Saturday, January 28, 2012

An Attempt on My Part to Broker a Tax Deal Between Jerry and Heathen Republican

a) Lower the overall rates for everybody A TAD (an amount to be arrived at through intense negotiations between the three of us).............b) Completely eliminate the special exemption for capital gains (i.e., treat it as regular income).............c) Index capital gains for inflation (government often creates inflation and, because of that, the taxpayer shouldn't be penalized).............d) Reduce the cap on mortgage interest deduction from $1,000,000 to $500,000.............e) Reduce the top corporate tax rate from 35% to 20-25% AND eliminate ALL loopholes.............f) Gather around the campfire and sing Kumbaya.

26 comments:

dmarks said...

"e) Reduce the top corporate tax rate from 35% to 20-25% AND eliminate ALL loopholes"

You corporatist you.

Replace the 35% tax rate with a 135% one (designed to diminish corporate assets by 1/3 each year), and replace the loopholes with nooses, and you might have WD's support. But only then.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

wd's a lost cause but I think that Jerry can be negotiated with. Or at least he'll listen.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

dmarks, Will says nowhere in his post that he wants my support.

In any case, I'd reject dmarks' proposal. I actually think we might be able to reduce the corporate tax rate (certainly not down to zero)... but a little lower might work. So long as *ALL* the loopholes were eliminated. Get rid of the (bad) subsidies too. We should be subsidizing things like green energy, not things like big oil.

As for point "A", that one I'd reject. The wealthy need to pay more, not less. I'm for keeping the middle class tax cuts. Taxes on the poor should be cut significantly.

I'd get rid of payroll taxes on the working poor and make up for the lost amount by lifting the cap.

I'm also on board with taxing capital gains at the regular rate, but I'd exempt up to a certain amount so as to not hurt middle class retirees who have investments.

But Congressional Republicans would reject you proposal Will. We cannot raise taxes on the job creators. They want corporate and capital gains taxes eliminated. And they want to cut the top tax rate. Then make up the difference by gutting the big three and programs that help the poor.

Their agenda is all about forcing as many people as possible out of the middle class... and making them the working poor. This is why dmarks is always talking about paying "fair" wages. By "fair" he means as low as possible. That way the wealthy can keep more of the profits for themselves.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Will: wd's a lost cause but I think that Jerry can be negotiated with. Or at least he'll listen.

That's despite the fact that Jerry and I are very often in agreement. On lowering the retirement age, for example. He also said he agreed we should have tried negotiating with the Taliban (to turn OBL over to the OIC) Yet, I'm the only one viciously attacked for these ideas.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

I support negotiation. As long as it's done in good faith.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

The obnoxiouness and certitude factors just aren't there with Jerry.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Jerry probably realizes that if his arguments are too forcefull that is when you'd start with the name-calling... which is probably a situation he'd rather avoid.

dmarks said...

WD said: "I'm for keeping the middle class tax cuts."

That puts you at odds with Paul Krugman, who opposed middle class tax cuts during commentary during Obama's Presidential campaign.

Anyway, WD, what is your idea on the retirement age?

"He also said he agreed we should have tried negotiating with the Taliban (to turn OBL over to the OIC)"

The latter is exactly your idea to turn Bin Laden over to a terrorist kangaroo court which I opposed.

It's a terrible idea, so it should be opposed. Aside from the OIC at the time being run in large part by major terrorist kingpins, it violates the correctly-valued secular values system of this nation, and of ALL international justice organizations, to turn a suspect over to a religious court.

"This is why dmarks is always talking about paying "fair" wages. By "fair" he means as low as possible. That way the wealthy can keep more of the profits for themselves"

Not at all. It means the real value of the work. Since only the wage owner and employer can determine what is fair. For a high schooled worker with a good work ethic, this can mean higher ages. I keep running into workers at unionized shops who dislike the union.... because they are good workers who would be paid more if not for the union, which ends up averaging things out with lousy workers who deserve a lot less pay.

I also know a large number of people who earn a fair wage which happens to be above union wages. I think that's great, as it is the real value of the work, decided between each worker and employer.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

dmarks: That puts you at odds with Paul Krugman.

