Republican Roadmap=No Taxes for Oprah, Pelosi, Soros
by Bruce Webb
Well I doubt that will be the slogan on the signs at the next Teabag Rally but it is an accurate summation of Rep. Paul Ryan’s Roadmap to America’s Future tax reform plan. From the website (bolding mine):
This plan discards a needlessly complex and manipulative tax code, replacing it with a simplified mechanism that promotes work, saving, and investment.
Provides individual income tax payers a choice of how to pay their taxes – through existing law, or through a highly simplified code that fits on a postcard with just two rates and virtually no special tax deductions, credits, or exclusions (except the health care tax credit).
Simplifies tax rates to 10 percent on income up to $100,000 for joint filers, and $50,000 for single filers; and 25 percent on taxable income above these amounts. Also includes a generous standard deduction and personal exemption (totaling $39,000 for a family of four).
Eliminates the alternative minimum tax [AMT].
Promotes saving by eliminating taxes on interest, capital gains, and dividends; also eliminates the death tax.
Replaces the corporate income tax – currently the second highest in the industrialized world – with a border-adjustable business consumption tax of 8.5 percent. This new rate is roughly half that of the rest of the industrialized world.
Some attention has been paid to the Roadmap’s plan to privatize Social Security and voucherize Medicare but little to this aspect. Under Ryan’s Roadmap billionaires don’t pay taxes. At all.
In our system there are multi-millionaires whose wealth came from a combination of wages and bonuses, film and sports stars come to mind, but the truly rich earned their billions from returns of capital, they own property and companies and make their money by selling them and pocketing the gains. Under the Ryan Roadmap every form of gain from capital is tax free.
They really do believe that Capitalists are Masters of the Universe, that they are so important they don’t even have to contribute to pay for the weapons systems used to protect their interests around the world or from terrorism here at home. Some of us have recognized that the end point of Republican tax policy added up to ‘No Tax for Billionaires’, it is just that no Republican dared compile that entire agenda and put it down on paper. Well here it is, it is the Roadmap to Plutocracy, that is the Republican vision of America’s Future, that ‘wage slave’ no longer be a metaphor, instead workers will pay for everything.
And you can bet that the Capitalists will still be claiming WORKERS are the Parasites.
And Republicans have the balls to ask that we take them seriously.
Income exempt up to $39,000 for a family of four.
10% rate up to $100,000
No tax on any gain from capital.
And they demanded that CBO score this as revenue neutral and then claimed to have balanced the budget by still taking 19% of GDP as tax revenue. This is so bold and so dishonest as to make the term Voodoo Economics remotely applicable. This is DooDoo Economics or Stone Soup Economics or Squeeze Blood from a Stone Economics.
Ryan is reported to be a huge ban of Ayn Rand. No kidding.
Kevin Phillips, the political historian and political analyst, has written several books on contemporary American history and how the republican party over the last 30 years has largely benefited the rich. In his book, Wealth and Democracy- A political history of the American rich, Phillips writes: Average Americans were losing ground overall from the late seventies through the nineties.
To back up this claim, he includes a chart from 1948 to 1990 with the tax rate for the average American household and the top one percent of American households. The chart shows the tax rate of a average household in 1948 was paying 5 percent of its income to taxes while the top one percent were paying 76 percent. Starting in the 1980s the ratio for the average American was 23 percent and the top one percent had dropped to 35 percent. By 1990 the ratio was 24 percent for the average American household and 26 percent for the upper one percent.
Anyone wanting a clear understanding of how we got to where we are today should read the book, Wealth and Democracy- A Political History of the American Rich.
http://pinione.blogspot.com/2010/02/wealth-and-democracy-how-duopoly-serves.html
NO TAX for Billionaires
What a great slogan. I want to sign up for that party NOT.
Phillips, like a number of other Reagan-era Republicans, has become a critic of the Republican Party because the Republican Party has become a purely political entity, with only three operational goals. The GOP calculates which constituencies and interests to cultivate in order to maintain power, and does what those constituencies and interests demand, without any thought to the general welfare. It prevents Democrats from achieving any legislative objective, no matter how useful to the general welfare. It generates propaganda aimed at making the most of the other two goals.
