politics. Obama hit on a very popular theme with the DNC folks. He wants
a tax increase on wealthy people. There is little doubt but that he
will get what he is asking for. The section that I thought was
important:
"If we
want to reduce our deficit, our sacrifice has to be shared. And that
means even as we're making spending cuts, we also have to end the tax
cuts to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans in this country.
(Applause.) It's not because we want to punish success. It's because if
we're going to ask Americans to sacrifice a little bit, we can't tell millionaires and billionaires that they don't have to do a thing.”
How could one argue with this kind of talk? Millionaires and
billionaires are not carrying their share of the burden so we should tax
the hell out of them.
The audience that I write to doesn’t like Obama very much. They also
don’t like big government; they hate the financial institutions and the
fat cats with big bonuses. So I’m interested to hear what might be said
on this topic. Is Obama striking a chord with you? I understand if he
does. But you need to look where this is headed. If you are young, with
children, and have debt from education or a home and aspire for some
degree of success in your life; beware. What Obama is proposing is
headed your way.
When Obama talks of taxing millionaires and billionaires he is missing
the mark. He is pushing for a higher tax on income. What he doesn’t get
is that millionaires and billionaires actually don’t have that much
income. Yes they have wealth, but it is very easy to avoid paying taxes
on wealth. The people who will pay higher taxes are young people, not
the rich old fogies that have bundles in the bank. I got this note
from a young professional who works very hard and is far from wealthy.
He does make a decent income and that income will get squeezed by the
higher taxes that are coming.
I love
it when Obama talks about taxing the "wealthy" when he talks of high
taxable income. Since he targets people with high wage income, he's targeting young people without much wealth that have a lot of debt (student, home, etc). The wealthy are mostly older folks, many of whom have lots of their money in muni bonds and assets throwing off capital gains. The wealthy are also foreigners who
can invest in the US without US tax on their capital gains, and reduced
US tax on dividends if a treaty applies, and generally, no US tax on
interest income.If you want to hike taxes on engineers, doctors, lawyers, accountants, airline pilots, and others with householders in high-earning brackets, fine. But it takes balls to call them millionaires and billionaires.
In the President’s speech he had this to say:
I don't want a $200,000 tax cut that's paid for by asking 33 seniors each to pay more than $6,000 in extra Medicare costs. I don't want that. I don't want my tax cut paid for by cutting kids out of Head Start or doing away with health insurance for millions of people on Medicaid, seniors in nursing homes and poor children and middle-class families who are raising a child with a disability like autism. That's not a tradeoff I'm willing to make.
These sure sound like popular views. The President has defined the
debate here. This is about billionaires on the one hand and seniors,
Medicaid and Medicare recipients even kids with autism on the other
hand. But actually the proposal to increase income taxes will hurt a
different audience than those billionaires. Those that are going to get
hit, the young lawyers, doctors, airline pilots and business people of
all stripes are going to respond with their feet. They will not vote for leadership that puts the tax burden squarely on them.
The end result will be that the political pendulum will
shift to the extreme right. The House, Senate and the White House will
belong to conservatives. When that happens there will be a great
unwinding of the social programs that Obama champions. And all those who
think the solution is to tax wealth will be very disappointed with the
outcome.
What ever happened to "The Little Red Hen"?
What ever happened to "40 acres and a mule"?
Since when is one entitled to something someone else has earned solely on the basis of desire?
I agree with the above poster...theft is still theft, even if institutionalized and "for the greater good"...and it is still wrong.
Just to play devil's advocate here. What happens when there are no more "acres or mules". This is where humanity finds itself. Growth economics, meet physics and finite resources and supply distribution stability/availability. This isn't just about oil, its water, reduced nitrogen, suflur, phosphorus, and a myriad of rare earths to maintain the current standard of living.
The world would benefit tremendously from another plague right about now. Remember nobel prize winning economists say that the earthquake and tsunami are good for Japan's GDP.
>What happens when there are no more "acres or mules". This is where humanity finds itself. Growth economics, meet physics and finite resources and supply distribution stability/availability.
If people are sufficiently deprived of resources, then they will die. (I think this happened to some Iraqi children once.) Ceteris paribus commiting acts of theft results in an increased number of deaths since it interferes with the efficiency of the market in allocating resources.
>This isn't just about oil, its water, reduced nitrogen, suflur, phosphorus, and a myriad of rare earths to maintain the current standard of living.
I'm not sure what you are getting at. A lot of the things you mentioned are atoms that come in stable isotopes that aren't ever depleted.
>The world would benefit tremendously from another plague right about now.
How can the world "benefit"? Surely you mean your subjective appraisal of the world would improve, were a plague to happen.
Which group of people do you want to die first?
