Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, attempted to vanish our outrage to the fact that companies avoid paying taxes which leaves the rest of us to pay. Above is a chart, provided by Huff Post Business and Business Insider, that reflects the minimal amount of corporate income taxes paid compared to the remaining income tax sources.

As you can see, the beige stripe, which reflects corporate tax percentage, is continuing to shrink as compared to 1950. The olive green stripe is growing larger than the beige stripe used to be, which represents  the amount of payroll taxes paid to the federal revenue.

What this proves is that payroll taxes account for 35 percent of all tax receipts, up from 11 percent in 1950, and in the last six decades corporate income has drop approximately 26 percent to less than 10 percent of the total of federal revenue. As a result our personal taxes has risen exponentially to fill the void left unpaid by "big business".

Individual income tax, which has remained virtually unchanged in the last 60 years, accounts for 46 percent of the total federal income taxes.

If we are to assume that companies pay half of the payroll taxes collected, this would result in individuals are paying around 63 percent of the total tax burden, up from 45 percent in 1950. From 32 percent in 1950 to a paltry 17 percent in 2010, corporate contributions are definitely showing the unfairness in our current tax code. And we know if anyone can afford to find the loop-holes, it would be corporate America and not  individuals.

With the tax laws written the way they are right now, we should not be upset that they allow Apple to keep as much as $102 billion in off-shore accounts, or that other companies are doing the same. We should be angry that the lawmakers have let these laws stand without revision and that the "new reform" will not only still allow the practice to stand, it might even encourage it to keep big business in this country alive and "healthy".

Corporate America pays a great deal of money to political campaigns and lobbying efforts to make sure their growing profits are kept off-shore. The profits you and I make possible by purchasing their products and services.

Same Old, Same Old

President Barack Obama has come under fire again as he is asking legislators to approve a $1.3 trillion hike in the debt-ceiling this past week. A request brought on not by failure of the president, but a failure, again, in the legislative standoff between the president and Congress.


Texas Governor, Rick Perry used his pursuit of the Republican Presidential campaign as a platform in the national spotlight to urge congress to reject the President's request telling a small audience in South Carolina that it would mean the government would have to print more money and that would devalue the dollar even further.


"The president again went to Congress to ask them to raise the debt ceiling. Than means they're going to print more money, they're going to spend more money. The dollars in your pocket are going to be devalued even more," Perry said. "I hope the members of Congress send a very clear message to the president. Not now, not again, absolutely not, Mr. President."


The request is part of an agreement reached in August between the White House and Congress to raise the debt limit to $15.2 trillion while creating a "super-committee" that unsuccessfully sought to reach a bipartisan deal last fall.


Perry says the president needs to trim his budget and cut spending, an idea that everyone seems to agree with. However, spending cuts alone is not the answer and no one wants to raise taxes or lose their entitlements. Billionaire Warren Buffett has gone so far as to challenge congressional Republicans a financial deal that could reap millions to the deficit. He, as reported to Time magazine, will match all donations to the deficit by the Republican congressional members and will triple match every dollar Senate Republican  leader Mitch McConnell.


Buffett has emphasized that his offer is a "firm offer".

Is John Boehner In Trouble?

The position of Speaker of the House of Representatives is normally a coveted and honored seat at the proverbial head of the table. But, as things in Washington, D.C. keep unfolding in disarray as it has for the past year, John Boehner may very well have a target on his back.

Several instances of flip-flopping have been apparent in 2011 and one wonders when will Eric Cantor, House Majority leader, make his move to attain the position he most covets. Boehner has not really shown the kind of leadership the junior members, mostly Tea Party members, want. When challenged by the freshmen representatives Boehner seems to re-position himself to satisfy the younger members of Congress.

If the House Republicans are responsible for raising taxes on the middle class and not close the loopholes for the most wealthy Americans, the message would be clear and resounding. Support for the millionaires and billionaires is, in their opinion, the way America should be led. And, if that is in fact the case, the "Super Pac's" will ultimately run this country while middle and lower class citizens could only run and hide and bury their heads in the sand.

America's businessmen and women understand, the best remedy for growth, hiring and most of all greater profits, is a healthy middle class that will purchase and use their products, not a over-taxed middle class that is scrounging to survive.