Phillips and old Republicans like him thought they were doing something worthwhile under Reagan. Some were appalled then at the result – “The pigs are really feeding” and the like. Now, they repudiate the GOP pretty much all the way, because a party with the pure goal of perpetuating itself is a poisonous thing.
The combination of those three operational goals
Bruce,
Another pie in the sky plan that doesn’t seem to be attached to fiscal reality. I do agree with this quote though:
“Tax Policy. The U.S. tax code is needlessly complex and non-competitive. Taxes must be levied to finance the government; but government should do so in a way that imposes the least burden on work, saving, and investment.”
I totally agree that the tax code is way to complex. It should be written to kill off the tax-preperation industry plus finance the gov. Plus I LIKE the AMT!!
I also missed any actual cuts in government spending (the DoD is almost ignored). He seems off the mark on SS – identifies the problem then incorrectly applies a solution. Doesn’t really understand the concept that raising taxes is not to pay back SS IOUs but to cover the gaping whole in the general fund. He seems to have drunk the SS is in crises koolaid and his ‘fix’ is to privatize it.
Look the guy correctly identifies the problem is that we are burying ourselves in debt. What I didn’t see was any plan to actually increase revenues or decrease outlays…but I didn’t read the entire thing either.
Islam will change
Phillips, like a number of other Reagan-era Republicans, has become a critic of the Republican Party because the Republican Party has become a purely political entity, with only three operational goals. The GOP calculates which constituencies and interests to cultivate in order to maintain power, and does what those constituencies and interests demand, without any thought to the general welfare. It prevents Democrats from achieving any legislative objective, no matter how useful to the general welfare. It generates propaganda aimed at making the most of the other two goals.
Phillips and old Republicans like him thought they were doing something worthwhile under Reagan. Some were appalled then at the result – “The pigs are really feeding” and the like. Now, they repudiate the GOP pretty much all the way, because a party with the pure goal of perpetuating itself is a poisonous thing.
I wonder how the yeid of that plan versus a flat 10% on EVERYTHING, wages, interest, dividends, corporate income capital gains etc would be. I can guess how much support THAT plan would have.
I respect Phillips the political analyst Kevin Phillips, author of the books, American Theocracy, Wealth and Democracy, The Politics of Rich and Poor, and the Emerging Republican Majority, because he is a very good political analyst. In his last few books he often speaks about the five symptoms that previous world powers have experienced before they have collapsed. These include; a sense of something was going wrong with the country, the role of religion or the excessive role of religion, economic polarization within the country, geo-political hubris, and the amount of debt the country owed. Even the most casual observer of America and the country’s standing in the international system, would agree that the American Republic in the 21 century has several if not all of the five symptoms of a world power in decline.
With millions of Americans out of work and Wall Street bankers receiving millions of dollars in yearly bonuses, the relentlessly growing gap between the rich and the poor in America, is perhaps one of the most vivid examples of the type of economic polarization that previous world powers have experienced in their final years of power. A close examination of the past 40 years in American history offers an insight into how the political establishment in America has been corrupted by the wealthiest one percent in America, which has resulted in an ever-increasing decline in the amount of wealth available to the rest of the American people.
http://pinione.blogspot.com/2010/02/economic-polarization-in-america.html
of course, no taxes for billionaires, why not ? isn’t that the end result of 30 years
of right wing attacks on the income and quality of life of all earners making less
than $120k ?
Step one was to destroy the kind of economy that was the basis for the so-called
“American Dream” (now a myth) in order to stop the inflation adjusted income growth
of most of us.
Step two was to attach those of us with stagnant incomes to the debt
trough, so we don’t get to realize there’s nothing really there for us, while
transitioning the last “sure thing” in this country (a.k.a. the defined-benefits
retirement plan) to the defined contributions scam in order to capitalize
Wall Street (i.e., the pockets of their puppet masters).
Step three is obviously to give away the store to the real masters
of this country while fooling those affected by steps one and two
into believing that their taxes will finally be cut even though effective
tax rates have been dropping the last 30 years for all quintiles
of income.
Finally America will become like it was intended to become in the
first place (the post-WWII, up to the seventies, America is the aberration
here).
Pardon me while I gag.
Buff most of the complexity of the tax code is the result of billionaires and millionaires lobbying for tax breaks for their various industries. All Ryan is doing is eliminating the need for those breaks by not charging them taxes at all.