"I'm not sure what you are getting at. A lot of the things you mentioned are atoms that come in stable isotopes that aren't ever depleted."
Yeah, I kind of figured that would fly right over your head. Many elements are only useful to life in certain oxidation states. For example, it takes a tremendous amount of energy to reduce nitrogen gas to ammonia. The former is approximately 80% of the air we breath but totally useless to plants while the latter is used for fertilizer. It does not matter if Nature or Dupont are performing this process. Either way, it still takes a tremendous amount of energy. Sorry, "organic" farming will not feed 7 billion people.
The point is that many elements are constantly cycled through many oxidation states in numerous global cycles. These cycles are catalyzed mainly by bacteria and some plants and some plants that live symbiotically with bacteria. Human activity is fucking with some of the cycles big time. Slow down or stop any one of these cycles and game over bitches (at least for life in its present form).
As far as your question regarding who will die first, you really have no idea what sarcasm is do you?
>Sorry, "organic" farming will not feed 7 billion people.
Good thing there are other kinds of farming.
>it still takes a tremendous amount of energy to reduce nitrogen gas to ammonia
The energy from the sun is practically unlimited. It is not even an economic good, because it is not scarce. Go long sunlight futures, dolt.
>These cycles are catalyzed mainly by bacteria and some plants and some plants that live symbiotically with bacteria. Human activity is fucking with some of the cycles big time.
LOL! Humans cannot stop heterotrophic bacteria from producing ammonia.
Even with the best scientific knowledge, maintaining a clean water reservoir or even something as simple as a fish bowl is a continuous struggle against nature's organisms and their processes. Your fear about halting these basic mechanisms of nature is unbelievably retarded.
>Slow down or stop any one of these cycles and game over bitches (at least for life in its present form).
Thanks for that plattitude. Now, what is the actual point you are trying to make?
I really don't understand what all your whining is for, other than decreasing the signal-to-noise ratio at this site.
Good answer.
Bruce,
cynical partisan speech. Wake me up when a wealthy Democrat politician champions closure of all personal and corporate loopholes in the taxcode.
How could O do that? He has fucking Jeff Immelt advising him. You think Jeff is telling O that he ought to be raising taxes from the likes of Exxon and GE??
That is where it gets trickey. XOM and GE are polar opposites of the current political/corporate spectrum.
What is Immelt advising him to do? I'll bet O is not listening to any of his advice.
Rex is treated differently than Immelt and is telling congress to grow up.
Immelt doesn't "advise" the President. Immelt's part time job is Managing Director of the New York Federal Bank and CEO of GE.
In February 2009, Immelt was appointed as a member to the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board to provide the president and his administration with advice and counsel in fixing America's economic downturn.[10]
On January 21, 2011, President Obama announced Immelt's appointment as chairman of his outside panel of economic advisers, succeeding former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker.[11] The New York Times reported that Obama's appointment of Immelt was "another strong signal that he intends to make the White House more business-friendly."[11] Immelt will retain his post at G.E. while becoming "chairman of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, a newly named panel that President Obama is creating by executive order."[11]
If Exxon has 35 IRS agents (full time) at their headquarters, are millionaires and billionaires to expect IRS agents to follow them around?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/how-much-do-oil-companies-really-pay-in-taxes/2011/05/11/AF7UNutG_story_1.html
Wake me up when ANY politician champions closure of ANY loopholes in the taxcode.
No, instead they present new loopholes as benefits for their constituents and point to them as evidence that they "cut taxes." As I've said before:
(1) End deductions for "preferred" behavior.
(2) Tax corporations and individuals both on revenue (income), rather than one class on revenue and the other on profit.
(3) Create tax rates that float based on a measure of economic activity. It is insane to tax at the same rate during a recession as you do during a time when the economy is overheating.
He resents those who file 1099 Div. or Int. only. He wants you on the W-2 rolls.
The Code is a confusing pile of additions and adjustments which screws with entrepreurs and self motivators. They don't like you. You cost them money.
It needs change! That would be change, something fair, like everyone pays something and has a stake in the game.
And the Laffer Curve goes way back. Arts is the latest version.
1099 ~= slavery category.
Shame that such work(and all forms of temporary/indirect work) doesn't multiply the benefit/liability requirements, such as to disincentivize it as a benefits/tax dodge.
+1
This got junked? It looks like we have some government workers surfing the net on the taxpayer's dime again.
Everyone knows they only visit the Pr0n sites. Perhaps government astroturf-bots?
This is very sad. Let me get a Kleenex.