Boehner understands that raising taxes to the middle class while maintaining the huge loop-holes for the nation's wealthiest, will simply not fly. It becomes political suicide. Hiding behind a conference committee or talking about a one-year extension is simply crap piled upon crap. The Tea Party simply wants to kill it and claim victory as the "new" ideals for the american people.

Boehner is in real trouble and Cantor is all set to push him out of the way so he can ascend to the throne of power and crush all the dissenting members of the House. Boehner's political posturing has backfired and unfortunately he needs his democratic counterparts, he needs to strike a deal with them, and he needs to cut ties with the Tea Party members and take back control of the House. 

November 23rd Deadline

Once again Senior Citizens and the military are coming under attack by Congressional members as the Super Committee wrangles with the fast closing deadline of November 23rd to make policy recommendations to their fellow members of  $1.2 trillion dollars in budget reductions. And once again it is becoming apparent that the wealthiest Americans are still off limits.


It baffles the minds of those of the middle and lower classes  as to why they are always the target of budget cuts and program reductions. Why is the military always thrown out as the bait to get us to understand the difficult decisions that lie before the policy makers? One must admit that while the middle and lower classes are the reason these politicians are in office, they are the one’s ignored. Remember, the middle and lower classes make up a majority of the voters, who by all counts, feel these members of congress are looking out for them and that’s why they vote they way they do. It is also important to realize that the military is doing all the dirty work and keeping us safe so we can continue to elect these misfits. But if the mainstream American is voting on emotion only without really looking closely at the policies of those running for reelection, I guess we shouldn’t complain when our taxes are increased and our entitlements are reduced.


Why doesn’t it anger the American people when a deadline, as important as this one, is once again ignored and congress can take a week off. Obviously they feel they can reach a consensus in ten short days and Americans should not worry. They are, after all, looking out for our best interest because they owe us for their elected position and everyone knows it’s the American people they care most about and not the “fat-cats” of Wall Street or the special interest groups or the richest of us all. No, they are only concerned with us mediocre and common citizens. Yeah, right. And oh by the way, they had better hurry so they aren’t late for their annual Thanksgiving break as well.


And, one more thing, no matter what happens in this vote or when these members of congress come up for reelection, one thing is certain, even if they are not reelected they still will have the healthcare insurance and retirement pension to count on. 

Myths and Truths About Social Security

Exploding 5 misconceptions that threaten the system

Reprint from AARP Bulletin of 11/1/11: by: Jane Bryant Quinn 

It happened during the stock boom of the 1990s, and it is happening again. Social Security is coming under attack. The first challenge arose from hope — that savers would get more retirement income for their money if they bought stocks. But the idea of privatization was not popular with the public.

See also: Social Security recipients welcome 3.6 percent COLA.

Now, the attack comes from fear ­ ­ — that Social Security has serious financial problems and can only fail. Younger people lean more toward change than older people do. A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted a year ago found that 60 percent of adults who aren't retired expect to get nothing — zero — from Social Security in their older age.

Myth No. 1: Social Security is going bankrupt. No, it's not. Even in the unlikely event that nothing changes and the program's entire surplus runs out in 2036, as projected, checks would keep coming. Payroll taxes at current rates would cover 77 percent of all the future benefits promised. That's true for young and old alike, and includes inflation adjustments.

Myth No. 2: I'd be better off if I'd kept my Social Security taxes in my own investment account. Hmmm ­ ­ — you're saying that you'd faithfully put that money aside, every year of your working life, in a mix of stocks and bonds, without ever skipping a year, drawing on your nest egg or selling when the market dropped? Few such paragons exist.

You'd need to invest far more than you probably realize to match the benefits Social Security pays. As an example, take a 65-year-old couple with a single breadwinner who earned the average wage. At retirement, they'd currently get about $2,170 a month, plus inflation adjustments, for life, the Urban Institute reports.

To equal that sum in private savings, they'd need to have about $580,000, says Michael Kitces, director of research for Pinnacle Advisory Group, and the money might last only 30 years. How many average earners are likely to save that much?

