http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703808904575025080017959478.html
Quote
A GOP Road Map for America's Future
By PAUL D. RYAN
In tonight's State of the Union address, President Obama will declare a new found commitment to "fiscal responsibility" to cover the huge spending and debt he and congressional Democrats have run up in his first year in office. But next Monday, when he submits his actual budget, I fear it will rely on gimmickry, commissions, luke-warm spending "freezes," and paper-tiger controls to create the illusion of budget discipline. Meanwhile, he and the Democratic congressional leadership will continue pursuing a relentless expansion of government and a new culture of dependency.
America needs an alternative. For that reason, I have reintroduced my plan to tackle our nation's most pressing domestic challenges—updated to reflect the dramatic decline in our economic and fiscal condition. The plan, called A Road Map for America's Future and first introduced in 2008, is a comprehensive proposal to ensure health and retirement security for all Americans, to lift the debt burdens that are mounting every day because of Washington's reckless spending, and to promote jobs and competitiveness in the 21st century global economy.
The difference between the Road Map and the Democrats' approach could not be more clear. From the enactment of a $1 trillion "stimulus" last February to the current pass-at-all costs government takeover of health care, the Democratic leadership has followed a "progressive" strategy that will take us closer to a tipping point past which most Americans receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes—a European-style welfare state where double-digit unemployment becomes a way of life.
Americans don't have to settle for this path of decline. There's still time to choose a different future. That is what the Road Map offers. It is based on a fundamentally different vision from the one now prevailing in Washington. It focuses the government on its proper role. It restrains government spending, and hence limits the size of government itself. It rejuvenates the vibrant market economy that made America the envy of the world. And it restores an American character rooted in individual initiative, entrepreneurship and opportunity.
http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/
Here are the principal elements:
• Health Care. The plan ensures universal access to affordable health insurance by restructuring the tax code, allowing all Americans to secure an affordable health plan that best suits their needs, and shifting the control and ownership of health coverage away from the government and employers to individuals.
It provides a refundable tax credit—$2,300 for individuals and $5,700 for families—to purchase coverage (from another state if they so choose) and keep it with them if they move or change jobs. It establishes transparency in health-care price and quality data, so this critical information is readily available before someone needs health services.
State-based high risk pools will make affordable care available to those with pre-existing conditions. In addition to the tax credit, Medicaid will provide supplemental payments to low-income recipients so they too can obtain the health coverage of their choice and no longer be consigned to the stigmatized, sclerotic care that Medicaid has come to represent.
• Medicare. The Road Map secures Medicare for current beneficiaries, while making common-sense reforms to save this critical program. It preserves the existing Medicare program for Americans currently 55 or older so they can receive the benefits they planned for throughout their working lives.
For those under 55—as they become Medicare-eligible—it creates a Medicare payment, initially averaging $11,000, to be used to purchase a Medicare certified plan. The payment is adjusted to reflect medical inflation, and pegged to income, with low-income individuals receiving greater support. The plan also provides risk adjustment, so those with greater medical needs receive a higher payment.
The proposal also fully funds Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) for low-income beneficiaries, while continuing to allow all beneficiaries, regardless of income, to set up tax-free MSAs. Enacted together, these reforms will help keep Medicare solvent for generations to come.
• Social Security. The Road Map preserves the existing Social Security program for those 55 or older. For those under 55, the plan offers the option of investing over one-third of their current Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts, similar to the Thrift Savings Plan available to federal employees. This proposal includes a property right, so those who own these accounts can pass on the assets to their heirs. The plan also guarantees that individuals will not lose a dollar they contribute to their accounts, even after inflation.
The plan also makes the program permanently solvent by combining a modest adjustment in the growth of initial Social Security's benefits for higher-income individuals, with a gradual, modest increase in the retirement age.
• Tax Reform. The Road Map offers an alternative to today's needlessly complex and unfair tax code, providing the option of a simplified system that promotes work, saving and investment.
This highly simplified code fits on a postcard. It has just two rates: 10% on income up to $100,000 for joint filers and $50,000 for single filers, and 25% on taxable income above these amounts. It also includes a generous standard deduction and personal exemption (totaling $39,000 for a family of four), and no tax loopholes, deductions, credits or exclusions (except the health-care tax credit).