By extending Krasting's argument, it seems we should give an Earned Income Tax Credit to everyone with an income of more than $1 million / year. Perhaps $10,000 for every $1 million in income. <sarcasm ON, stupid>
Besides, as one Republican spokesperson said a few years ago. These high-income earners are "the most productive members of our economy." {Of course, she said that before the various bailouts were deemed "necessary".}
FYI... The Laffer Curve is a CURVE, not a straight line.
"By extending Krasting's argument, it seems we should give an Earned Income Tax Credit to everyone with an income of more than $1 million / year."
If by "we", you mean the Federal Government, then they should return the funds obtained under duress to the rightful owners.
It's a many-headed-hydra and tax-receipts is just one of them. President do-nothing can quote soundbites all day, it's not going to get me up and take him seriously. ..hmm
Krasting, on the other hand. Taking down disposable incomes from the higher brackets -puts the whole marginal consumer growth story, well, in the toilet. I don't have a problem with that, but I do have a problem in doing it this way. Mercedes will put up their price by another $7 grand and only the millionaires will drive them - ze dream will haf kom true!
I would suggest a progressive tax on the things that rich people use. Goods over $500. Have you seen Samsonite luggage recently? And really, who buys, y'know, things that re not computers for more than that? What, lunch..
Neither party has a reasonable stance on how compensation should be awarded or taxed. Are you fucking kidding me? Both of their speeches end with "we must raise the debt ceiling because debt is money, screw our children and any efforts to re-connect our financial system with reality". Hedge accordingly (sounds ironic doesn't it?)
BOTH parities wish to enrich the banks and financial fuckwads (that add no real value to the economy) while destroying liberty and independent thought. The only difference between democrats and republicans is the former wants to support entitlements and the latter wants to support the industrial war complex. There is no "winner" here.
Unfortunately true.
Tax the consumers,not the earners.No income tax,just a whopping VAT,say 20%.
OK, but only if the VAT includes every financial transaction.
Won't work.
All would move offshore, leaving the tax auditors with the consuming public to audit.
At that point, the US government doesn't care, and follows them anyway.
Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. Recent events should have shown that even the most hard-to-find people, assets,etc will be found. What happened to OBL can happen to anyone who is a big enough thorn the government's side.
Oh great.
After you lower returns that savers and the frugal get on their money to zero, ram through a consumption tax that tears into their previously taxed savings.
At the same time your VAT or national sales tax rewards government with a growing tax revenue stream built upon Fed-engendered price inflation.
The inflation tax compounded by a consumption tax - yeah that's the ticket.
Sadly, this is coming.
Yet another reason to stock up on necessities and become as self-sufficient as possible. We don't have just the banksters and dot.gov as vicious predators, but fellow citizens too.
Interesting take. I don't like VAT...to subversive. At least with a Sales Tax there is a choice. Consumption would be likely be immediately reduced. If you don't like the tax on your McD's 2XQPs, grow brussel sprouts in your backyard, and eat those...tax free.
Ultimately, such a plan would take elimination, or dramatic curtailment of the Fed's powers. This might be done by repeal of legal tender laws. Then again, taxes must be paid in some common unit of account. We can't be paying in goats, and brussel sprouts....can we?
Perhaps we are back to the Stateless society discussion.
Either way, they'll do like they're already doing in the UK and outlaw private gardening. That's just crazy to me.
Getting rid of the IRS will be good thing, welcome it, unless you work there.
A VAT on top of income tax, sales taxes, state & local taxes?
What's the point of working again?
Going to a VAT does not eliminate the IRS.
Going to a National Sales Tax replaces the IRS with the state revenue auditors.
No sale.
Obama has not got the slightest fucking clue what he talking about that he is reading from the teleprompter or scripted speeches written for him. He has no business experience and no clue about the tax system either.
i may have gotten wound up earlier in life over obama's rhetoric. the mathematics overwhelm him however. as has been pointed out many times there's no combination of spending cuts, tax increases and growth that will get the usa out of its self inflicted fiscal, debt and trade imbalances without serious pain. the public and the leadership at this point in time are in denial. a black swan might awaken both groups to get serious. regardless, it will take a generation of sacrifice, good leadership, tariffs and most of all incentives to bring the jobs back home to sort matters.
Why not focus instead on those who have broken the law and prosecute them? Taxing the high net worth, law abiding citizens, always backfires (the "millionaires" talk is reminiscent of the impetus for creating income tax and the Federal Reserve, if you remember your history).
Actually a rhetorical question - the reason we aren't putting people in jail is because our government is now complicit in the misdeeds. We missed a chance with too big to fail to do something different and panicked.
The meta problem is government/business/corporatism. It's so linked at this point that only a hard reset will solve the problems.
Amen to that. But...
How can you say: "We missed a chance with too big to fail to do something different and panicked"...
When you also say that: "The meta problem is government/business/corporatism"?