You've made this claim before. But you've yet to produce any proof. If PK was against the middle class tax cuts I'd wager the reason was because he thought the president shouldn't agree to tax cuts for the wealthy to get them. I was also opposed to that idea.

dmarks: It's a terrible idea, so it should be opposed.

Trying to avoid war is a "terrible idea"? Given the way this war has turned out, I bet more people would agree with me then you.

Eric Noren said...

A) Not a hill I need to die on. I actually don't object to current tax rates; I do object to raising them again on anyone.

B) I could agree to treating all income the same with one exception. The lower capital gains rate is justified because an investor puts the entire principle amount at risk, but only a portion of the loss is deductible. I say, treat all income the same, but if I lose 85% of my principle, I get to deduct 100% of it from my income.

C) I don't understand what you're indexing. Do you want to raise tax rates annually?

D) I would eliminate all tax deductions, so I'd prefer we simply drop the mortgage interest deduction entirely. Simpler is better.

E) Agreed, and we should index our corporate tax rate to a basket of international rates to ensure we are always around the median rate worldwide.

F) If I have to.

dmarks said...

WD: "Trying to avoid war is a "terrible idea"? Given the way this war has turned out, I bet more people would agree with me then you."

Yeah, what percent would agree with you that Osama should have been turned over to a terrorist tribunal?

I'd bet it would be in the single digits of percent.

And it would not have made peace. It would have left intact Al Qaeda and the Taliban and all their aggressions.

dmarks said...

Also, I found this statement which details Krugman's tax policies. A top down, fascistic, "the rulers decide" approach, instead of letting the people decide.

"The late economist Kenneth Galbraith and, more recently Paul Krugman, have come out in opposition to tax cuts on the grounds that spending decisions in the economy should be made by central authorities rather than by individuals."

Pure statism/fascism, whatever you want to call it.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

dmarks: ...I found this statement which details Krugman's tax policies.

I guess if "Chuck" says so, then it MUST be true. Way to go, dmarks. That certainly is irrefutable proof.

Actually, I found this statement by Paul Krugman himself defending the middle class tax cuts. In a 9/16/2010 post titled The Tax-Cut Racket PK said, "Almost everyone agrees that raising taxes on the middle class in the middle of an economic slump is a bad idea".

Where's the proof that PK "opposed" middle class tax cuts? I'm not buying what Chuck (or dmarks) say (the first paragraph of my comment is sarcasm).

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I'll make a deal with you, wd. If you stop calling me a corporatist, I'll stop calling you and idiot (synonyms, too). Is it a deal?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

HR, I don't have a problem with your stipulation that losses and gains should be treated equally. As for indexing for inflation, I was thinking that if you had realized a 30% cap gain over a year, but there was also a 4% inflation rate, the taxable gain would be reduced to take into account the inflation. I included that as an inducement to get more conservatives on board.

Rational Nation USA said...

Kumbaya...

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

So, Les, am I a uniter and not a divider or what! Huh?

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Will: am I a uniter and not a divider or what! Huh?

I say no to your suggestion that we "lower the overall rates for everybody A TAD".

So did you, or so I thought. You said you thought they should go back to the Clinton rates. At least for the wealthy.

HR's response shows Republicans aren't serious about the debt.

Will: I'll make a deal with you, wd. If you stop calling me a corporatist, I'll stop calling you and idiot.

You calling me an idiot doesn't bother me because I know it isn't true. But me calling you a corporatist... maybe it bothers you because you know there is some truth there? But, whatever, I'll agree.

Does this mean you're conceding that you ARE a Conservative?

dmarks: what percent would agree with you that Osama should have been turned over to a terrorist tribunal?

Zero, I suspect. But that was never on the table, so you're speaking in hypotheticals.

dmarks said...

Wd said: "Actually, I found this statement by Paul Krugman himself defending the middle class tax cuts...."

In the quote you presented, he didn't defend middle class tax cuts at all. He merely opposed raising them.

You do realize that raising tax rates and reducing them are two different things, don't you?

And I am glad that turning Bin Laden over to a terrorist tribunal religious court was never on the table.