The proposal eliminates the alternative minimum tax. It promotes saving by eliminating taxes on interest, capital gains, and dividends. It eliminates the death tax. It replaces the corporate income tax—currently the second highest in the industrialized world—with a business consumption tax of 8.5%. This new rate is roughly half the average in the industrialized world and will put American companies and workers in a stronger position to compete in a global economy.
Even without the Democratic spending spree, our fiscal outlook is deteriorating. They are only hastening the crisis. It is not too late to take control of our fiscal and economic future. But the longer we wait, the bigger the problem becomes and the more difficult our options for solving it.
The Road Map promotes our national prosperity by limiting government's burden of spending, mandates and regulation. It ensures the opportunity for individuals to fulfill their human potential and enjoy the satisfaction of their own achievements—and it secures the distinctly American legacy of leaving the next generation better off.
Mr. Ryan, a Republican congressman from Wisconsin, is the ranking member of the Budget Committee.
Obviously, they can't be expecting this to be taken up by Congress. It's an election platform for 2010. Maybe they think this will be the new Contract with America. It doesn't look as clear-cut as that was though. I tried to find how they plan to cover the uninsured. It looks like they are going to just give everyone a couple grand to buy insurance with. Plus this:
Quote
- Debit Card Amounts. In addition to the tax credit, the additional support available to eligible families is as follows: $5,000 for families with incomes not exceeding 100 percent of the poverty level; $4,000 for families with incomes between 100 percent and 120 percent of the poverty level; $3,500 for families with incomes between 120 percent and 140 percent of the poverty level; $3,000 for families with incomes between 140 percent and 160 percent of the poverty level; $2,500 for families with incomes between 160 percent and 180 percent of the poverty level; and $2,000 for families with incomes between 180 percent and 200 percent of the poverty level. An additional $1,000 is made available for each family in which there is a pregnancy during a 12-month period, and an additional $500 is made available for each family member under the age of 1. Beneficiaries are allowed to roll over up to one quarter of unexpended debit card amounts at the end of each 12-month period.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 28, 2010, 05:09:38 PM
Obviously, they can't be expecting this to be taken up by Congress. It's an election platform for 2010. Maybe they think this will be the new Contract with America. It doesn't look as clear-cut as that was though. I tried to find how they plan to cover the uninsured. It looks like they are going to just give everyone a couple grand to buy insurance with. Plus this:
Which is the idiocy behind why the federal government has to step in in the first place. The Bush Admin pretty thoroughly proved that if you throw money at the masses, they don't do with it what they were supposed to do with it. Any underinsured/uninsured who've been scraping by with charity-care-like programs most likely think they can continue to squeak by without proper insurance and spiral things downward by continuing to drive up healthcare expenses.
So where's all the money going to come from if they slash taxes like that?
Quote from: Iormlund on January 28, 2010, 06:03:37 PM
So where's all the money going to come from if they slash taxes like that?
Cutting waste and reckless spending.
I hear there's a lot of that going on in Paris, France. Something to do with fruit flies.
Quote from: DGuller on January 28, 2010, 06:07:53 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on January 28, 2010, 06:03:37 PM
So where's all the money going to come from if they slash taxes like that?
Cutting waste and reckless spending.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftrollcats.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F05%2Fbloodninja_cybersex_trollcat_i_put_on_my_robe_and_wizard_hat.jpg&hash=dd96b88791286e51c181907fa16f00edb9d5eee6)
Quote from: DGuller on January 28, 2010, 06:07:53 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on January 28, 2010, 06:03:37 PM
So where's all the money going to come from if they slash taxes like that?
Cutting waste and reckless spending.
The USAF budget is about 145 billion.
Quote from: Neil on January 28, 2010, 08:02:26 PM
The USAF budget is about 145 billion.
But... but... if the Chair Force was underfunded, we'd have yet
another unemployed Languishite. :weep:
Who would bomb afghan weddings?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 28, 2010, 08:15:43 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 28, 2010, 08:02:26 PM
The USAF budget is about 145 billion.
But... but... if the Chair Force was underfunded, we'd have yet another unemployed Languishite. :weep:
Those of them who can demonstrate some level of usefulness can be retained in one of the real armed services.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 28, 2010, 08:19:51 PM
Who would bomb afghan weddings?
The Navy and Army Air Force would take care of that. Don't worry.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 28, 2010, 08:19:51 PM
Who would bomb afghan weddings?