And really the idea that American industry or capital generally is somehow rooting for more competition is fall down funny.
This plan was never meant to be taken seriously. His staff told CBO to score it as revenue by assuming that everyone would just make the choice to stay on the old tax system rather than taking the huge breaks of the new one. Like billionaires are going to tell their accountants to keep paying 33% on earned interest in dividends rather than 0%.
“Provides individual income tax payers a choice of how to pay their taxes – through existing law, or through a highly simplified code that fits on a postcard with just two rates and virtually no special tax deductions, credits, or exclusions”
Yet the newspapers simply repeat his claim that the plan balances the budget.
It’s not enough to denounce the Republican plan as zero taxes for billionaires. The Democrats and Obama should co-opt the discussion by coming up with their own plan.
I’m in favor of a high standard deduction, indexed to inflation, set so that the bottom 40-50% pay no federal income taxes. Then you have one rate over that and no itemized deductions, except maybe for charity. And you tax everything at that same rate: wages, interest, dividends, and capital gains.
It’s fair, because a high standard deduction makes it progressive while also having the same marginal rate for everyone. It’s simple, so that everyone can understand it. It makes tax returns easy–total your income sources, make one deduction, and then pay a single percentage on the remainder.
To make it even better, keep the same flat rate, impose the tax upstream on corporate payrolls, interest and dividends as they’re being paid out, and so on. All the record-keeping is done by businesses and not individuals (except for capital gains on selling property, though that could be taken out at sale time). You emulate the standard deduction by paying everybody a rebate equal to the marginal rate on the standard deduction. You pay it even to people who don’t make income equal to that deduction, you pay it to billionaires, and everyone in between. No individual ever has to fill out a tax return again, 40% or more of people pay no taxes and some even get something back (similar to the earned income tax deduction today).
The marginal rate wouldn’t even have to go up that much because the 40-50% don’t pay that much of the total share of taxes anyway, and the application of the same rate to interest, cap gains, and dividends makes up much of that difference.
Bruce,
Your friends and the other socialists in the democrat party today are maneuvering to take the first steps towards socializing medicine. This is the issue that’s in place today not a flat tax, so your columns is tone deaf to current events.
Kharris,
You say the Republican Party is a political party and one that represents the interest of its voters. Are you a mensan?
Bruce,
The complexity of the tax code is the result of billionaires and millionaires lobbying for tax breaks for their various industries.
Its also the government trying to direct investments and charitable giving to their cronies and for caused they support. The cure of course is to have less of the economy at the whim and control of big government.
Bruce,
“The complexity of the tax code is the result of billionaires and millionaires lobbying for tax breaks for their various industries. “
Its also the government trying to direct investments and charitable giving to their cronies and for caused they support. The cure of course is to have less of the economy at the whim and control of big government.
Bruce,
“The complexity of the tax code is the result of billionaires and millionaires lobbying for tax breaks for their various industries. ”
Its also the government trying to direct investments and charitable giving to their cronies and for causes they support. The cure of course is to have less of the economy at the whim and control of big government. The democrats in their meeting today are heading out 180 degrees in the wrong direction.
Cantab the Republicans reported only yesterday that Rep Ryan would be invited to the Health Care Summit. Ryan put up a Press Releases to that effect.
http://www.house.gov/ryan/press_releases/2010pressreleases/22410hcs.htm
So you can stick “tone deaf to current events” where it belongs. Ryan and the Roadmap are current events, Feb 24th was yesterday, Ryan was brought into the HCR debate, and it is certainly relevant to point out that this libertarian loon has a seat at the table of today’s event..
And nobody made you the AB topic cop.
I don’t see any reason why people earning in the low six figures and so likely to be either professionals or salaried employees whose incomes are set by either the market or by management should pay tax at the same rate as those who earn income in the seven and eight figure range who mostly set their incomes themselves.
The Progessive Income Tax was based on the perfectly sound psychological and economic principal that economic actors will seek to maximize their own self-interest and where possible award themselves a bigger share of the gains from productivity than an outside analysis would rationally grant. Progressive taxation thus represents a counterweight to the thumb on the compensation scale seen in real life allocation of productivity.
