Huntsman, Jon

[spursncowboys]

This is two part subject. First is why all the love from the liberal MSM towards Huntsman? Has anyone else noticed this? He is one of the most conservative of the candidates.

Sencondly, and my main reason for the post is his Financial Regulatory Reform
http://www.jon2012.com/index.php/issues/financial-reform


Key Priorities:

End Too-Big-To-Fail: To protect taxpayers from future bailouts and stabilize America's economic foundation, Jon Huntsman will end too-big-to-fail. Today we can already begin to see the outlines of the next financial crisis and bailouts. More than three years after the crisis and the accompanying bailouts, the six largest U.S. financial institutions are significantly bigger than they were before the crisis, having been encouraged by regulators to snap up Bear Stearns and other competitors at bargain prices.

Maximize Derivatives Transparency: An opaque derivatives market was one reason for the systemic impact of the subprime mortgage crisis. Greater transparency will permit greater overLuck_The_Fakers_sight by both market participants and regulators, and will also allow end-users to negotiate better terms with Wall Street and in turn lower trading costs.

Repeal Dodd-Frank: Governor Huntsman believes that Dodd-Frank was an inappropriate regulatory response to the Panic of 2008. The legislation, signed into law by President Obama in summer 2010, ignored the government’s pervasive role in causing the crisis, assures future transfers from taxpayers to bankers by institutionalizing a government backstop for too-big-to-fail firms, and imposes massive new regulations and unreasonable compliance costs on smaller financial firms.

End Wall Street's Reliance On Excessive Short-Term Leverage: The mismatch in maturities was at the core of much of the Panic of 2008, and it cannot be sustained. As president, Jon Huntsman will also implement tax reform that includes eliminating the deduction for interest payments that gives a preference to debt over equity, thus ending subsidies for excess leverage.

Fix Basel: Governor Huntsman believes that risk needs to be acknowledged and managed properly. The Basel III Accord primes the pump for the next financial crisis by putting its thumb on the scale of sovereign debt, making it less expensive for banks to invest in those instruments without making a realistic risk assessment.

Ensure a Stable Dollar Policy: Jon Huntsman supports a strong and stable dollar. As president, he will appoint Federal Reserve Board Governors and a Chairman who believe in sound money. The United States cannot devalue our way to prosperity and efforts to do so risk a “beggar thy neighbor” round of devaluations, which will ultimately harm American exporters and risk the dollar’s privileged position as the primary global reserve currency.

Shut Down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: As president, Jon Huntsman will dismantle Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Eliminating the GSEs should not be controversial. At its heart, the Panic of 2008 was a crisis born of crony capitalism. It is unconscionable that five years after the start of the housing crisis, these companies have not seen a serious reform proposal and most of their executives are still in power.

Restore the Rule Of Law: President Huntsman’s administration will direct the Department of Justice to take the lead in investigating and brokering an agreement to resolve the widespread legal abuses such as the robo-signing scandal that unfolded in the aftermath of the housing bubble.

European Sovereign Debt Crisis: The recent failure of MF Global illustrates the danger that the unfolding sovereign debt crisis poses for domestic financial markets. The world works better when the United States leads and as president, Jon Huntsman will be supportive of a European-led global response to the ongoing crisis; the pell-mell response to date has created additional uncertainty, worsening the crisis.

I agree with all of this. He hasn't answered any questions about the details for any of this yet. I like the fact that he is going after the unsexy issues. Maybe he will bring up fixing our power grid too.

[Spurminator]

First is why all the love from the liberal MSM towards Huntsman? Has anyone else noticed this? He is one of the most conservative of the candidates.

Seems like a lot of conservative bloggers have "noticed" it.
Google search (https://www.google.com/search?gcx=w&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=liberal+media+loves+jon+huntsman#pq=media+loves+ jon+huntsman&hl=en&cp=8&gs_id=1a&xhr=t&q=liberal+media+loves+jon+huntsman&tok=Y4CsswFU57w85E65ZW6SOQ&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&safe=active&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=liberal+media+loves+jon+huntsman&aq=0p&aqi=p-p1&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&fp=6017915d9066490&biw=1030&bih=652)

Never would have occurred to me that he was somehow being peddled by the media. I honestly haven't heard much about him through all of the Bachmann/Perry/Cain/Palin crap. Glad you posted the rest, he sounds pretty reasonable. No wonder conservative bloggers hate him.