Myth No. 3: In 1983, Congress made changes to Social Security to build a fund that would pay for boomers when they retire, so it's not fair to change benefits now. No, Congress did not intend to "advance fund" the boomers, according to a study of the record by Charles Blahous of Stanford University's Hoover Institution. It raised taxes and cut some future benefits to cure an imminent insolvency. The trust fund reserves — now $2.6 trillion — were a by-product of the decisions made. Congress never veered from its vision of intergenerational compact: Working people pay for those who don't, or can't, work anymore. On the flip side, the compact requires older people to make some concessions so that younger people can afford it.

Myth No. 4: You should get out of Social Security the amount you put in. No. Social Security is not an individual investment program (see Myth  No. 2). Your taxes paid for the earlier generation of retirees. Current workers are paying for you. The total amount of your benefit depends on how much you earned, whether you get a spousal benefit, when you retire and how long you live.

Myth No. 5: Social Security helps old people, not younger people like me. Wrong. It provides income support to qualified widows and widowers with young children, as well as orphans. Just as important, it saves young families from the cost of supporting older parents who, without Social Security, wouldn't have enough money to live on. It also provides benefits for workers who become disabled.

My final point … and it isn't a myth, it's a fact. If young people switched their payroll taxes into private accounts, the government would have to borrow $6.5 trillion or more (depending on the details) to keep paying out benefits to current retirees.

That means higher deficits, higher income taxes, further slashes in spending, or all three. It's smarter — and cheaper — to fix the current program and put everyone's mind at rest. 

Re-Post by Gene Vallee

Warren Buffett, "I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all
sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election. The 26th
amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months
& 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in
1971...before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc. Of the 27 amendments to
the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the
land...all because of public pressure.

Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of
twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do
likewise.
In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the
message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.

*Congressional Reform Act of 2011*

1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman collects a salary while in office
and receives no pay when they are out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security. All
funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security
system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system,
and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for
any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans
do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay
will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the
same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American
people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12.
The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen
made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor,
not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours
should serve their term's), then go home and back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take
three days for most people (in the U.S.) to receive the message. Maybe it is
time.

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!!!!! If you agree with the above, pass it on.

By: Gene Vallee

Republican Candidates have all the answer, or do they?

With the upcoming 2012 Presidential campaign in full swing, at least on the Republican side, the People will more than likely see less and less accomplished in Washington. But make no mistake that we the people are not forgotten in this political process that clouds the mind with whom shall we vote for. The answers will be clear as mud as time goes on and the nearer we get to deciding who will lead us for the next four years.


However, one thing is clear, the Republican candidates are so used to bashing the Democrats ideas that they can’t decide on a viable plan in which to get the nation back on it’s feet again. Take the current candidates position on the tax  code.


Texas Governor Rick Perry’s plan would give taxpayers and corporate America a choice of paying a flat 20% or their current tax rate. Herman Cain has his 9-9-9 plan which would make a 9% federal sales tax, 9% personal income tax and a 9% corporate tax. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich wants a flat 15% income tax, while former Massachusetts’s governor Mitt Romney has a 59-point economic plan. And former Utah governor Jon Huntsman would set only three tax rates and eliminate all deductions, which in my opinion would stifle economic growth by causing people to hang onto their money rather than give money to charity, purchase a house or even contribute to political campaigns. Talk about a “shoot yourself in the foot approach“.


Perry’s plan is not as well thought out in my opinion as many people in this country would end up not paying any income tax at all. Take a family of four that are buying their home making $60,000 a year combined. The flat rate would be would be $12, 000. Take away four $12,500 tax deductions per person, they now have effectively reduced their income by $50,000 leaving a 20% tax on $10,000. But if you include the deduction for mortgage interest, you are bound to zero out any remaining tax owed and that doesn’t account for deductions for charity, or state and local taxes.


With all these concepts on how to tax the people and corporations of this country, not answering the question of how to put 9.2% of the country on unemployment back to work, deal with the healthcare issue, repairing our infrastructure and funding special needs like our education system, military and government to name a few, how can they be serious about running our country.


It’s easy to say President Obama has failed this country and driven it into a larger debt. Failed healthcare reform, infrastructure repair, balance the budget, and so on. It is easy to cast blame on the Democrats while the Republicans and Tea Party members say they have all the answers if only the opposing party would just listen. But it is still the constituents that have and will continue to suffer long after 2012 has come and gone. Everything put before Congress has been shot down by opposing chambers and at least we have the simple task of deciding who we want to guide us for the next four years. It seems clear as mud to me.