In my experience promoters of all kinds of flat taxes sell the sizzle of simplicity when their real interest is limiting the amount of steak they have to give up to fund overall societal needs. I don’t see why Forbes should pay the same marginal rates on his largely inherited income that my physician does. Simplicity is not that much of a virtue.
Cantab you are this close to becoming Mr. “Where did he go”.
The Republican Party does not run as the party of the wealthy and the enemy of the working class. Instead they position themselves as the party of the common man, of Real Americans opposed to liberal elites. On the other hand the actual policies they pursue direct almost all benefits to elites on both sides, every single economic policy they actually pursue puts money in the pockets of Oprah and Pelosi and Soros. Hence the title of this post.
The claim that Republicans simply represent the interest of its voters which ignores the difference between Republican rhetoric and actual Republican performance is it self the opposite of Mensan.
As usual you have simply distorted kharris’s post as an excuse for a cheap ad hom.
Keep your comments focused on the topic, if I think that your only intent is to disrupt the thread I can and will make you vanish. And at this point don’t care that that might seem hypocritical, I’ve got the kill button and you don’t.
Exactly. A progressive income tax makes perfect sense. However, there’s no reason why the top marginal rate should max out at an annual income of $373k. That is just absurd. We need several additional incremental brackets between that level, and say $2 million in annual income, and then a sharp increase for those over $2 million. The country has gotten bogged down in meaningless discussions over whether or not a family of 4 with two earners making a combined $200k is wealthy, and we’re completely ignoring those way out on the right tail making multiples of that primarily from economic rent.
As for eliminating taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains to promote saving and investment, the comeback to that line is so simple it’s silly – “don’t we also want to promote WORKING for a living?”
“a highly simplified code that fits on a postcard” — typical right-wing nonsense. The complexity is determining what constitutes “taxable income” –> there are lots of ways to receive financial benefits through non-monetary transactions. The idiotic answer of “everything” doesn’t work —> does the coffee provided by employers count as income ? What about the cookies and punch at the Xmas party ? What about dinner and $500 bottles of wine at “business dinners” ? What about the 727s that are reserved for the exclusive use of the CEO ? What about gains on investments before they are sold ? What about deferred interest ? We have a complex economy and therefore need a complex tax code in order to address the myriad and complicated ways that financial transactions can be structured. Any time someone blathers about tax returns fitting on a postcard, you know that they are trying to mislead.
Cantab. Stop.
Angry Bear is pretty lenient about ad homs generally. I have been called many things and I have given as good as I got. But I don’t answer to you for either my language or the topics I choose. Let this vanished comment be a warning.
If you don’t like it there are a number of Bears you can appeal to that among other things could switch off my power to moderate content anywhere on the site. But frankly most of them are kind of tired of your antics. Good luck with your appeal.
Well unless they limit taxes to wages as reported on a W-2.
The Ryan Roadmap essentially reduces Income Tax to a Payroll Tax parallel to that which funds Medicare Part A. Exempt all gains from capital from taxation and you can radically simplify the system by applying the famous Leona Helmsly Law:
Taxes are for little people. See, easy.
Right from the start Ryan’s proposal is misdirected. “…..replacing it with a simplified mechanism that promotes work, saving, and investment.”
Taxation is not a promotional scheme aimed at coaxing people to give up money for some cause, either worthy or not. Taxation is a budgetary requirement. As soon as Republicans and Democrats alike come to that realization they will develop a rational tax system. Don’t hold your breath ’til that happens. A balanced revenue plan would have those who benefit to the greatest extent from our economic system provide the greatest amount of financial support for that system. It’s not likely to happen.
Avaricious greed seems to be an innate characteristic of human beings which is subdued only with the experience of need. Those who need more seem to ask for little and be satisfied with what they can eke out for sustenance. Those with more than they’ll ever need seem not to ever realize that they have reached that plateau and always seem to need more.
Who says Pelosi, Oprah and Soros pay any taxes now?
One solution will be more traditional taxation. Taxation on land, taxation on commerce. Remember, before the great depression, there were no income taxes. Most taxes were collected by tariffs, and taxes on property ownership.