[Drachen]

Probably because almost all of this is pretty moderate and reasonable. Anywhere where he does sway "farther to the right" like repeal of dodd frank, he sways right back to the left with dismantling TBTF.


Edit: I removed part of this post because I don't want to make it a red v blue, but stick to the OP.

[Winehole23]

in the non-bizarro universe, Jon Huntsman is a real candidate.

[Winehole23]

here, we get more clown car

[spursncowboys]

Getting rid of TBTF and GSEs is pretty extreme right. I love it! Promise to not raise taxes and to cut Medicare and medicaid. Also it almost sounds like a monetarist policy for the fed reserve.

I usually watch morning joe while getting ready for work and notice his whole crew on that show are always following mika's lead and praising Huntsman. It automatically had me assuming he is a moderate. When I looked into him, i noticed two things: he has probably the most conservative record; and he is praised alot by most of the MSM. Very odd because they don't agree with one of his policies. He is pretty pro-life too.

[Spurminator]

Maybe the MSM isn't as liberal as you've been led to believe?

[boutons_deux]

"Getting rid of TBTF ... is pretty extreme right"

No, it's not, AT ALL. the Repugs will protect the financial sector, TBTFs, insurance companies, etc to the death. eg, see how they gutted CFPA and killed Warren and even the next nominee after Warren.

The fundamental strategy of the conservatives has been achieved, the total financialialization of the economy, with financial sector controlling.

[Th'Pusher]

All of the stuff in the OP is reasonable and, for the most part, constitutes more regulation of the banking industry, just a different approach than Dodd Frank.

His proposal to eliminate the capital gains tax and his support of the bullshit repatriation of corporate profits are two issues on which I disagree.

[boutons_deux]

Huntsman is too adult and reasonable for the ideological sociopaths controlling the Repug politicians and tea baggers.

[spursncowboys]

Maybe the MSM isn't as liberal as you've been led to believe?

That doesn't make any sense.

[Winehole23]

from the top: the M$M has been touting who?

[spursncowboys]

Huntsman is too adult and reasonable for the ideological sociopaths controlling the Repug politicians and tea baggers.

Unlike grown ups like Jon Edwards, HRodhamC, BHO, Kucinich, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden?

[boutons_deux]

Huntsman has as much chance to be nominee as Kucinich, and for the same reasons, too reasonable.

There's nothing in the Dem party now that is anywhere near as extreme as the Repugs and tea baggers.

[Spurminator]

That doesn't make any sense.

It's probably a difficult idea to wrap your head around after a steady 10-year diet of Ann Coulter columns but the possibility does exist that the mainstream media is not, and was never, a liberal propaganda machine.

[Winehole23]

(*cough* mockingbird *cough*)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

When both sides are claiming bias by the media that bodes well overall. Its akin to neither side in a deal being happy with the outcome.

[spursncowboys]

It's probably a difficult idea to wrap your head around after a steady 10-year diet of Ann Coulter columns but the possibility does exist that the mainstream media is not, and was never, a liberal propaganda machine.

[spursncowboys]

I don't want to do the old argument of if the msm is liberal or not. I know for a fact that mika doesn't agree with any conservative notion since she has openly said as much on the show. but for some reason she almost campaigns for the guy. i was just something i thought was odd.

[Drachen]

Edit: I removed part of this post because I don't want to make it a red v blue, but stick to the OP.

LOL, nevermind.

[Spurminator]

post removed since the post I was replying to was removed.

[spursncowboys]

Ensure a Stable Dollar Policy: Jon Huntsman supports a strong and stable dollar. As president, he will appoint Federal Reserve Board Governors and a Chairman who believe in sound money. The United States cannot devalue our way to prosperity and efforts to do so risk a “beggar thy neighbor” round of devaluations, which will ultimately harm American exporters and risk the dollar’s privileged position as the primary global reserve currency. I really like this. I see this the most difficult and easy to forget in times of trouble.

[Winehole23]

http://pictopia.com/perl/get_image?provider_id=318&ptp_photo_id=natgeo:4419177&size=420x300_mb&re=1&m=1296139307.0

[Winehole23]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YItN2iwvLY0/TZ-bstO687I/AAAAAAAAAao/rBAu7HrpJw4/s1600/gargoyle+w+spout+at+westminster+abbey+-+webres+-+by+Gigi+Pandian.jpg

[spursncowboys]

I think WH is a mix of Henry Kissinger and an acid trip. that's a compliment btw.

