Reply With Quote
Lewis Carroll without the pedophilia
thank you
Lewis Carroll without the pedophilia
yw
Uh, thanks?
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.
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.
He should do very well in NH.
this is awesome.. where is it? italian states, maybe??
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).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.
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).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.
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).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.
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.
Probably one of my favorite posts of all time.
Your knowledge is much appreciated
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?I'm not entirely opposed to eliminating Capital Gains taxes, but it depends on what replaces it.
Of all the GOP candidates so far....Huntsman would get my vote hands down.
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.Your knowledge is much appreciated
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?
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.
That makes two of us.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
It was Colbert indeed.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col...1/jon-huntsman
his daughters are fine as
Huntsman doesn't have any more chance than Ron Paul
All three of them?!?!? Well, happy magic underwear!his daughters are fine as
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