Outsource it to China.
Quote from: Iormlund on January 28, 2010, 06:03:37 PM
So where's all the money going to come from if they slash taxes like that?
China.
Republicans don't care about deficits so as long as they're the ones creating them.
Democrat deficits - oh man, worse than Hitler, I tell ya.
Quote from: Iormlund on January 28, 2010, 06:03:37 PM
So where's all the money going to come from if they slash taxes like that?
Elimination of most deductions. The plan would actually be revenue-neutral.
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 29, 2010, 07:22:01 AM
Elimination of most deductions.
As a single man who's only deduction is based on a pension plan, I'd love to see that happen here.
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 29, 2010, 07:22:01 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on January 28, 2010, 06:03:37 PM
So where's all the money going to come from if they slash taxes like that?
Elimination of most deductions. The plan would actually be revenue-neutral.
According to who?
Quote from: Faeelin on January 29, 2010, 08:42:41 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 29, 2010, 07:22:01 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on January 28, 2010, 06:03:37 PM
So where's all the money going to come from if they slash taxes like that?
Elimination of most deductions. The plan would actually be revenue-neutral.
According to who?
Faeelin, you're a stupid liberal. Intelligent conservative economists have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that as you decrease tax rates, you increase tax revenues. Indeed, as the limit of the tax rate function approaches zero, tax revenues approach infinity. Reaganomics 101 dude.
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 29, 2010, 07:22:01 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on January 28, 2010, 06:03:37 PM
So where's all the money going to come from if they slash taxes like that?
Elimination of most deductions. The plan would actually be revenue-neutral.
Yeah, there's pretty much a 0% chance of that happening. Republican contributors in business have no desire to pay taxes.
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 29, 2010, 07:22:01 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on January 28, 2010, 06:03:37 PM
So where's all the money going to come from if they slash taxes like that?
Elimination of most deductions. The plan would actually be revenue-neutral.
When you translate this from GOPtard spin to American English, the word "revenue-neutral" means you have to exclude Medicare, Social Security, and military spending from the budget calculus.
Quote from: Fate on January 29, 2010, 09:13:51 AM
When you translate this from GOPtard spin to American English, the word "revenue-neutral" means you have to exclude Medicare, Social Security, and military spending from the budget calculus.
You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2010, 10:39:42 AM
Quote from: Fate on January 29, 2010, 09:13:51 AM
When you translate this from GOPtard spin to American English, the word "revenue-neutral" means you have to exclude Medicare, Social Security, and military spending from the budget calculus.
You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
You shouldn't reply to him. It just encourages him.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2010, 10:39:42 AM
You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
You're talking to a guy who probably says things like "GOPtard" and "Republitard" in actual real life conversations.
Quote from: Neil on January 29, 2010, 10:44:46 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2010, 10:39:42 AM
Quote from: Fate on January 29, 2010, 09:13:51 AM
When you translate this from GOPtard spin to American English, the word "revenue-neutral" means you have to exclude Medicare, Social Security, and military spending from the budget calculus.
You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
You shouldn't reply to him. It just encourages him.
I thought we all agreed to that already.
I didn't agree to that. :mad:
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 29, 2010, 07:22:01 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on January 28, 2010, 06:03:37 PM
So where's all the money going to come from if they slash taxes like that?
Elimination of most deductions. The plan would actually be revenue-neutral.
If you eliminate deductions, how will there really be any savings for the average person?
Quote from: Faeelin on January 29, 2010, 11:32:24 AM
If you eliminate deductions, how will there really be any savings for the average person?
Hans probably believes people like me who live on our income tax refunds are a myth perpetrated by the leftist conspiracy.
Quote from: Neil on January 29, 2010, 10:44:46 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2010, 10:39:42 AM
Quote from: Fate on January 29, 2010, 09:13:51 AM
When you translate this from GOPtard spin to American English, the word "revenue-neutral" means you have to exclude Medicare, Social Security, and military spending from the budget calculus.
You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
You shouldn't reply to him. It just encourages him.
:yes:
Quote from: Faeelin on January 29, 2010, 11:32:24 AM
If you eliminate deductions, how will there really be any savings for the average person?