[Winehole23]

thank you

[spursncowboys]

Lewis Carroll without the pedophilia

[spursncowboys]

yw

[Winehole23]

Lewis Carroll without the pedophiliaUh, thanks? :wtf

[spursncowboys]

That was supposed to be a compliment too. i guess no matter how smart a guy is, if he's a pedophile people probably tend to be against being aligned with.

[scott]

I like Huntsman, would vote for him.

Liberals probably like him because 1) they think he is the most moderate of the Republics or 2) the realize all the conservatives don't like him and they want to see the party collapse.

But, I legitimately like him. He's easily the best combination of reasonable, intelligent and experienced up there... yet he has no chance. Sad state of American politics that he can't get elected because he refuses to go way-out-there-far-right to appeal to the "base", which isn't really the base but really just a vocal and crazy segment of the base.

[Th'Pusher]

I like Huntsman, would vote for him.

Liberals probably like him because 1) they think he is the most moderate of the Republics or 2) the realize all the conservatives don't like him and they want to see the party collapse.

But, I legitimately like him. He's easily the best combination of reasonable, intelligent and experienced up there... yet he has no chance. Sad state of American politics that he can't get elected because he refuses to go way-out-there-far-right to appeal to the "base", which isn't really the base but really just a vocal and crazy segment of the base.

As the resident economist, what are your thoughts on his (and others) position of eliminating capital gains tax? Seems a bit overboard to me, but it's possible I am being shortsighted. Also, repatriation? Didn't we just do that in 06 and IIRC it created a total of tree jobs.

[spursncowboys]

I like Huntsman, would vote for him.

Liberals probably like him because 1) they think he is the most moderate of the Republics or 2) the realize all the conservatives don't like him and they want to see the party collapse.

But, I legitimately like him. He's easily the best combination of reasonable, intelligent and experienced up there... yet he has no chance. Sad state of American politics that he can't get elected because he refuses to go way-out-there-far-right to appeal to the "base", which isn't really the base but really just a vocal and crazy segment of the base.

He should do very well in NH.

[The Reckoning]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YItN2iwvLY0/TZ-bstO687I/AAAAAAAAAao/rBAu7HrpJw4/s1600/gargoyle+w+spout+at+westminster+abbey+-+webres+-+by+Gigi+Pandian.jpg



this is awesome.. where is it? italian states, maybe??

[scott]

As the resident economist, what are your thoughts on his (and others) position of eliminating capital gains tax? Seems a bit overboard to me, but it's possible I am being shortsighted. Also, repatriation? Didn't we just do that in 06 and IIRC it created a total of tree jobs.

In-and-of-itself, I'm not entirely opposed to eliminating Capital Gains taxes, but it depends on what replaces it. I wasn't totally familiar with Huntsman's plan, but I went and did a little research, here is what he says on his website:


Eliminate the Taxes on Capital Gains and Dividends In Order to Eliminate the Double Taxation on Investment
Eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends would lower the cost of capital and encourage investment in the American economy to create jobs. Additionally, these taxes amount to a double- taxation on most individuals who choose to invest since they first had to earn that money and pay income tax on it. Taxing these same dollars again when capital gains are realized serves to deter productive and much-needed investment in our economy.

I take some issue with the facts here, as Capital Gains taxes aren't "double-taxed" at all. For example, if you buy a block of stocks for $10,000, and eventually sell them for $20,000, you don't pay capital gains tax on $20,000 - you only pay on the gain (hence the name).

The issue of dividends is trickier, in my opinion, because there are several legal business structures which have different tax treatments. Though I don't necessarily agree with it, I see the point of people saying dividends are double taxed in the case they are from a company that pays corporate income tax. Similarly, in cases where a corporate structure has pass-through taxation, dividends from that company are not usually subject to taxes (maybe RG can comment on this, since he's the resident accountant) since all of the company's income (and tax liability) was already passed on to shareholders.

My personal opinion is that corporate income and dividends need to be treated separately, and taxed separately, in most cases because a firm need not show any taxable income to pay dividends to its shareholders (thus, there is no double taxation). The opposite is also true, a firm can pay lots of corporate income tax without ever paying a dividend to its shareholders.

On the repatriation of corporate profits:


Implement a Tax Holiday for Repatriation of Corporate Profits
A tax holiday for repatriation of corporate profits earned overseas will make available between $400 billion and $600 billion for companies to make capital investments. This is a critical tool in creating a pro-growth business environment that will get Americans back to work.

