Comments on: Tax reform does not guarantee growth http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/09/28/tax-reform-does-not-guarantee-growth/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: OneOfTheSheep http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/09/28/tax-reform-does-not-guarantee-growth/#comment-61466 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 01:45:50 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=14174#comment-61466 A majority of Americans don’t WANT a society economically identical to Europe’s current unsustainable examples. Get used to that.

]]>
By: pax_vobiscum http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/09/28/tax-reform-does-not-guarantee-growth/#comment-61418 Mon, 01 Oct 2012 04:33:19 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=14174#comment-61418 “Tax reform is what Congress should do after the economy starts growing faster. It is not the way to achieve that goal.”

The above statement is only valid because Congress somehow always manages to screw the poor when the say they’re going after the rich. If they truly wanted to craft a ‘bubble-up’ strategy, (as opposed to the ‘trickle down’ we hear so much of), it could easily do so. Unfortunately, the WORKING poor have no advocates in Congress or the White House, and I doubt they ever will.

1) Cease any and ALL withholding from anyone earning less than $2000 a month. It’s not like they’re going to sit on that money, it’s going to be spent. The increased velocity will result in instant economic expansion. Won’t help the rich, or even the middle-class, so ‘No’, such a thing is NEVER going to happen.

2) Require employers to furnish pro-rated benefits to part time workers. In other words, a part-timer working 20 hrs a week will get 50% of the benefits package a full-time worker enjoys. Again, this won’t help the rich (not directly at least) and actually may drive up some costs for the middle-class, but it will correct serious economic inequities, and give poor people spending power that WILL be put into immediate use. Again, this is a velocity equation. The benefit in the short run is economic expansion, reduced unemployment, and less government welfare. The ‘bubble-up’ effects will in time benefit the middle class and rich, perhaps even more-so than the truly poor.

3) Require Federal Income Tax to be file every OTHER year. This would save our economy hundreds of billions of dollars. I’d prefer to dump income tax overboard, but in the meanwhile each and every one of us could be spared the enormous hassle of filing every twelve months. A very small contingent (accountants and tax lawyers) would hate this, but the rest of us would be throwing a party every other April 15th instead of burying our noses in spreadsheets and .pdfs.

4) Remove ALL corporate tax loop-holes, but lower corporate tax to a low, FLAT 12%. Don’t worry about leaving the ‘rich’ off the hook. These profits are ‘doubly’ taxed anyway, as when these profits are returned to investors, they again pay taxes on it. And here you can apply your ‘fairness’. (Just for an example) Investment income over $100,000 could be taxed another 25%, while returns under that level might be taxed at something like %8. Encourage investment, but don’t rob grandma’s only source of income.

Sadly, only special interests get their way in this world, so as a whole society is probably screwed. Better not mess with the tax code, because congress is liable to only make things worse.

]]>
By: rCharel http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/09/28/tax-reform-does-not-guarantee-growth/#comment-61354 Sun, 30 Sep 2012 10:55:28 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=14174#comment-61354 Before reform of the tax take is considered the way of reporting taxable income should be simplified. Tax reform should begin by a tax take neutral reform.

When that is accomplished it would become easier to reform the taxes to improve the national share of income through taxable income and share.

Further a form of VAT should be considered with low rates on essentials and a higher rate on luxuries. Low income households should be compensated through redistribution policies to even out the unfairness.

Reform without simplification would be meaningless.

]]>
By: hapibeli http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/09/28/tax-reform-does-not-guarantee-growth/#comment-61336 Sun, 30 Sep 2012 04:32:26 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=14174#comment-61336 I’m no expert on taxation, but I did buy 4 different homes during my working class years in the USA. I’ve often thought that a flat tax was not perfect, NO tax is, but possibly a flat tax would be more equitable than any of the gimmicky tax structures blessing this consumer or that business enterprise. With no constituencies looking for their individual pieces of the pie, might en the policy makers have less incentive to be bought and paid for?

]]>
By: usagadfly http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/09/28/tax-reform-does-not-guarantee-growth/#comment-61322 Sat, 29 Sep 2012 16:18:18 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=14174#comment-61322 False promises and misleading statements cover almost everything related to taxes, especially to tax preferences for the wealthy and to corporations that thrive under the current system. These people are delighted with the current mish mash.

The problem is that 90% of the populations gets poorer every week, and has for over a decade. At the same time, when you add in “payroll taxes” / FICA “contributions” and the Income Taxes levied on those taxes (double taxation), wage earners in the USA pay an effective tax rate that is higher than people earning 100 times their pay. The tax system is regressive. And as with all regressive tax systems, the result is economic decline.

This can be altered a number of different ways, but it must be altered or the USA as we have known it for 150 years will disappear. If “trickle down” did not work over the past 30 years, it is unlikely to become suddenly efficacious. If a reform does not work, it needs to die. All reforms should have a life span of no more than 5 years before automatically expiring. Renewed reforms that failed to achieve their goal should be advertised in every medium available that uses public assets (e.g. wireless “spectrum”) as an expensive failure proposed by Government.

