Just some charts everyone needs to be familiar with.

[JamesA1102]

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. Excellent charts!

[lunatica]

2. Here are some pie charts

[tomm2thumbs]

23. excellent as well - thanks for posting those

[pnorman]

3. Thanks,I'll be using them elsewhere!

n/t

[Motown_Johnny]

4. nothing on national debt?

[Javaman]

34. There is your hockey stick graph. nt

[toddwv]

5. A few that I use frequently

[Yo_Mama]

6. Sweden's Top Corporate Tax Rate is 26.3%

That's another fact people should be familiar with. Personal taxes are high, but corporate taxes are much lower.

One of the things the US needs to confront is that in the last decade, most of the industrialized world cut corporate tax rates, and we are hanging out there at the high end.

Sweden's top individual tax rate is about 57%.

Denmark's top personal tax rate is about 59%, and its top corporate tax rate is 25%.

[Yo_Mama]

7. But come to think of it

Denmark is cutting some individual tax rates this year, I think.

[billlll]

8. both have centerright gov last i heard

The RW does many harmful things once in power... Proof-- Bush.

[fasttense]

28. Top Corporate tax rate in the US is never paid.

On the books, the tax rate in the US looks high but it is never paid by any corporation. There are so many loopholes that just about every corporations pays a 0 to 3% tax rate. This is confirmed by the IRS tax returns and CBO numbers. Many corporations receive refunds while paying absolutely NO Taxes - talk about entitlements.

It's all smoke and mirrors. Corporations want you to think they pay their fair share of taxes, so they leave that percentage on the books while ducking all or most of the taxes through loopholes, and the Cayman Islands.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

29. Horseshit.

Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1249465620080812

[Enthusiast]

32. So you are suggesting

that the U.S. reduce corporate taxes? Don't U.S. corporations enjoy a wealth of various tax shelters and loopholes that allow them to escape much of their tax burden? What is the tax subsidy received by the oil industry?

[Javaman]

35. sniff sniff. nt

[rhett o rick]

42. What's your point? nm

[tabatha]

9. Don't forget Nancy Pelosi's charts on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/speakerpelosi/sets/72157623367757714/detail/

[Lorien]

17. Those sure are being hit by RW trolls

right under a graph showing Obama's "fiscal responsibility" one writes "Obama bankrupted the Country within a year".

[hootinholler]

38. Thanks for that collection! n/t

[left is right]

10. the tax burden chart needs a secondary chart

that explains what citizens are actually getting for their tax dollars like for instance universal health care, paid school books for elementary and secondary education, infrastructure, average salary of their representatives, etc.

[rgbecker]

11. How much are Al Quada and the Taliban spending on defense?

Another example of not getting your money's worth.

[pampango]

12. High military spending and low, regressive taxes, but many blame our problems on "others". n/t

[liberation]

20. And thanks to the ever diminishing education standards and the propaganda fed to people in the US...

... not just tea baggers but a significant proportion of our population, when they look at those graphs what they see is a clear correlation between those charts and welfare queens in Bronx driving Cadillacs.

[progressoid]

13. It would be nice if the last chart went back to WWII

That would freak people out.

[chill_wind]

14. Mind-blowing, isn't it?

K & R.

[Schema Thing]

15. !

[HughBeaumont]

16. K & R. While we're on charts . . .

Remember . . . WE'RE the "soshulists" and the wealthy are the victims.

[Hamlette]

18. my favorite from the Nat'l Geographic on health care costs by country.

http://blogs.ngm.com/.a/6a00e0098226918833012876a6070f970c-800wi

I can never figure out how to past the actual chart but its worth a look if you've not seen it.

[earcandle]

19. Thank you for the income and military spending charts around the world! Useful!

[Winston Wolf]

21. These...

...are most excellent. Thank you very much for these.

[jeanpalmer]

22. Here;'s some more information

Defense spending for 2010 is $708 billion. The $547 billion in 2009 doesn't include spending on the wars ~$150 billion. In 2010, they started including spending on the wars in the Pentagon's budget. Thus, $708 billion. This $708 billion does not include spending for Homeland Security, intelligence (est. $40 billion), the Energy Dept's nuclear weapons programs, foreign military aid, any spending for veterans, or any of the $160 billion in interest payments on the debt attributable to past defense spending (almost all of it). All told ~$1 trillion of federal spending is attributable to defense, while the government receives ~$2.3 trillion in total revenue. Thus, we're spending about 40% of tax revenue on defense. It's like a massive government works program for right wing war lovers.