There just isn't enough detail here for me to make a theoretical evaluation. The idea, again in-and-of-itself, isn't terrible and could work; but if not accurately applied then it could quite possibly do nothing more than a windfall for companies (not the intended outcome).

I'll also say that it could be too early to judge other recent repatriation efforts, since the idea is the capital investments made will build an employment infrastructure for the future. It's possible that its coming but hasn't happened yet (though I have no reason to believe it will or won't).

With Huntsman, I think you see the closest thing to the kind of income tax plan I'd like to see in place:


Simplify the Personal Income Tax Code and Lower Rates
Gov. Huntsman supports a version of the plan crafted by the Fiscal Commission, headed by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, commonly known as the "zero plan". Rather than nibble around the edges of the existing tax code, he will introduce a revenue-neutral plan that eliminates all deductions and credits in favor of three drastically lower rates of 8%, 14% and 23%. Eliminating deductions and credits in favor of lower marginal rates will yield a simpler and more efficient tax code, decreasing the burden on taxpayers.

Personally, I'd have more than three brackets, but I like plans that simplify the code and put in lower nominal rates that results in higher effective rates that eliminate the ability for some people to capitalize on loopholes at the expense of the rest of America. If I was building a tax plan, there would probably be as many brackets as there are now, including a "too poor to pay" bracket, and I'd probably add one or maybe two additional brackets at the super high end (over $1MM, over $5MM for example). I'd like to see effective rates reflect more of an inwardly bowed, upward sloping parabolic curve as opposed to the outwardly bowed, diminishing returns curve we see today (in other words, I think the point of acceleration of rates should be higher than they are today).

What I like most about Huntsman though, is that he comes across as a reasonable person who will put qualified people around him and listen to them. Pretty important for the leader of the free world, IMO.

[LnGrrrR]

That was supposed to be a compliment too. i guess no matter how smart a guy is, if he's a pedophile people probably tend to be against being aligned with.

:lmao

Probably one of my favorite posts of all time.

[Th'Pusher]

In-and-of-itself, I'm not entirely opposed to eliminating Capital Gains taxes, but it depends on what replaces it. I wasn't totally familiar with Huntsman's plan, but I went and did a little research, here is what he says on his website:



I take some issue with the facts here, as Capital Gains taxes aren't "double-taxed" at all. For example, if you buy a block of stocks for $10,000, and eventually sell them for $20,000, you don't pay capital gains tax on $20,000 - you only pay on the gain (hence the name).

The issue of dividends is trickier, in my opinion, because there are several legal business structures which have different tax treatments. Though I don't necessarily agree with it, I see the point of people saying dividends are double taxed in the case they are from a company that pays corporate income tax. Similarly, in cases where a corporate structure has pass-through taxation, dividends from that company are not usually subject to taxes (maybe RG can comment on this, since he's the resident accountant) since all of the company's income (and tax liability) was already passed on to shareholders.

My personal opinion is that corporate income and dividends need to be treated separately, and taxed separately, in most cases because a firm need not show any taxable income to pay dividends to its shareholders (thus, there is no double taxation). The opposite is also true, a firm can pay lots of corporate income tax without ever paying a dividend to its shareholders.

On the repatriation of corporate profits:



There just isn't enough detail here for me to make a theoretical evaluation. The idea, again in-and-of-itself, isn't terrible and could work; but if not accurately applied then it could quite possibly do nothing more than a windfall for companies (not the intended outcome).

I'll also say that it could be too early to judge other recent repatriation efforts, since the idea is the capital investments made will build an employment infrastructure for the future. It's possible that its coming but hasn't happened yet (though I have no reason to believe it will or won't).

With Huntsman, I think you see the closest thing to the kind of income tax plan I'd like to see in place:



Personally, I'd have more than three brackets, but I like plans that simplify the code and put in lower nominal rates that results in higher effective rates that eliminate the ability for some people to capitalize on loopholes at the expense of the rest of America. If I was building a tax plan, there would probably be as many brackets as there are now, including a "too poor to pay" bracket, and I'd probably add one or maybe two additional brackets at the super high end (over $1MM, over $5MM for example). I'd like to see effective rates reflect more of an inwardly bowed, upward sloping parabolic curve as opposed to the outwardly bowed, diminishing returns curve we see today (in other words, I think the point of acceleration of rates should be higher than they are today).