If it's revenue neutral then by definition the average person will break even.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2010, 11:47:48 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on January 29, 2010, 11:32:24 AM
If you eliminate deductions, how will there really be any savings for the average person?
If it's revenue neutral then by definition the average person will break even.
Not really. The government will break even, but not necessarily the average person.
Quote from: Neil on January 29, 2010, 12:10:33 PM
Not really. The government will break even, but not necessarily the average person.
Granted. People who itemize (homeowners) would lose out, renters would come out ahead.
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 29, 2010, 07:22:01 AM
Elimination of most deductions. The plan would actually be revenue-neutral.
No tax on inheritance, wich means you still lose a few billions there, and do not promote equal opportunities at birth, but rather encourage dynasties.
No capital gains tax. Wich means, a CEO' yearly wage will now be 49 900$. And 10 million$ worth of stock options.
No tax on interests. So, I loan my company some money, they pay me 49,5% yearly interests. Nice.
No tax on dividends. Nice, again. I get paid in stock options, I convert them to actions, no tax on the capital gain, then with these preferred stocks, I get a big quaterly dividend wich won't we be taxed.
No corporate income tax but a tax on business consumption of 8.5%? What is that? Every company that buys something pays 8,5%?
That's gonna drive the prices through the roof.
I see it as wishful thinking, and it's a way to reward people who are already rich, without giving more chances to middle class people to become richer. And it's far from revenue neutral. In fact, you're losing a ton of money with that. The potential for abuse is large.
On the positive side though, it makes the US the next best thing to a fiscal paradise. I would suggest they also institude bank secrecy, after all, the Ev!l government doesn't need to know what you're doing with your money. And US banks would make a fortune by having the bank accounts of every drug kingpin in the US, instead of seeing that money going to Canadian Banks in the Bahamas.
Quote from: DGuller on January 28, 2010, 06:07:53 PM
Cutting waste and reckless spending.
too bad the GOP isn't good at that. They're only good at creating more government bureaucracy®ulations everywhere.
Quote from: viper37 on January 29, 2010, 12:19:07 PM
No tax on inheritance, wich means you still lose a few billions there, and do not promote equal opportunities at birth, but rather encourage dynasties.
There is a difference between encouraging dynasties and not discouraging them. There may be some things that do encourage dynasties, but elimination of the inheritance tax wouldn't be one of them. The biggest problem with the tax is the bad PR it gets, frankly. It makes people mad when they can't leave their shit to their kids. It also isn't a very big percentage of government revenue. It's kinda insignificant.
Quote from: Faeelin on January 29, 2010, 08:42:41 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 29, 2010, 07:22:01 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on January 28, 2010, 06:03:37 PM
So where's all the money going to come from if they slash taxes like that?
Elimination of most deductions. The plan would actually be revenue-neutral.
According to who?
I'll wait to see what the CBO says about it. ;)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2010, 11:47:48 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on January 29, 2010, 11:32:24 AM
If you eliminate deductions, how will there really be any savings for the average person?
If it's revenue neutral then by definition the average person will break even.
So if the average American won't really save money, how is this "reform"?
Quote from: Faeelin on January 29, 2010, 12:29:26 PM
So if the average American won't really save money, how is this "reform"?
What an odd question.
What is it with Republicans' hard-on for no corporate tax, and no capital gains or interest tax? It's even funnier when they talk about it right after saying that the tax system shouldn't discourage working.
Don't they realize that this results in a highly regressive taxation that rewards investment and discourages work? Why shouldn't dividends and capital gains be taxed the same as any other income, especially if there is no corporate tax?
Quote from: Fate on January 29, 2010, 09:04:18 AM
Faeelin, you're a stupid liberal. Intelligent conservative economists have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that as you decrease tax rates, you increase tax revenues. Indeed, as the limit of the tax rate function approaches zero, tax revenues approach infinity. Reaganomics 101 dude.
actually, it looks more like a bell curve than anything else. As you increase it, the marginal gains are less.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 29, 2010, 11:40:13 AM
Hans probably believes people like me who live on our income tax refunds are a myth perpetrated by the leftist conspiracy.
Not that I approve of the plan, but if you live on your income tax refund, then it means that with this plan, you will simply have an higher revenue during the year, hence more money in your pocket year long.
