Just wondering, what's the difference between individual and corporate income?

__________________
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy...the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. ~John Kenneth Galbraith

Some men change their party for the sake of their principles; others their principles for the sake of their party. ~Winston Churchill

The Christian Right is neither

No, he plans to give it back in welfare.

From an economic stand point, welfare is good to a certain point. Because if they take the money from the people who don't use it and give it to those who will use all of it, that money will go into the economy faster. The problem is that at some point welfare becomes better than working, which hurts the economy more than it helps.

Well in some situations, like if a person is filing as an S Corp, corporate and individual income is filed together, but if a corporation files as a C Corp (which is most larger companies, I think yo have to have over 100 employees) the corporate income is filed separate from the individual income of the companies owners, this happens because many of the companies are traded publicly and are therefore not owned by an individual but by shareholders.

Another thing I should note is the the total social security revenues are the contributions made by both the employee and the match made by the employer. In small business the amount is paid double by the business owner.

__________________

But Social Security isn't considered part of "income tax." It's part of payroll taxes, along with Medicare.

So any numbers you cite regarding "income tax" won't include Social Security.

As a rule they also won't include corporate income taxes. The term is most commonly used to describe just individual income taxes, which account for less than half of federal revenue.

__________________
Man up.

So... people who cheat the system?
I don't think anybody likes cheats. But the thing is... cheats by definition are not working within the system.

So I suppose what we'd then need is to look at better checks at the system... Unfortunately I get the sad feeling that policing the system would cost us more than the cheats actually do...

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

The rich been sucking on the public's teat for too long. I say if they don't like it, they should take their money and get the hell outa my country. Find themselves a Banana Republic, since they love 'em so much.

Where do ignorant people like you come from? What news have you been reading? I'm being serious.

Correct, however payroll taxes are also paid by individuals, even if partially.

Yup based on what I've seen it's about 45%, but I still say that this offers enough of a plurality to evaluate the effects of it's adjustment against federal revenues. Nearly 50% ought to be enough to shift the percentage away from the 19.5%/GDP, but as we've seen the effects on total revenue based on this aspect of the equation is marginal.

__________________

I justify it a couple of ways. First, the earnings of the top 1% over the last decade or so have grown exponentially compared to the earnings of the middleclass/poor which have pretty much flat-lined. In short, the rich are paying more taxes b/c they earning a hell of a lot more money over and above the bracket of the top marginal rate. Second, you can't squeeze blood from a turnip--there are crushing governmental debts to be paid and a deficit that is not going away--do we get the money to pay those obligations from those least able to pay or do we go to people who've been earning money at a rate that would shame that of the Gilded Age? I know that's a policy question, but it's a fair question.

Doesn't Obama promise to fund his targeted tax relief with the savings from permitting the Bush tax cuts to lapse just as Bush promised they would so he could sell the tax cut package under a lesser cost to the government/people?

Could you please provide me with a link to this information? Thanks

No, and moreover government revenue doesn't have to come directly from the pockets of tax payers, lowering marginal rates across the board allows for reinvestment and thus further tax payments in various other forms. As the economy grows so does federal revenue. So taxation isn't always the best solution to debt reduction. Furthermore if we take a closer look at our debt, you'll see that much of what we owe, is owed to ourselves, and could be rectified by:

A. Strengthening the dollar
B. Balancing the budget and reducing spending.

What always drives me crazy about this issue is that we'll blame everyone for this debt EXCEPT the people who made it. If we could reign in pork spending we'd make great strides towards debt reduction.
Those expiring tax cuts did not just apply to the rich. They apply to a large number of Americans and small business owners, myself included.

The majority of the people that make up the 'wealthy' are small business owners reporting not just their personal income, but also the income from their business, BUT not less expenses. When you increases taxes on these individuals your increasing the cost of them to run their business, when costs go up, changes must be made to regain equilibrium, often times to achieve this goal, layoffs are the most adequate solution, that's bad for business and bad for the people working for the 'rich'

__________________