What I like most about Huntsman though, is that he comes across as a reasonable person who will put qualified people around him and listen to them. Pretty important for the leader of the free world, IMO.

Your knowledge is much appreciated :toast

One question though. When you say:


I'm not entirely opposed to eliminating Capital Gains taxes, but it depends on what replaces it.

Are you suggesting the revenue could be effectively replaced with your proposed additional brackets at the super high end? Romney's proposal to eliminate cap gains tax on people making less than 250k/year seemed to make sense to me as it's the super rich that are paying the effective 15% rate now with most of their income in the form of cap gains. I assume you could get a similar result by eliminating the cap gains tax (as well as the loopholes) to get a higher effective tax rate. Am I getting what you are suggesting right?

[JoeChalupa]

Of all the GOP candidates so far....Huntsman would get my vote hands down.

[scott]

Your knowledge is much appreciated :toast

One question though. When you say:



Are you suggesting the revenue could be effectively replaced with your proposed additional brackets at the super high end? Romney's proposal to eliminate cap gains tax on people making less than 250k/year seemed to make sense to me as it's the super rich that are paying the effective 15% rate now with most of their income in the form of cap gains. I assume you could get a similar result by eliminating the cap gains tax (as well as the loopholes) to get a higher effective tax rate. Am I getting what you are suggesting right?

Maybe, but not necessarily. I think there are a lot of options that can "recreate" the intent of a Capital Gains tax, though I personally don't believe selectively taxing people (in this case, people over $250k) is the answer.

I guess I'm not sure what people necessarily mean when they say "get rid of cap gains" tax. Are they suggesting that capital gains should be had tax free, or that they should be taxed as marginal income? I'm not a fan of letting capital gains be tax free, as it means some people's entire income (people who make a living trading, or the wealthy who don't work and generate income mostly/solely off cap gains, for example) are tax free.

[Th'Pusher]

I guess I'm not sure what people necessarily mean when they say "get rid of cap gains" tax.

That makes two of us.


Are they suggesting that capital gains should be had tax free, or that they should be taxed as marginal income? I'm not a fan of letting capital gains be tax free, as it means some people's entire income (people who make a living trading, or the wealthy who don't work and generate income mostly/solely off cap gains, for example) are tax free.

I took the proposal at face value assuming he was suggesting the capital gains tax should be eliminated completely, which as you mentioned, would be a huge give away to the super wealthy and counter productive in my opinion. I think all of the republican candidates (with the exception of Romney as noted above) have suggested eliminating the capital gains tax. I just don't see how any reasonable person who didn't derive most (or all) of their income from capital gains could support such an extreme and ridiculous proposal.

[boutons_deux]

"Repeal Dodd-Frank: ignored the government’s pervasive role in causing the crisis"

... which is a lie. The F-d regs at the rule-level have been practically gutted by Repugs and lobbyists.

"Shut Down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: As president, Jon Huntsman will dismantle Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Eliminating the GSEs should not be controversial. At its heart, the Panic of 2008 was a crisis born of crony capitalism. It is unconscionable that five years after the start of the housing crisis, these companies have not seen a serious reform proposal and most of their executives are still in power."

same lie as above.

If GSEs gone, will private sector buy/guarantee mortgages? no, meaning lenders will lend a lot less, and legit borrowers will be mostly screwed.

[mingus]

i won't vote for the simple fact the the two republican candidates that i like (Paul and Huntsman) aren't going to win. it's a sad state the republican party is in.

[cheguevara]

Huntsman is ok in Che's book.

he might be very conservative but he is not a radical Fascist leaning nut like the rest of the GOP candidates

the main point why Tea baggers and other sorts are not behind him? Huntsman would try to "work" with Democrats to get to a solution. This has been proven as he served Obama admin. The radical nuts don't want to "work" with anyone.

[cheguevara]

Here is Huntsman as to why he served Obama:
"Serve [America], if asked. I was, by a president of a different political party. But in the end, while we might not all be of one party, we are all part of one nation,"

the nuts and tea baggers don't want none of that.

[scott]

Here is Huntsman as to why he served Obama:
"Serve [America], if asked. I was, by a president of a different political party. But in the end, while we might not all be of one party, we are all part of one nation,"

the nuts and tea baggers don't want none of that.

Sad indeed.

I'll see if I can find his Daily Show (or maybe it was Colbert) interview, it was a pretty good one.