The problem is, everything will probably be more expansive, so you'll be revenue-neutral. Maybe that's what he means ;)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 29, 2010, 12:26:34 PM
There is a difference between encouraging dynasties and not discouraging them. There may be some things that do encourage dynasties, but elimination of the inheritance tax wouldn't be one of them. The biggest problem with the tax is the bad PR it gets, frankly. It makes people mad when they can't leave their shit to their kids. It also isn't a very big percentage of government revenue. It's kinda insignificant.
If you decide to sell all your properties&funds right now, you would pay taxes on the net product.
I don't see why it should be different once you die.
Without a tax on inheritance, you actually let rich people go richer. Poor people gets next to nothing, so it's not an issue. And people buy large insurance policies to counteract the taxes. So, that's really not an issue for 99% of the population.
And afaik, the tax rate was never 100%, so you do live 'shit' to your family.
And I suppose, that just like here, the main residence is excluded from the calculations? If not, it could be.
Quote from: viper37 on January 29, 2010, 01:21:55 PM
Without a tax on inheritance, you actually let rich people go richer.
How tragic. :mellow:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 29, 2010, 11:40:13 AM
Hans probably believes people like me who live on our income tax refunds are a myth perpetrated by the leftist conspiracy.
How do you live on an income tax refund?
Quote from: DGuller on January 29, 2010, 01:01:43 PM
Don't they realize that this results in a highly regressive taxation that rewards investment and discourages work? Why shouldn't dividends and capital gains be taxed the same as any other income, especially if there is no corporate tax?
Dividends should be taxed like all other income. Dividends from foreing companies should be taxed higher. That limits the damages from fiscal paradise.
Capital gains taxes is more complicated. First, there should be a big exemption from selling your own company (here in Canada, I believe the limit is 500 000$, 1 000 000$ for farms). The rest should be taxed at 50% to encourage people to invest, with one caveat.
Gains on stocks, or stock options given to an employee by its firm, as part of its remuneration package should not have this reduction and should be considered like any other wage income. After all, if my company gives me an insurance policy, I have to tax myself on it at 100% of the advantage. Why shouldn't it be different for other types of advantages?
Quote from: Habbaku on January 29, 2010, 01:26:30 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 29, 2010, 01:21:55 PM
Without a tax on inheritance, you actually let rich people go richer.
How tragic. :mellow:
it's not tragic, it's simply the only effect of what's happening. It has zero impact on the middle class, zero impact on the poor, a small impact on the rich, and a moderate impact on the very rich.
Quote from: DGuller on January 29, 2010, 01:01:43 PM
What is it with Republicans' hard-on for no corporate tax, and no capital gains or interest tax? It's even funnier when they talk about it right after saying that the tax system shouldn't discourage working.
Don't they realize that this results in a highly regressive taxation that rewards creative tax planners who spend their time figuring out all the ways you can convert ordinary income into divididend/interest/cap gains and discourages work? Why shouldn't dividends and capital gains be taxed the same as any other income, especially if there is no corporate tax?
Fixed.
I love the plan. Should double corporate law firm income overnight.
Quote from: derspiess on January 29, 2010, 01:27:20 PM
How do you live on an income tax refund?
with the money he receives from his income tax refund, he uses it to buy food&pay his rent, instead of buying a new subwoofer or some new furniture.
Quote from: DGuller on January 29, 2010, 01:01:43 PM
What is it with Republicans' hard-on for no corporate tax, and no capital gains or interest tax? It's even funnier when they talk about it right after saying that the tax system shouldn't discourage working.
Don't they realize that this results in a highly regressive taxation that rewards investment and discourages work? Why shouldn't dividends and capital gains be taxed the same as any other income, especially if there is no corporate tax?
False dichotomy. People don't choose between working and investing. Working or not working is an allocation of time. Investing or consuming is an allocation of income.
Quote from: viper37 on January 29, 2010, 01:34:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 29, 2010, 01:27:20 PM
How do you live on an income tax refund?
with the money he receives from his income tax refund, he uses it to buy food&pay his rent, instead of buying a new subwoofer or some new furniture.
Okay. But is he concerned about the refund itself, or that his net tax liability would go up? :unsure:
I guess I never understood what was so magic about getting a tax refund when it had forced you to receive a smaller check throughout the previous year.
Quote from: DGuller on January 29, 2010, 01:01:43 PMWhy shouldn't dividends and capital gains be taxed the same as any other income, especially if there is no corporate tax?