One simple way to tax the people whose overall income comes from capital gain, interests, stocks, etc, is to enact consumption tax. Why bother with complex IRS rules that benifits special interests? Abolish our complex tax code and enact a more traditional way of taxation based on consumption tax(value added tax), property ownership, and tariffs on imports and exports.
The consumption tax can be made fair so it is progressive in nature. Let’s say a consumption tax rate of 30% for all processed products. E.G. unprocessed food are not taxed. But if you go to McDonalds and get a french fry, it is taxed at 30%. What a way to encourage people to go home and have a meal with the family? If you buy a house, the land is not taxed for consumption, but the physical property will be taxed one time at 30%. It can be made progressive if the government also determines the poverty income. Individuals can save their tax reciepts and get a tax refund up to the poverty income.
This is far better than complex tax code that favors the ultra rich in our society. The more you buy, the more taxes you pay.
Little John that is pretty dumb. Got any evidence that the fricking Speaker of the House pays no tax on the millions of dollars her family controls? Think THAT would just slip by the Ethics Committee? Soros is a huge funder of the left, ya think that maybe the Bush Administration might have looked into whether he was dodging taxes on US earnings? Do you really think a billionaire with a daily TV show and a corporate empire somehow would never get a tax audit?
Get serious.
Also can you tell me how much they paid and whatn their effective rate is?
Many of the truly poor don’t have access to cooking facilities or if they do easy access to a grocery store that sells fresh food of any type.
Plus consumption taxes on the wealthy are not easily enforceable in the era of the jet plane. The rich would just buy everything in London and Paris and display it in their home on some Caribbean Island. That tax needs to be collected at the source.
Absolutely, I’ll drag out my magical calculator that sees right through the IRS privacy law walls.
Little John I picked out three powerful, liberal, very rich people for illustration purposes. To make a rhetorical point that while Republicans claim to speak for the little guy they really are out to protect Mr. Big and don’t care whether Mr. Big is left or right. I thought about putting up Alex Baldwin as an example of the Hollywood liberal but then substituted Oprah, and it wasn’t because of some inside knoweldge of the latters effective tax burden.
Your question is just dumb.
Boy, the anger on the left is growing as the wheels come off their policy wagon. Bruce, why so angry?
Clueless Jack, why the subterfuge? Taxes are used to incentivize and penalize activity. Why else have depreciation clauses?
We’ve reached a tipping point where nearly 1/2 the wage earners pay no income taxes or receive refunds on what they do pay. So when we see tax cuts they are by definition for the RICH!
So do we need a revised tax system? Yes, ONLY if that system is a complete replacement for the broken old.
As to the 800lb gorilla in the room, for all the carping about the Repub. tax policies, the policies that are causing the biggest problems are from the Dems. We can no longer afford to pay for the ever increasing entitlements that you folks constantly want to legislate. Good job Dems. (Not!)
Question:
If a wealthy person invests in a company and the earnings of that company are taxed at 35 percent isn’t this just like the person being taxed at 35 percent. And what if their dividends are also taxes at 35 percent? Doesn’t it mean that person is being taxed at (1-.35)(1-.35) = 58 percent. 58 percent seems pretty high to me.
Bruce,
“Angry Bear is pretty lenient about ad homs generally. “
That’s because you and others on the left make most of them.
Cantie, stop confusing them! It’s not about a logical, rational discussion its about them feeling good about themselves and their losing policies. Its about their class warfare belief.
Excellent post Bruce and i agree with your analysis of flat taxes. Although it is selfish, there is another twist with doing away with itemized deductions which actually serves GOP ideology. 90% of my itemized deductions are for the state income taxes and property taxes I pay. Both are at quite high rates, because I live in a state and in a community where the government provides quite a lot to its citizens including the less fortunate. Not to0 surprising, I live in a very blue community and a fairly blue state. I do not like paying all those state and property taxes, but I do not bitch about it as much as I would if I could not deduct them on my federal return. I am quite sure that if I lived in a reliably red community and state that my state and local taxes would be a lot lower. In other words the doing away of deductions is meant to punish people living in Democratic states while leaving people who live in GOP states untouched.