[scott]

It was Colbert indeed.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/400561/october-24-2011/jon-huntsman

[hater]

his daughters are fine as fuck

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/08/07/article-0-0D55E20E00000578-961_468x333.jpg

[boutons_deux]

Huntsman doesn't have any more chance than Ron Paul

[scott]

his daughters are fine as fuck

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/08/07/article-0-0D55E20E00000578-961_468x333.jpg

All three of them?!?!? Well, happy magic underwear!

[Winehole23]

That was supposed to be a compliment too. i guess no matter how smart a guy is, if he's a pedophile people probably tend to be against being aligned with.If you had not attempted to dissociate me from pedophilia I doubt anyone would have made the connection.

Thank you for making the connection somewhat more straight-forward, instead of disguising it as a compliment.

[Winehole23]

“I don’t claim to be the perfect candidate,” Newt Gingrich told a South Carolina radio station last week (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/gingrich-says-hes-more-conservative-than-romney/), as he settled into his role as the latest not-Romney (http://www.gallup.com/poll/150926/Gingrich-Leads-GOP-Field-Positive-Intensity.aspx) in the Republican race. “I just claim to be a lot more conservative than Mitt Romney and a lot more electable than anybody else.”


It’s a plausible line, evoking William F. Buckley Jr.’s often-quoted admonition that right-of-center voters should support the most electable conservative in any given race. But is it accurate? Not if you judge candidates on their record, rather than by their affect. By that standard, the most electable conservative remaining in the Republican race is probably Jon Huntsman...


...But his salesmanship has been staggeringly inept. Huntsman’s campaign was always destined to be hobbled by the two years he spent as President Obama’s ambassador to China. But he compounded the handicap by introducing himself to the Republican electorate with a series of symbolic jabs at the party’s base.


He picked high-profile fights on two hot-button issues — evolution and global warming — that were completely irrelevant to his candidacy’s rationale. He let his campaign manager define his candidacy as a fight to save the Republican Party from a “bunch of cranks (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/62565.html).” And he embraced his identity as the media’s favorite Republican by letting the liberal journalist Jacob Weisberg write a fawning profile (http://www.vogue.com/magazine/article/jon-huntsman-the-outsider/) for Vogue.


This was political malpractice at its worst. Voters don’t necessarily need to like a candidate to vote for him, but they need to think that he likes them. Imagine a contender for the Democratic nomination introducing himself to liberal voters by attacking Planned Parenthood, distancing himself from “left-wing nutjobs” and giving a series of interviews on Fox News, and you have the flavor of how Huntsman’s opening act was perceived on the right. The substance mattered less than the symbolism, which screamed: I want your vote, but I don’t particularly care to be associated with your stupidities.
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/the-huntsman-handicap/

[cheguevara]

"most electable" = will change his tune when necessary to get more votes.

[Winehole23]

this is awesome.. where is it? italian states, maybe??random capture. will check. love your use of the plural.

[Winehole23]

Westminster Abbey

[SnakeBoy]

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/the-huntsman-handicap/

There's some truth to that but besides that Huntsman is running a campaign with no substance, at least none that I've seen him articulate. I saw the Colbert interview Scott posted and several others and they have all been the same. I'm John Hunstman and I'm reasonable but not followed up with any substance. It's just a variation of Rick Perry's I'm Awesome campaign. If I dig deeper I find alot I like about him but he's doing a horrible job articulating it.

[The Reckoning]

Westminster Abbey


i would never have guessed. looks like a sea monster in renaissance garb devouring a seafaring vessel. very cool nonetheless.

[coyotes_geek]

Maybe, but not necessarily. I think there are a lot of options that can "recreate" the intent of a Capital Gains tax, though I personally don't believe selectively taxing people (in this case, people over $250k) is the answer.

I guess I'm not sure what people necessarily mean when they say "get rid of cap gains" tax. Are they suggesting that capital gains should be had tax free, or that they should be taxed as marginal income? I'm not a fan of letting capital gains be tax free, as it means some people's entire income (people who make a living trading, or the wealthy who don't work and generate income mostly/solely off cap gains, for example) are tax free.

I'm just short of 100% positive that the Simpson-Bowles plan that Huntsman's advocating was just going to lump cap gains in with ordinary income and tax it all at the single rate. IOW, "getting rid of cap gains" meant getting rid of the separate tax rate for that form of income, not making all that income tax-free.

[Spurminator]

Taxing it at the same rate as other income seems like a no-brainer to me, but I admit to an incomplete understanding of everything that falls under capital gains.