Eric Noren said...

@Will
"As for indexing for inflation, I was thinking that if you had realized a 30% cap gain over a year, but there was also a 4% inflation rate, the taxable gain would be reduced to take into account the inflation."

I don't think this is necessary. Most capital gains, like sale of stock, account for inflation in its price, so there's no need to add discounts. That said, I wouldn't object, but I've never heard of this.


@WD
"HR's response shows Republicans aren't serious about the debt."

My responses have nothing to do with the debt. This post is about taxes, not spending or the debt. There is not enough tax revenue available to close the debt.

Of course, you being from the left, you think any tax policy has to include increases. The most effective thing we could do to close the debt would be to simply cut spending. I notice your response doesn't mention cutting spending, so I'll assume you're not serious about the debt.

Jerry Critter said...

Will,
I can pretty much agree with your proposals with the following caveats:

a). Add higher tax brackets at the top, say at 0.5mm, 1.0 mm, 5 mm, 10 mm, 50 mm.

c). I see no purpose in indexing since capital gains are being treated as regular income.

e). Agree if by loopholes you mean deductions.

f). Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya;
Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya;
Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya,
O Lord, kum bay ya.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

dmarks: In the quote you presented, he didn't defend middle class tax cuts at all. He merely opposed raising them.

Paul Krugman most certainly did defend middle class tax cuts. You are quite mistaken. He said keep the tax cuts that are currently in place (The bush tax cuts). But just for the middle class.

If you're talking about cutting taxes even more, I'm not sure about PK's position on that, but I assume he'd be opposed, as am I.

dmarks: You do realize that raising tax rates and reducing them are two different things...

They already are reduced. There is no need to reduce them further. That would, in fact, be a very bad idea.

Also, the Republicans wouldn't go along with it unless taxes were also lowered on the wealthy... and I'm vehemently opposed to that.

fyi, tax cuts mean nothing to a person who has no income.

Heathen Republican: Of course... you think any tax policy has to include increases.

So does Will... at least up until this post he did. He said the solution HAD to include increases (in addition to cuts).

Will isn't "from the Left".

Heathen Republican: The most effective thing we could do to close the debt would be to simply cut spending.

The Democrats won't agree with what the Republicans want to cut. It would only be "simple" if the presidency and Congress go Republican next year (by large margins)...

...and even then I would only say "easier", not "easy". And even that wouldn't last long, because people would take to the sreets by the millions in protest (I think that would complicate things a little).

Heathen Republican: I notice your response doesn't mention cutting spending, so I'll assume...

You assume wrong. Cut the military. Save money by cracking down on fraud... including the fraud committed by wealthy tax cheats.

I'm not for cutting spending on social programs, however... I'm for increasing it.

Will: ...am I a uniter and not a divider or what! Huh?

HR is in disagreement with mine and Jerry's desire for increases on the wealthy... although he says keep the rates where they are.

dmarks wants to go even lower. I see no uniting going on here.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

wd, I'm for raising revenues. And, yes, I'm in favor of increasing the top rates back to 39.6%. But the purpose of this post was try and reach out to both Jerry AND HR. I was thinking that we could actually decrease the rates and still get more revenue, a) by eliminating the special consideration for capital gains and b) by closing loopholes and reducing deductions. It sounds like they're both open to this approach at least in terms of a starting point.

Rational Nation USA said...

Will, a uniter you be. Perhaps they could use you in Washington!

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

It doesn't seem like rocket science, does it, Les? And they still can't agree on bubkis.

dmarks said...

WD: The Bush tax cuts are "Status quo". By wanting to keep the Bush tax cuts on the middle class, Krugman is not advocating any change. He is certainly not advocating a tax cut at all.

"If you're talking about cutting taxes even more, I'm not sure about PK's position on that, but I assume he'd be opposed, as am I."

....which was what I was saying earlier: that he was opposed to middle class tax cuts during the 2008 campaign.

"I'm not for cutting spending on social programs, however... I'm for increasing it."

So am I. But there is waste to cut here as well. Starting with the vast overpay making millionaires out of the people at the top. Cut that waste and use the money on actual social services.