Barky, you’re not actually presenting as unbiased a report that in its very title contains “Suppressed By [The] GOP”…are you?
And I should point out that the article is talking to individual tax rates, not about capital gains taxes and corporate profits taxes. And they’re discussing the likelihood of the wealthy “spending” the money they save due to a tax cut on the “rates” as opposed to investing it. The “spending” habits of the wealthy don’t change in response to changes in tax rates. But their investing activities DO. Tax the returns on their investments at a lower rate and they’ll invest more heavily. The comment in the conclusion that the wealthy will invest “offshore” is correct…the reason is because our profits taxes and cap gains taxes are amoung the highest in the world.
I Huffington Post has never claimed or been acused of being anywhere near unbiased, however the conclusion of this article ironically proves that if we want the wealthy to invest in this country and help stimulate the sconomy we need to reduce cap gains and business profits taxes…or they’ll take their money elsewhere.
One thing we are doing well, is surpressing wages, that should help. If we do away with minimum wage altogether, eliminate child labor laws (Newt) we could really do a good job of attracting business. Let’s do anything we can possibly do, because coporate profits are the key to prosperity to all. Giving businesses unfettered access to labor, the environment and the govt. to deregulate should do the trick. It worked for Ronald Reagan…wait, our nation went from the biggest loaner to the biggest debtor nation under his administration…well, what the heck, let’s do it again. The second or third or forth time should be a charm. After all. All wealthy people are gifted, smarter and more honest then poor or the middle class. We are all lazy, dishonest, just looking for a handout and lack ambition. We need to stop hording all the money in the middle class and poor and give what ever we can to the rich, begging them to throw more crumbs our way. Our biggest mistake was electing a Democrat for president when things were going so well under George Bush.
First, the wealthy investing in the stock market in the US does not contribute to our economy. No investment in the stock market other than an IPO contributes to our economy. Investing in new companies that are not publicly traded or investing in an IPO to provide capital for that company to grow does help the economy.
There is an issue with the tax law. I remember when income from foreign investments by American citizens was taxed in the US as income, the taxes paid to a foreign country on that income was deductible so investing overseas was not really a way to dodge taxes here. I have to wonder if that has been changed or if people are just confused.
I believe it is the same for corporate taxes for companies incorporated in the US. However, a lot of companies owned by US citizens and do nearly all their business in the US have incorporated themselves in a different country, often having nothing more than an empty office, one part time contract employee and a post office box there. Then they pay taxes to that country at a lower rate and avoid US taxes. That is one loophole that could be easily closed by changing the tax law to tax all corporate profits made in the US, paid in the US. Almost all, if not all countries do that except us.
Some individuals incorporate themselves in a foreign country and avoid taxes here. Again a change in the tax law would fix that but I don’t see the GOP, or even a majority of Democrats going along with that, it would step on the toes of too many big donors.
Clearly we have some silly tax laws that vary from state to state and city to city. I was reading a Detroit article announcing tax amnesty for paying city income taxes. In Minnesota I never even knew there were such a thing as city income taxes. In Detroit it covers anyone doing business in the city regardless of residence. It even includes delivery people. How silly. Just one more thing to check out before moving I guess. Clearly govenments need money, and people that make money are the clear targets, but somehow it has to make some sense.
@keith
The times they are a changing. What was a reasonable law 50, 10, even 5 years ago can be obsolete. The reason tax laws are so complicated is the domino effect they can have on the rest of society. Even the so called brightest minds can be fooled by the outcome. What most people do have a clear look at is their own account. If it’s shrinking, it’s hard to convince them it’s “for your own good”. I trusted Uncle Sam enough to plow money into Social Security with a plethora of part time jobs…then the curve ball and the infamous WEP and retirement offset…Thanks politicians ! Do you suppose that we can finish this game with the same rules we started ? No Way…
Keith…I was talking about tax laws, allocation and spending. We were in a different time and place. Unemployment was not an issue with the draft taking a big part of the labor pool. Our debt as a percent of GDP was much lower. Entitlements as a percent of national budget were lower so was the talk of privatizing them. Equal rights amendment passed in 64 put different priorities on the federal govt. According to pres. Johnson, Passing the Civil Rihts Amendment in 1964, meant the loss of the south to democratic ideas for more then a generation. It became deep red…instead of “pink”. The South wasn’t ready for integration and the laws that went with it…
With a strong industrial base, unions were much stronger and foreign investment though made was mostly limited making growth more sustainable. Now, companies are much more apted to invest in manufacturing overseas for profit based on cheaper labor. Our tax laws need to reflect that difference.
Who would have thought our secretaries would be competing with Taiwanese (Chinese) secretaries ?. Climate change, pollution, not only in air but water are addressed with much more funding. The political climate was one that agreed on more issues then today. We had the Red Scare, the soviet Union as our focused enemy and not the expense of dealing with perceived terrorist threats here at home…and then there was 9/11, making the US as vulnerable to attack as we made Iraq, our modern Vietnam. I for one was on hold between military and financial obligations while serving with less income…soldiers didn’t make much, as all young men’s lives with a draft were.
Our priorities, tax structure and public focus is so much different. Even 5 years ago, we were in the middle of falling into another great depression. Acording to the secretary of the treasury back then when asked by Bush, “what will happen if we delay helping the banks and Wallstreet till after the election ? " Mr. President, it’s Wednesday. If we don’t act by Friday, there will be no US economy on Monday.” Things are different today ! Didn’t we change some of the rules that got us into this mess after the bailouts, to supposedly protect the public in the future ?