Don’t be naive Bruce. Are you aware that you can legally use techniques to limit if not elimiate your federal income taxes? Ever heard of an ESOP? How about a family foundation? It’s not a matter of “dodging” or an “audit”, rather a matter of sophisticated lawyers and accountants. It’s a legitimate question. The questions about effective rates and amount paid was just for illustration purposes that you have no idea of the taxes (both amount and effective rate) that the hyper-wealthy pay. In other words many of the hyper-wealthy may already be on Ryan’s plan…how would anyone know other than resorting to speculation?
the Republicans with their comments show they are not true capitalists.
After all, it wasn’t Marx who wrote:
“It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public
expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more
than in that proportion.”
You get this automatically when you base taxes on rates rather than a lump sum. If fairness was defined as each person paying the same amount then all citizens would end up paying about $10,000 each a year for tax. So a family of 4 would pay $40,000. But this is not what we end up doing. Most family of 4s are undertaxed and over subsidized. They might pay $10,000 in tax and then turn around and get public education benefit worth $20,000.
I have no clue what the numbers would be, but you really need to look at what the 8.5% consumption tax would do to dividends before you have really sussed out the results on the billionaires.
Effective tax rates for corporations are much smaller than that.
Your calculations are GIGO
Well me neither. But since current corporate taxes are pre-dividend and dividends would be totally tax free it is difficult to believe that some 8.5% consumption tax (which I don’t particularly understand) would offset the total savings or that frankly that Ryan would include it if billionaires came out on the losing end.
CoRev: “Clueless Jack, why the subterfuge? Taxes are used to incentivize and penalize activity. Why else have depreciation clauses?”
You’re absolutely right and that is the problem. Every subterfuge is used to come up with a tax system that lends itself to every possible scheme that can be devised to shelter income. None of those bogus promotional rationales has any basis in truth. Tax schemes shelter income from tax. Such plans do not encourage any other form of economic activity, in spite of what bought and paid for “experts” may make excuses for.
I’m not suggesting that Republicans and Democrats differ all that much in regards to taxation ideology. It’s gullible fools like yourself that makes their good guy/bad guy charade so successful.
“Most family of 4s are undertaxed and over subsidized. They might pay $10,000 in tax and then turn around and get public education benefit worth $20,000.”
that sounds awfully like what the robber barons of the late 19th and early
20th centuries used to say in order to explain away the pay cuts and
increased hours they imposed on their workers (with the Pinkertons at hand
to bust some heads if any worker expressed displeasure). Your writing reeks
of condescension directed to 90% of income earners in this country.
So no Mr. Republican, in capitalism the more one makes the more one must
pony up, percentage-wise, in taxes because even those who make the
gazillions can partake in the same benefits that the family of 4 benefits from.
Nobody, but _their_ own condescension, is preventing them from being
“over subsidized” in exactly the same way that you think the median
family of 4 is “over subsidized.”
“If fairness was defined as each person paying the same amount… ” Cantab
But fairness is not defined by any intelligent person in that manner. Only an idiot would define a fair tax system as one by which all citizens pay an equal share regardless of their benefit from their participation in our economy.
Some Numbers
“In 2007, the top 400 filers derived 66 percent of their income from capital gains and dividends, compared to 22 percent for filers making between $500,000 and $1 million and just 2 percent for those making under $50,000.”
“The top 400 households paid 16.6 percent of their income in federal individual income taxes in 2007, down from 30 percent in 1995. This decline works out to a tax cut of $46 million per filer in 2007, or a total of $18 billion in tax cuts for these households per year.”
“The decline in effective tax rates at the very top is due in large part to the capital gains tax cuts enacted in 1997 and 2003. The top marginal tax rate on capital gains is now 15 percent, less than half the top tax rate on wages and salaries. The top 400 taxpayers derived two-thirds of their income from capital gains and qualified dividends in 2007.”
Tax Rate for Richest 400 Taxpayers Plummeted in Recent Decades, Even as Their Pre-Tax Incomes Skyrocketed
By Avi Feller and Chuck Marr, CBPP
Feb 23, 2010
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3090
The 400 Individual Income Tax Returns Reporting the Highest Adjusted
Gross Incomes Each Year, 1992-2007
IRS
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07intop400.pdf
Top 1 Percent of Americans Reaped Two-Thirds of Income Gains in Last Economic Expansion
Income Concentration in 2007 Was at Highest Level Since 1928, New Analysis Shows
By Avi Feller and Chad Stone, CBPP
September 9, 2009
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2908
.