This is another example of using taxes to promote behavior. The thinking presumably is that incentivizing investment creates jobs by providing capital for growth. The more investment capital there is, the easier it is to get. The easier it is to get the lower the barriers are to growth and innovation. The lower the barriers, the more entrepreneurial enterprises will spring up blah blah blah.
I'm rather cold on the concept of using taxes as a behavior modifier, but there you go.
Quote from: Neil on January 29, 2010, 10:44:46 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2010, 10:39:42 AM
Quote from: Fate on January 29, 2010, 09:13:51 AM
When you translate this from GOPtard spin to American English, the word "revenue-neutral" means you have to exclude Medicare, Social Security, and military spending from the budget calculus.
You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
You shouldn't reply to him. It just encourages him.
When Neil is right, he is right.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2010, 11:04:03 AM
I didn't agree to that. :mad:
That's why the troll hasn't gotten hungry enough to find a new bridge to hide under somewhere else. :mad:
Quote from: grumbler on January 29, 2010, 02:11:14 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2010, 11:04:03 AM
I didn't agree to that. :mad:
That's why the troll hasn't gotten hungry enough to find a new bridge to hide under somewhere else. :mad:
But you're still here. :hmm:
Quote from: viper37 on January 29, 2010, 01:12:37 PM
Quote from: Fate on January 29, 2010, 09:04:18 AM
Faeelin, you're a stupid liberal. Intelligent conservative economists have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that as you decrease tax rates, you increase tax revenues. Indeed, as the limit of the tax rate function approaches zero, tax revenues approach infinity. Reaganomics 101 dude.
actually, it looks more like a bell curve than anything else. As you increase it, the marginal gains are less.
:lmfao: You mean you could get a Republican like Hans to admit that there's a point at which they shouldn't argue for additional tax cuts? I'll believe it when I see it.
The Republican assault on the middle class continues. A family making $60k with 2 kids pays a lot less than 10% in taxes. But a high earner would win big under this plan.
Quote from: viper37 on January 29, 2010, 01:28:50 PM
Dividends should be taxed like all other income. Dividends from foreing companies should be taxed higher.
No, they should be taxed at the cap gains rate. Otherwise, why not just pay your "dividends" in the form of stock repurchases? In a textbook world, a stock repurchase benefits shareholders by the same amount as a dividend, only a stock repurchase is in the form of a cap gain.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 29, 2010, 02:42:50 PM
The Republican assault on the middle class continues. A family making $60k with 2 kids pays a lot less than 10% in taxes. But a high earner would win big under this plan.
To be devil's advocate, is that how it would work? I think standard deduction was mentioned, so the 10% isn't really the 10%.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2010, 01:39:06 PM
False dichotomy. People don't choose between working and investing. Working or not working is an allocation of time. Investing or consuming is an allocation of income.
Up to some point. If people are taxed more for work than for investments, they may choose to work less and invest more to supplement their revenues.
Quote from: derspiess on January 29, 2010, 01:41:31 PM
Okay. But is he concerned about the refund itself, or that his net tax liability would go up? :unsure:
I guess I never understood what was so magic about getting a tax refund when it had forced you to receive a smaller check throughout the previous year.
I can't answer for his specifics, however the general idea of the tax refund (and I've had numerous debate with people, trying to convince them to pay less taxes during the year and instead invest the money), is that if you have that money in your pocket during the year, you will spend it on all kind of things. More expensive clothes, a little bit more travels, a little bit more booze/cigarettes/drugs, while when you get a big lump sum a year later, you buy something big, or you use it for critical needs.
It's like forced saving without interests. When banks don't pay us any interests, we're mad, but when we do it to ourselves, it's ok ;)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 29, 2010, 01:49:18 PM
This is another example of using taxes to promote behavior. The thinking presumably is that incentivizing investment creates jobs by providing capital for growth. The more investment capital there is, the easier it is to get. The easier it is to get the lower the barriers are to growth and innovation. The lower the barriers, the more entrepreneurial enterprises will spring up blah blah blah.
I'm rather cold on the concept of using taxes as a behavior modifier, but there you go.
it's theoritically true. However, it's not isolated in itself.
And there's potential for abuse, as pointed before, both by me and Minsky.