Every time we get into a mess, congress passes laws to protect us, and for the most part, they work. Then after awhile, when the memory of the bad times are forgotten, politicians begin to loosen up the laws and deregulate for some short term gain that always ends up in another economic downturn.
I favor going back to the policies and regulations (economic, not social) that worked and stop messing with them. Policies and regulations should only be added to or changes when there is an actual need for the changes, not just to make a politician look good for a short time.
Its too bad that the “south” of the sixties could not see the prosperity that integration and inclusion has brought to the south today, I think they would have been much more open minded. There are still racial problems in the south, but the progress has been great, so much so that I think that on the whole, people in the south today are more open minded that their neighbors to the north.
I hear you @keith
I think it’s unfortunate that we need laws to force people to treat others like human beings. I’m sure too that there will be a few laws passed to make people look good in the economic response. If the laws actually work eventually like Glass Steagall, .we’ll find away around it. Just reenacting it would do it, but no, that makes too much sense.
But, you really think things have changed in the south ?
In Virginia, their state republican senate has just pasted a bill that alters the districts so that even though a black man won the plurality in the entire state in the presidential election, he would now receive 4 electoral votes to Romney’s 9 instead of getting all 13 as he did.
The other states under republican control that gave a plurality , winner take all electoral victory in their states are in the process of doing the same thing. So, the way to keep a minority blacks from winning, is to keep minority blacks from voting, and discount their votes by redistributing their votes out…
Sounds to me like southern bigotry in general is alive and well. Now, if they can just get all the Hispanics to move into those districts too, they could win by an electoral landslide and loose by a popular landslide.
Hmmm, when I look back on 1962, I’m not so sure things were working that good. I think it might be just selective memory but remember we were in recession and JFK jawboning for wage and price controls and union unrest. When you go way back, was there really ever a time period when things just were going along pretty good for a long period? Going back we had good expansion at the turn of the century, then the depression, then the war to bring us out of it, then recession. We’ve had a lot of bumps in the road to get too nostalgic about the past.
Dag, please dont lump all Virginians with the nutty breed of of Beltway Republicans,in VA as in other places the majority of people that are republican are that way because they are rich or thier parents were republican,my part of VA cannot be lumped as southern or northern,the settlers from high lattitude countries have a little differnt spin on what makes a man a man-Kevin
dag, I was talking about people in general, not politicians. You can expect a politician to do whatever is necessary to keep his party in power, it is not always personal or bigoted. But then, the other party that lost will always try to make it look personal and undesirable in whatever fashion is needed.
I also said that the south still has a way to go. The whole country has a way to go. I am not turning a blind eye on the problems, but I am acknowledging the progress, and there has been a lot of progress.
Most countries have multiple parties, some as many as 15. The US is unique in that everyone has to fit in one of two buckets. With the widely divergent view on social issues and the environment, for instance, there should be a political party to reflect those view. Germany has 2 Green parties, for instance, and at least 4 parties that span the political spectrum form right to left. German governments have nearly always been coalitions since the end of WWII.
It’s true that in the US the poor, ethinic minorities, union members have mostly voted Democrat, while business owners, professionals, and others have voted Republican. For some reason the entertainment establishment has been mostly Democrat, dating back even to the McCarthy witch hunts.
In Britain, Australia and Canada there are Conservative (Republican), Liberal (virtually absent in the US), Labour (Democrat), Green, and extreme left and extreme right wing parties. Liberal in these instances means true Middle of the Road parties that support business and also have state sponsored Universal Health Care.
There is certainly room for a third political party in the US.
Hi Keith,
I agree. I would like to see supporters of parties who engage in this behavior, hold them accountable. I would like to think that just maybe, people from the same party denounce what is happening, regardless of who does it. I have yet to hear a party member here or anywhere do it. Instead, it’s just, everyone does it to get elected…no they don’t.
They will continue as long the people they say they represent, do and say nothing.
I would love to see a third party. I don’t see the GOP as conservative anymore, nor the DEMs as liberal, I see them both as extreme left and right wing parties. I would really go for a true compassionate conservative party, one that believes in fiscal responsibility as well as care for the less fortunate (but not coddle the lazy) and the more fortunate would provide more support.
Maybe we could call it the “American Spring” party.
Be careful what you wish for. We had a third party governor in Minnesota. Remember Jessie the wrestler? I can’t say he was all that bad because he mainly didn’t want to do anything so just hired people. He did manage to get property taxes at the higher end cut to a reasonable level which saved me quite a bit. Remember Ross Perot? I’d just like to see us all move a little more to the middle but so far I’m seeing all the old 60’s ideas coming back for a big push. I just hope we don’t all start wearing beads, peace signs, and flowers in our hair again before this is all done. Didn’t we have a war on poverty before? Did we lose that one when we started the war on drugs?
Several states have their own party. …But nothing BIG on a national level. NY has the conservative party. There’s the libertarian party and Green party…but they are both so much out there they get very few members.
MOST voters are moderate. Contrary to what the GOP or DEMs preach…MOST vote moderate. What we need is more moderate party that would have a larger appeal. Then the GOP and DEMs would have to make concessions just to make a deal.