]]>
By: LysanderTucker http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/09/28/tax-reform-does-not-guarantee-growth/#comment-61321 Sat, 29 Sep 2012 14:06:32 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=14174#comment-61321 The idea that government lives off of that says “I know better how to spend your money and what is right for you, so it’s your money or your life” has never and will never create a single sustainable job. All taxes are theft as long as they are compulsory. When you tax a population too much, they think “what am I working for?” and the economy suffers. The problem isn’t tax “policy”, it’s the “tax” its self. Eliminate the taxes and you eliminate the legalized support structure for the rich. Then you’ll have localized small business growth.

]]>
By: costag1 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/09/28/tax-reform-does-not-guarantee-growth/#comment-61320 Sat, 29 Sep 2012 13:01:01 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=14174#comment-61320 Maybe not not but this president’s anti business policies guarantee no growth. I’ll go with the maybe.

]]>
By: matthewslyman http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/09/28/tax-reform-does-not-guarantee-growth/#comment-61297 Sat, 29 Sep 2012 05:59:06 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=14174#comment-61297 Sometimes I wonder whether raw GDP numbers are getting divorced from what is happening in the REAL economy; or in other words, the challenges that are discussed around the dinner tables of middle America, and the difficulties faced by the hidden legions of American workers who live in small cabins, trailer homes etc.

GDP recognizes economic ACTIVITY, right? However, not all “profitable” economic activity is beneficial to its customers, or to the world/society we live in…

]]>
By: keenan77 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/09/28/tax-reform-does-not-guarantee-growth/#comment-61292 Sat, 29 Sep 2012 04:36:53 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=14174#comment-61292 The mortgage deduction is a distortion of the market. One ingredient that has helped fuel an unsustainable housing market. Keeping it alive for things such as trying to prop us the throes of unemployed construction workers doesn’t do anyone, least of all the construction workers, any good.
The housing market should be allowed a more natural progression, probably allowing for more future stability. Give these unemployed guys a clear indication that easy jobs won’t be coming back, and ideally they’re retrain for something else.
The economy needs less “engineering”, not more.

]]>
By: OneOfTheSheep http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/09/28/tax-reform-does-not-guarantee-growth/#comment-61286 Sat, 29 Sep 2012 01:36:27 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=14174#comment-61286 The “journey of a thousand miles still begins with a single step”. It is important this step be forward, not backward. Since “everyone” believes tax reform is necessary, I think there are things that CAN be done NOW (or VERY soon).

It’s time to look at the tax deduction for home mortgages. As it presently exists, it should remain unchanged for taxpayers with existing mortgages. It is uncertainty in the tax code that hurts growth, and so doing this “grandfathers” existing loans and places the industry on notice that the rules have changed.

How should the rules change? Well, you can create any kind of society you want with two tools: tax benefits (those things you want more of) and tax penalties (those things you want less of). Should we really continue to pay the “poor” by the head to produce ever more of themselves for more and more “benefits”?

The old rules made home ownership “smarter” than renting so long as just about everywhere home selling prices increased over time. Renting was dumb unless you moved frequently and valid questions if you moved frequently. Was your employment situation “good” and “stable”, are are you frequently relocating to elude day to day bills?

They also made “moving up” to a larger and/or more expensive residence logical whether or not you needed more room, just so there was more “investment” to grow. Never mind that two to four people don’t need a 4000+ sq. ft. MacMansion.

Guess what’s a glut on the market today? 4000 sq. ft. MacMansions. Guess what’s more and more valuable? Decent farm land (which has been gobbled up by developers near large population centers for decades). We need to “”send a message” to NOT build more. The developers that already have land just need to redraw or rezone future development.

If the mortgage interest deduction for the single family home is eliminated at this time, building won’t stop. It will simply occur in the manner most consistent with “demand”. “Demand” will be for smaller or multi-unit residences, condos, townhomes, etc., all of which is good for the preservation of farmland for farming.

John Doe hasn’t seen any appreciation on his residence for approaching a decade, so the “investment” angle is no longer a factor in buying or renting the place he lives in. The very well-to-do would most miss this loophole as well as those with the “surplus income” to “invest” in second homes. In my opinion, though, neither should continue to be subsidized by ALL taxpayers through “our” tax code. That’s NOT “in the public interest”.

As for health care, once again the present “system” is a “one size fits all” approach that disproportionally increases available benefits for the wealthy. To be blunt, neither Congress nor state lawmakers nor government workers nor union workers nor senior business management nor CEOs should receive tax-advantaged coverage most Americans can’t afford. That’s NOT “in the public interest”.

Define a “basic benefit package” with individual options. Maybe cover children OR older parents OR students or, like a “Health Spending Account” anything up to a certain limit each year; which might be carried forward if not used, or not. You could buy coverage beyond that “base benefit”, but the cost would NOT be tax-deductible.

Define the “new incentives” and the same business that provide coverage today will still do so. The transition will be smooth and those considering health care as a career opportunity or a business have no rug pulled out from under them.

A similar approach taken with common sense progressively through our bloated federal state and local governments and “society” would offer many fiscal opportunities if current lobbies understand that the alternative is probably a “flat tax” with NO exceptions where everyone begins again to fight for undue advantage at the expense of everyone else.

]]>