Quote from: Fate on January 29, 2010, 02:36:03 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 29, 2010, 01:12:37 PM
actually, it looks more like a bell curve than anything else. As you increase it, the marginal gains are less.
:lmfao: You mean you could get a Republican like Hans to admit that there's a point at which they shouldn't argue for additional tax cuts? I'll believe it when I see it.
same as arguing with a leftist about raising taxes. They always figure high taxes = more money, while often, if you raise it too much, you global revenues decrease.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 29, 2010, 02:44:58 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 29, 2010, 01:28:50 PM
Dividends should be taxed like all other income. Dividends from foreing companies should be taxed higher.
No, they should be taxed at the cap gains rate. Otherwise, why not just pay your "dividends" in the form of stock repurchases? In a textbook world, a stock repurchase benefits shareholders by the same amount as a dividend, only a stock repurchase is in the form of a cap gain.
the gain in shares depends on the evolution of the share prices and doesn't give you any money in your pocket right away.
However, the dividen gives you cash, right now.
And in the case of a local, small private firm, giving more stocks to employees without ever the possibility of getting a $ dividend is not attractive.
And it could also be made that if the dividend is paid in stocks, you get taxed as if it was a monetary dividend. I'm not too sure on how it works up here... The rules have been changed a few years ago.
Quote from: viper37 on January 29, 2010, 03:42:34 PM
I can't answer for his specifics, however the general idea of the tax refund (and I've had numerous debate with people, trying to convince them to pay less taxes during the year and instead invest the money), is that if you have that money in your pocket during the year, you will spend it on all kind of things. More expensive clothes, a little bit more travels, a little bit more booze/cigarettes/drugs, while when you get a big lump sum a year later, you buy something big, or you use it for critical needs.
It's like forced saving without interests. When banks don't pay us any interests, we're mad, but when we do it to ourselves, it's ok ;)
It's forced savings without interest, but not by me. For me as a single claimant, they rape me on income taxes, even without shorting myself as claim-0. Of course, I also breathe a sigh of relief when the school issues refund checks; I's just poor pipple.
Here's a simple proposal: tax all forms of gains equally: wage income, partnership income, dividends, interests, short term captial gains, long term cap gains everything. That way you euthanize the huge industry out there of people creating shelters -- both legit and not so legit - seeking to make one form of income look like another to get favorable tax treatment.
The one thing the GOP has right is scrapping the corporate income tax. Taxing artificial persons is almost as stupid as pretending they have a First Amendment right to buy elections.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 29, 2010, 03:54:59 PM
Here's a simple proposal: tax all forms of gains equally: wage income, partnership income, dividends, interests, short term captial gains, long term cap gains everything. That way you euthanize the huge industry out there of people creating shelters -- both legit and not so legit - seeking to make one form of income look like another to get favorable tax treatment.
The one thing the GOP has right is scrapping the corporate income tax. Taxing artificial persons is almost as stupid as pretending they have a First Amendment right to buy elections.
x2
Quote from: viper37 on January 29, 2010, 03:39:18 PM
Up to some point. If people are taxed more for work than for investments, they may choose to work less and invest more to supplement their revenues.
Invest more of what?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 29, 2010, 03:54:59 PM
Here's a simple proposal: tax all forms of gains equally: wage income, partnership income, dividends, interests, short term captial gains, long term cap gains everything. That way you euthanize the huge industry out there of people creating shelters -- both legit and not so legit - seeking to make one form of income look like another to get favorable tax treatment.
The one thing the GOP has right is scrapping the corporate income tax. Taxing artificial persons is almost as stupid as pretending they have a First Amendment right to buy elections.
x3
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 29, 2010, 03:54:59 PM
The one thing the GOP has right is scrapping the corporate income tax. Taxing artificial persons is almost as stupid as pretending they have a First Amendment right to buy elections.
Do you want all corporations to have pass-through tax treatment, or do you want piercing the veil for tax purposes in your new world to be easier, or some other solution to the immediate "John Doe Enterprises" problem?
Quote from: ulmont on January 29, 2010, 04:04:05 PM
Do you want all corporations to have pass-through tax treatment, or do you want piercing the veil for tax purposes in your new world to be easier, or some other solution to the immediate "John Doe Enterprises" problem?
Undecided but probably the solution is take make close corps pass-through. It isn't going to be an issue for public corps.