing.


Yes, I know! We should copy Venezuela and the USSR and embrace socialism/communism! It is such a great system! Thank you for your amazingly smart liberal intellect! MAVA (Make America Venezuela Again). Zippy approves of turning the USA into a Venezuela like socialist hell hole!!!

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[AZJoe]

I think we are about or near the most efficient tax [theft] rates to govt mafia revenue

Fixed it.
Taxation is Theft! :)