[scott]

I'm just short of 100% positive that the Simpson-Bowles plan that Huntsman's advocating was just going to lump cap gains in with ordinary income and tax it all at the single rate. IOW, "getting rid of cap gains" meant getting rid of the separate tax rate for that form of income, not making all that income tax-free.

Thanks for the clarification.

Who is against such a plan, other than super-rich people?

[Winehole23]

the 19% of Americans who put themselves in the top 1%, for starters

[coyotes_geek]

Taxing it at the same rate as other income seems like a no-brainer to me, but I admit to an incomplete understanding of everything that falls under capital gains.

The only situation that I can think of that might get complicated for an average individual would be gains related to selling your house. As an example, what do we do with Grandma and Grandpa who bought their house in 1960 for $30,000 but 50 years later it's worth $300,000? Probably not a good idea to just hit them with $270,000 worth of income for the year and expect them to come up with a $60,000 tax bill the following April.

[coyotes_geek]

Thanks for the clarification.

Who is against such a plan, other than super-rich people?

Tax accountants and brokerages?

[Spurminator]

The only situation that I can think of that might get complicated for an average individual would be gains related to selling your house. As an example, what do we do with Grandma and Grandpa who bought their house in 1960 for $30,000 but 50 years later it's worth $300,000? Probably not a good idea to just hit them with $270,000 worth of income for the year and expect them to come up with a $60,000 tax bill the following April.

Yeah, I think CC brought that up a while back, and it's a valid concern. Two solutions I could see:

1. Collect tax from home sales at the point of sale. So if they sold for a $270K gain, they receive $210K. That way they don't have to find the money later.

2. The better option, separate income from home sales under a different tax rate.

[coyotes_geek]

I was thinking something along the lines of getting to spread out that tax liability over several years, but taxing at point of sale would be a lot simpler.

Would be a pretty tough pill to swallow to see 20-something percent of your equity instantly vanish though. Even worse than that one day a year us non-escrowing Texans have to cut that check for property taxes.

[Drachen]

Yeah, I think CC brought that up a while back, and it's a valid concern. Two solutions I could see:

1. Collect tax from home sales at the point of sale. So if they sold for a $270K gain, they receive $210K. That way they don't have to find the money later.

2. The better option, separate income from home sales under a different tax rate.

I think solution 2 would cause another housing bubble.

[scott]

Yeah, I think CC brought that up a while back, and it's a valid concern. Two solutions I could see:

1. Collect tax from home sales at the point of sale. So if they sold for a $270K gain, they receive $210K. That way they don't have to find the money later.

2. The better option, separate income from home sales under a different tax rate.

I think the existing exemptions for selling a homestead can and should still apply, though I'm not sure of their upper-limits. That upper-limit should be adjusted to reflect "non-gynormous mansions"

[Th'Pusher]

I'm just short of 100% positive that the Simpson-Bowles plan that Huntsman's advocating was just going to lump cap gains in with ordinary income and tax it all at the single rate. IOW, "getting rid of cap gains" meant getting rid of the separate tax rate for that form of income, not making all that income tax-free.

I don't know about that. From what I've been reading I think these guys are actually advocating completely repealing the cap gains tax.


Welcome to the season of jobs plans. GOP presidential hopeful Jon Huntsman offered his last week. President Obama will propose his before Thursday night’s football game. But today is GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney’s day. And at least when it comes to tax policy, he veers a bit to the left of the new Republican orthodoxy.

To be sure, for someone hoping to win the party’s presidential nomination, he says nearly all the right things: He’s in favor of small government, less regulation, a Constitutional amendment to balance the budget etc. etc. But on tax policy, Romney strays off message a bit: Sure, he’d extend the 2001/2003/2010 tax cuts. But while many of his opponents would eliminate all taxes on capital gains and dividends, Romney would zero out taxes on investment income only for the middle class.

How heretical is this? Well, even Obama has proposed a zero capital gains rate for small business owners—many of whom Romney would also exempt. And Huntsman, considered the most moderate of Romney’s challengers, said he’d eliminate investment taxes for all.

Romney’s plan is interesting because, as it happens, relatively few middle-class households report capital gains, and those that do generally pay only a pittance.

For instance, the Tax Policy Center estimates that households making less than $50,000 pay an average of less than $10 in taxes on investments. That’s no surprise since most have no gains, and those few who do have been paying at a zero rate since 2008 (if you’re in the 10 or 15 percent brackets, gains are generally tax-free).