If Democrats ever wanted to de-fund the right wing, it would stop the wars and reduce defense spending to what is needed to defend the country from attack ($100 billion max?). That reduction would also remove a major issue that right wingers use to beat Democrats over the head ("weakness on defense") because once people saw that such spending was not needed and could be used instead for SS and Medicare, they would approve of such cuts. Of course the establishment which uses defense spending to line its pockets, would not approve of such cuts, but the people would. To make the cuts, we need a party and a President who are willing to make them and are also willing to make the argument to the people of the connection between big military spending and cuts in social programs. Unfortunately, we have neither. Obama's military spending and war escalation not only are bad on the merits but also in terms of its continued funding of the war machine and of our real political opponents, and its giving to our opponents the arguments to beat us over the head with. That's why I'm not a big fan of Barack Obama. We needed big change here, or a start toward it, but instead he has hopped into bed with the war machine and our political opponents. He is continuing us on the path to financial and social ruin.

[wuvuj]

25. Obama punts...but now he is back for more support...

...but since there are no other practical choices I won't vote for any GOP crazies. But I also won't spend any $ on it.

Bringing the war to Pakistan...will be the end of US war adventuring for awhile...I'd guess. A constant supply of enemy fighters......

[Enthusiast]

33. But our political opponents

appreciate Obama for it. :crazy:

[NewJeffCT]

41. I agree that we can cut a ton from Defense, but

Congress had trouble just to cut one program that provided an extra engine to the new F-35 fighter - and, that was an extra engine the Pentagon itself said they didn't want or need. Yet, they had to jump through hoops for just to get this extra engine cut.

There would need to be wholesale changes in the makeup of Congress in order for any serious cutting to defense to be done.

[tomm2thumbs]

24. some pictures are worth WAY more than a thousand words

these are cases in point

[The Wizard]

26. With the Military, Industrial, Media Complex

controlling the message (propaganda), it's impossible to cut military spending without being labeled soft on the ism of the day threatening the United States, thus rendering common sense a reality that has become a political albatross. Furthermore, defense contractors have enough key members of Congress on the payroll to ensure more spending on useless crap designed to do nothing more or less than separating taxpayers from their dollars.
We have been undermined and taken over by a fascist cabal that has taken complete control.
As the late George Carlin succinctly put it, "we have owners."

[TBF]

27. K&R nt

[AllyCat]

30. Oh jeez.

[YOY]

31. and until it's addressed we are doomed.

It won't be addressed by the "brave moderates" I will tell you that goddamn much.

[liberal N proud]

36. Thanks for posting

[4_TN_TITANS]

37. Excellent post... k/r

[bvar22]

39. The last chart would be even more dramatic if it went back to 1950s

The Top Marginal rate in the 50s was 91%.

[totodeinhere]

40. To be fair, regarding the chart on military spending, if it were listed as expenditures

as a percentage of gross national product, rather than as a raw figure, it would look much different.

One thing that the chart fails to include is the fact that as a percentage of GNP, US military spending has been on a steady decline the 1960s.

With the U.S. defense budget accounting for over half the military spending on the planet, you'd think that records were being broken. Well, they aren't. As a percentage of GNP, military spending continues a decline that has been going on since the 1960s (when, because of the Vietnam war, defense spending was 10.7 percent of GNP). That went down to 5.9 percent of GNP in the 1970s and, despite a much heralded "defense buildup" in the 1980s, still declined in the 1980s (to 5.8 percent.) With the end of the Cold War, spending dropped sharply again in the 1990s, to 4.1 percent. For the first decade of the 21st century, defense spending is expected to average 3.4 percent of GNP. Most of the current defense budget is being spent on personnel (payroll and benefits), and buying new equipment to replace the Cold War era stuff that is wearing out and to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc/articles/20080613.aspx

[DirkGently]

43. Couldn't possibly be more relevant right now. Well done.

[Hubert Flottz]

44. We need to cut "Entitlements" for the war mongers.

That is the "Entitlement" that's breaking the bank.