Cantab,
The tax code already takes care of that problem.
Nice try, though. Please come back and try again.
CoRev,
It was the Democrats in 1986 who leveled the tax code, got rid of many tax deductions and lowered the top rate from 50% to 28%. The 1986 tax reform essentially reversed the disastrous 1981 tax “reform” that the GOP pushed through. The 1981 bill was a monstrous violation of just about every principle of efficient tax policy. It created a lot of deadweight loss because it was shot through with loopholes, bizarre tax credits and obscene (and perverse) depreciation allowances. Reagan intially opposed the 1986 reform act written by Sen. Bradley, but to Reagan’s credit he eventually turned around and came to support the bill and strong armed Republicans into accepting it. Unfortunately, the 1986 bill was barely on the books when both parties started to insert all kinds of junk into the tax code….and one of the biggest offenders was Democratic Congressman Dan Rostenkowski. Prison was too good for him.
Socialist friends.
The Rep. Paul Ryan plan sounds like a warmed over version of Dick Armey’s proposal about 15 years ago. It didn’t improve with age. But then again, things that have been dead for 15 years rarely do.
Thank you MG. Useful numbers.
Current corporate taxes are on profits. I read that Ryan imposes taxes on net receipts determined by subtracting its total purchases from its total sales. Net receipts is larger than profits, so unless the company can pass the cost of taxes onto the customer, it will have less profit and therefore lower dividends.
With corporate taxes in the 35 percent range and profit margins in the 6 to 10 (or even 20) percent range, an 8.5 percent consumption tax would increase the revenue from that business. Since stockholders will not demand as large a dividend if they are untaxed, businesses may really lower dividends.
This is clearly a huge boon to owners of highly profitable businesses, but it is a stretch to say that Oprah would not pay any taxes.
16.6%… not zero but close to it.
Slugs,
“The tax code already takes care of that problem”
Please provide an explanation.
Bruce,
Then do a calculation and show us what it is.
Yeah, socalist friends.
Harpo Inc would pay taxes but Ms. Oprah Winfrey in her personal capacity might not.
Bruce has the backing of the Politburo running AB.
Check your history. Rostenkowski and Reagan worked to pass the act, Rostenkowski led the dems to supported it..why would he then fight to change it by putting “junk” into it?
As one of the rebels here on AB I still support Bruce and rdans judgement in policing the comments. As anyone who was here back in the old PGL days things could get very heated. Yet I managed to not get deleted (except as part of the mass deletions on oone thread that literally got way out of hand on both sides).
So try to stay on topic. rdan always gets around to an open thread if one is needed, bring it up there.
BTW where did PGL go? Isn’t he one of the blogs on the left? Maybe I should go needle him a little (or not). 🙂
Islam will change
Of course the Caribbean Island has import duties (in the case of the Cayman Islands 20%) and they would be happy to have you pay them. Its then a question of which country gets the revenue, sort of like today, if you pay taxes in 2 countries typically one credits you with the others tax.
So if I invest after-tax income and make a gain, I have to pay taxes on it again? Do I breathe more air than you? Do my 2 children take-up more space than yours? This is just class warfare and envy. People who cannot afford children, should not have any. Children should be taxed, not be a tax credit on an Income Tax return – kind of liek a “user tax.” You had you kids, you pay for them. The gov’t needs to spend less money and people need to buck-up and try to advance- and not on the back of someone else.
snivel, snivel, snivel.
In other words, only the people who have more than you should pay more in taxes?
Because he could?
PGL may not thank me for pointing out that he is a regular at EconoSpeak, the successor site to the much missed MaxSpeak (You Listen)
http://econospeak.blogspot.com/
I liked Rostenkowski then and I like successor Charley Rangel now. But both were the products of a type of Machine Politics that never quite got the personal and the public aspects separated, man and office blended.
Of both men you can apply the same slogan that was applied to the early Hawaiian missionaries turned plantation owners: “They came to do good, and did very well indeed”. Time to wrap up that particular show.
CueballX3. It is interesting that many of the people who say that poor folk should not have children are the same dickheads that would prevent them from having access to contraceptives.