While at the same time you realise that: "our government is now complicit in the misdeeds." How does one spell (Oligarchial) Facism, anyway?
So, you have already realised that they are part and parcel to the whole kit and kaboodle but you have failed to connect the dots.
Maybe this would be a bit more plain: "It was all in the plan, sucka!"
The charade goes on and on while they are able to divide and conquer. Use of the newest bogeyman of "autism" in the latest plans really, really chaps at my craw. My disgust and vile for them knows no bounds.
I sincerely hope all these sons-of-bitches get their comeuppance sooner rather than later!
Nothing against you, Fiat2Zero, but this shit just reallllllllly pisses me off.
try a glass of chilled wine and it'll make you feel much better when you go yo the loo!
The small guy is usually worst of and the fat fish has always found ways around tax laws. It's not a surprise that tax lawyers are the best paid of their kind... and then there are the social tourist, always find a way to live on someone elses pocket...
Then create a no-exception, no-avoidance environment.
Nicely done Bruce.
A junk for a complement. I'll take the junk as another complement.
i religiously read your posts, but this one i find lacking in data or analysis.
but to add on to the discussion i think inheritance should be taxed. not wealth.
most people assume that private property is a god given right. there is no real moral ground to this. if i was born into a wealthy family and have a "right" to own my palace, then so does a mob of poor people born into poor familes have the "right" to invade my palace and take it from me.
"but to add on to the discussion i think inheritance should be taxed. not wealth."
This is double taxation. It was taxed once already, when it was earned.
"most people assume that private property is a god given right. there is no real moral ground to this. if i was born into a wealthy family and have a "right" to own my palace, then so does a mob of poor people born into poor familes have the "right" to invade my palace and take it from me."
So, if I assume, what is yours is mine I can have it?...LOL.
Perfect, the law of the jungle...I see dead people.
but a different person is being taxed on inheritance.. the person who inherits.
its similar to goods being taxed each time it changes hands.
I am just suggesting that only the same person should not be taxed twice for the same thing.
Current system of property rights is not really different from the law of the jungle. Property rights are enforced by might not "right". Otherwise all US property should be handed over to the native americans if inheritance was a "right".
"but a different person is being taxed on inheritance.. the person who inherits."
If I buy a gift for you and pay the sales tax at the store, you're saying I need to put a 1099 inside the package for you? You engaged in no commerce to be taxed for.
Inheritance is a gift.
The taxes for the property being gifted were paid at the point of sale by the deceased. If it is money being transferred, this too was taxed whether on wages, interest, dividends or whatever...its been taxed at least once already and paid by the deceased.
Nothing new has been created to be taxed on.
"Current system of property rights is not really different from the law of the jungle. Property rights are enforced by might not "right"."
We pay taxes to government to enforce laws on behalf of individuals property rights so it does not become the law of the jungle. I don't have a problem not paying for this service after the Kelso case, others may not feel the same way. At any rate, not paying for this service doesn't do anything to bring down the deficits or the debt.
I just want some brave soul who says they have a right to what is mine to say they, themselves, will be the first in line ;-)
"Otherwise all US property should be handed over to the native americans if inheritance was a "right"."
The native Americans migrated here from somewhere else.
Once here different tribes conquered each other and took their land away by force...so who would we give it back to?...the first inhabitants are dead and the last inhabitants were defeated just like they did to the first.
While I wouldn't mind laying claim to some land through my marginal bloodline, it would still be disingenuous for me to do so knowing my tribe killed others to take it first.
i also am not suggesting that the land be given back to native americans.
I just think that property rights are currently being enforced by force against those who were born without any and do not subsrcibe to the "moral right" of the property holders in the country in which he was born.
"I just think that property rights are currently being enforced by force against those who were born without any and do not subsrcibe to the "moral right" of the property holders in the country in which he was born."
Everyone is born with certain rights.
Property rights are not one of them. They are conferred on them by those who have them or purchased through labor for themselves.
And again, there is nothing mystical about law. But changing it has consequences, desirable to some, not so much to others, damaging to all in the long run on that scale.
is inhertiance taxed like gifts with a gift tax?
i dont see why it should be any different.
I just think not taxing inheritance will lead to accelerated wealth concentration in certain families which is in long term unsustainable in a democratic government, as it becomes similar to a monarchist goverment.
I tried googling Kelso case and found multiple refences to different things so I am not sure what you are referring to.
I am not personalizing this issue as I think i stand to lose significantly with an inhertance tax in place.
I am all for capitalism and ones productivity should determine his benefits, but I dont think that ones parents productivity should determine his benefits that much. I think this is the fundamental flaw with capitalism. I dont have any solution to this problem but an inhertance tax does make a lot of sense to me.