Even those making between $100,000 and $200,000 pay an average of just $400. And most of them would likely be better off if Congress extends the payroll tax holiday than if it eliminates their investment taxes.

The real beneficiaries of a zero rate on gains are the highest-income taxpayers. Those in the top 1 percent of the income distribution (who have an average pre-tax income of nearly $7 million) would enjoy a $350,000 tax cut thanks to such a change. As my colleague Bob Williams noted in a recent Tax Vox blog, 15 percent of people in that rarified income group make two-thirds of their money from gains. In current Republican parlance, they are the “job creators” who will pour that higher after-tax income into new American jobs.

That’s why former hedge-fund operator Romney will surely disappoint those in the GOP who argue for a zero rate on capital for all. For instance, in the initial version of his fiscal plan, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI)would have eliminated all taxes on gains, dividends, and estates and repealed the corporate income tax (which he would have replaced with an 8.5 percent value added tax). By that standard, Romney is, well, practically Obama.

This leaves us with the always-flexible definition of “middle-class.” Even though the median household income in the U.S. is just $50,000, Obama defines middle-class as anyone who makes $200,000 or less. Romney appears to be using the same definition.

Will cutting investment taxes for middle-income households boost the short-term economy, as Romney claims? It is hard to see how. The extra ten bucks that goes to a typical family making less than $50,000 sure won’t create much new demand. The better question is whether extending a zero cap gains rate to higher-income (but not super- high-income) households would encourage more investment in the short run.

I suspect small business owners these days are worrying a lot more about making payroll than the promise of future tax-free gains. As for those of us who’ve been tossed around in the gut-wrenching swells of the stock market over the past few weeks, it will take a lot more than a zero gains rate to encourage another leap into those waters.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2011/0907/Will-Romney-s-capital-gains-tax-cut-hurt-with-the-GOP

How these republicans pander to the ultra rich and garner a single vote from people making less than 200k per year is beyond me. Maybe one of the resident middle class conservatives can explain their thought process.

[coyotes_geek]

I don't know about that. From what I've been reading I think these guys are actually advocating completely repealing the cap gains tax.

That article you posted does make it sound that way. If that is truly what they're proposing then what a ridiculous idea. Maybe not so bad if you're strictly talking about the lower income brackets and maybe small business owners, but for CEO's cashing in stock options? NFW.

[elbamba]

I think the existing exemptions for selling a homestead can and should still apply, though I'm not sure of their upper-limits. That upper-limit should be adjusted to reflect "non-gynormous mansions"

I thought that a married couple selling a house they have lived in for at least 24 consecutive months can be sold without paying taxes on the first 500,000. I do not work in tax law but that was my understanding from tax class like ten years ago. I think that an individual gets $250,000.

[elbamba]

But I am pretty sure you have to reside within the home for 2-5 years.

[coyotes_geek]

I thought that a married couple selling a house they have lived in for at least 24 consecutive months can be sold without paying taxes on the first 500,000. I do not work in tax law but that was my understanding from tax class like ten years ago. I think that an individual gets $250,000.

That's correct. Or at least it was as of 5 years ago when the wife & I moved. Primary residence only.

[The Reckoning]

BUMP


Please run :cry

[boutons_deux]

BUMP


Please run :cry

Seems intelligent,moderate, experience outside of politics and govt, so he doesn't have chance with the Repug crazies, extremists, retrogrades, govt destroyers.

[The Reckoning]

He's the man we need to speak up tbh

[boutons_deux]

He's the man we need to speak up tbh

Plus, he's an LDS fringe cultist. Southern Baptist racists and evangelical crazies not gonna go for him.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't know about that. From what I've been reading I think these guys are actually advocating completely repealing the cap gains tax.



How these republicans pander to the ultra rich and garner a single vote from people making less than 200k per year is beyond me. Maybe one of the resident middle class conservatives can explain their thought process.

Religion and race. I call them 5 figure republicans.

[Drachen]

I liked this guy. A lot. Would love him to run.

[boutons_deux]

"H these republicans pander to the ultra rich and garner a single vote from people making less than 200k per year is beyond me"

god/guns/gays/abortion/racism/immigration/hate-govt People who vote those issues don't GAF that Repugs fuck them over financially.

NRA didn't invite RP to their annual nutcase hate-fest circle-jerk because he raised money for another gun org. 2nd Amendment? :lol