It is like Capitalists not only want to monopolize gains from productivity but also put the same monopoly on sex. Where the hell are you going to find labor productivity to exploit if you don’t let poor people have children? Are you going to send Bill Gates’ kids to the fields to do the picking for you?
As to your question. Yes every citizen has a responsibility to pay their fair share of at least the minimum amount needed to provide for the common defense and for courts to enforce contracts. Even the most dim-bulb glibertarian would admit that. If your only income is from gains from capital accumulated from after tax-income perhaps piled up by your father and grandfather then yes you have to pay taxes on it. Unless you are willing to enforce every contractual obligation and protect every asset from enemies foreign and domestic with your own private arsenal.
Its called civil, civil, civil as in civil contract. The only snivelers are people like you that think that society owes you protection and you owe society nothing.
Take a leaf from the Libertarian handbook: TANSTAAFL. Google it.
Bruce,
I’ve mellowed some from the old days…he’d probably ban me on his site even if I was polite to a fault.
I’ve noticed Rebecca has been posting some great stuff. Please encourage her in the future!
Bruce,
I think the poor should just fatten up the little darlings for me and then send them over. Properly seasoned with an apple in the mouth and they make great eating after a few hours on a slow roasting spit….so I have no problem with preventing the po folk from having access to contraceptives! Heck in lowers supply if they do and drives up my cost.
Bruce even you should be able to figure this out, its Econ 101!!!!!
🙂
Buff,
I visit EconoSpeak regularly. Excellent posts, especially from Brenda. Sorry Barkley.
Unfortunately the Sandwichman hasn’t been posting there lately, though I’ve seen that he’s made some comments here. My point is that that site doesn’t seem to get the Cantab types. Maybe it’s maderated, but I don’t think so. A Cantab or sammy kind of comment would most likely be ignored as too trivial to respond to. It would look out of place. I don’t think that your approach would be unwelcome though likely not agreed with. The Islam Will Change signature might not be welcome.
Buff, Dean Swift beat you to it by almost three centuries.
He called it “A Modest Proposal” to solve the problem of starvation in Ireland.
Mark,
May I suggest that you revisit the history books. Reagan initially opposed the 1986 tax reform bill. As I said, to his credit he later came around to support it and brought Republicans along with him. It was the idea of lower rates that persuaded Reagan to support the bill rather than the idea of removing tax shelters. It was a case of doing the right thing for the wrong reason, but at least he did the right thing. And Rosty did support it as well….it couldn’t have gotten out of Ways and Means if he didn’t. But no sooner was the ink dry than he was up to his old tricks. For Rosty the 1986 tax reform bill was a kind of “reset” button that reinitialized tax laws and made for new opportunities to junk it up with gimmicks.
I was going for the same effect. I always thought old Swift was a budding Rep…
Its Friday going to the symphony tonight and then out on the town!!!
The Sandwichman announced his departure from EconoSpeak, apparently too much internal sniping. Last I saw he said he would be putting up another site.
People who cannot afford to have children, should not have them = pretty simple to understand? Children should not be a tax credit, they should be taxed as user taxes for educational services.People who cannot afford to own a home and in default should be foreclosed. People who are acting prudently and living in apts while savings to buy home and subsidzing faudulent home owners are getting screwed. Let the prices come down, what is so scary about that? No free lunch? Then stop trying to eat mine.
By the way – I have a news flash for you… you can have sex without getting pregnant, but I bet your botfriend already explained that to you.
Bruce:
It appears Sandwichman had a different view on Labor that didn’t coincide with what is taken to be the rule for economists. As you would suspect, I kind of agree with his views on Labor.
There will not be a perfect taxation system. Let I said earlier, I favor a consumption tax with a fallback position for the poor in tax refunds. As for Bruce’s fear of people just buying stuff overseas, that’s what US customs is created, isn’t it? Let’s say Tiger Woods buys a 30 million dollar yacht overseas and want’s to enjoy it in the US. Then he has to pay import duty to bring it to the US. Besides, with a value added tax system, even if Tiger parks it outside US territorial waters, he still have to pay for fuel, maintainance if he ever brings it nears US water. It’s better than the current system that he can claim depreciation for the boat, claim it as part of business expense and count as a tax deduction etc.
Best way other than the IRS is to pay your taxes when you buy something, other than reporting it yourself through the IRS forms..LOL