4 ms·

OWS anger at corporate bailouts, lack of work, and wealth inequality. Economist's answer? Lower marginal tax for the rich and higher retirement age for workers.

OWS anger at corporate bailouts, lack of work, and wealth inequality. Economist's answer? Lower marginal tax for the rich and higher retirement age for workers. Would you expect anything less?

troutwine 15y ago
What is your counter-proposal?
- mcantelon 15y ago
  Regulation that will get rid of financial WMDs and legislation to counteract tax dodging by corporations, for a start.
  - civilian 15y ago
    The Economist supports closing tax loopholes... isn't that also what you want when you say "counteract tax dodging"?
    - mcantelon 15y ago
      They talk about closing loopholes for individuals, not for corporations themselves.
- muhfuhkuh 15y ago
  In a nutshell? 1) 50% reduction in both the mandatory and discretionary defense budgets (why there are two of them is an outrage in and of itself). Iraq/Afghanistan withdrawal included and needed badly. 2) If jobs are #1 in the current economy, entrepreneurship should be job #1 for Congress. Make the SBA the new WPA for the new century. Instead of putting people to work on solely "shovel-ready" government infrastructure projects (which they should also do, but I digress), the government should guarantee small business loans disbursed and managed by NCUA-backed credit unions (see what I did there?), who would know more than any large, NYC-based conglomerate the business needs of their community. Loan terms should be manageable and repayment should start at time of profitability according to financial projections as stated in mandatory business plan drawn up by founders/loan seeker. Repayment interest rate shall be 1% + Federal Discount Rate (so, currently 1.75%) and, again, guaranteed by the government. 3) Said small businesses above are far and away the largest drivers of employment growth in the US even without stimulus like #2 above, so get them even further growth by lowering both payroll taxes and offering credits to those who hire within the US (in either part- or full-time permanent positions, not contractors). 4) All businesses with <100 employees are eligible to buy-in to Medicare program and enroll employees regardless of age or health condition. Rates will be determined by current average monthly Medicare premium + 15%, to be paid by both employer and employee (negotiated privately between parties, of course). 5) Keep current Tax cuts but close all loopholes and subsidies, and institute a progressive Capital Gains tax (short and long-term) that mirrors income tax rates.
mcantelon 15y ago
They are defending the broken status quo. Early in the article: "benefits that societies can no longer afford". Society can afford a hell of a lot if managed correctly. Unfortunately, the foxes are managing the henhouse.
HeXetic 15y ago
You are misquoting the article, which actually proposes to "boost the tax take from the wealthy by eliminating loopholes while simultaneously lowering marginal rates." In other words, make the rich actually pay more by eliminating loopholes used to avoid taxes entirely. Compensate somewhat for the increase by lowering the actual tax rate.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- muhfuhkuh 15y ago
  "Compensate somewhat for the increase by lowering the actual tax rate." Why should we be "compensating" anything? "The Rich" promised to hire vigorously if we kept Bush tax cuts. They didn't hire then and they aren't now and it's still the same rate.
  - HeXetic 15y ago
    Because the Economist's point is that so much of the potential tax revenue is getting excluded due to loopholes that eliminating those loopholes without reducing the marginal tax rate at the same time would amount to an enormous wallop. Maybe "the rich" can bear it, maybe not, but the point is effecting change of that sort would make them pay more, and that regardless of what actual tax rate we want to target, it would be better to start from a position where the actual tax paid by any individual is straightforward to calculate. Only at that point does it become reasonable to figure out at exactly what number to set the tax rates, because until then you don't really know how much tax you're going to get from the person, since they may or may not have avenues of escape.

OWS anger at corporate bailouts, lack of work, and wealth inequality. Economist's answer? Lower marginal tax for the rich and higher retirement age for workers. Would you expect anything less?

troutwine 15y ago

What is your counter-proposal?

mcantelon 15y ago
Regulation that will get rid of financial WMDs and legislation to counteract tax dodging by corporations, for a start.
- civilian 15y ago
  The Economist supports closing tax loopholes... isn't that also what you want when you say "counteract tax dodging"?
  - mcantelon 15y ago
    They talk about closing loopholes for individuals, not for corporations themselves.
muhfuhkuh 15y ago
In a nutshell? 1) 50% reduction in both the mandatory and discretionary defense budgets (why there are two of them is an outrage in and of itself). Iraq/Afghanistan withdrawal included and needed badly. 2) If jobs are #1 in the current economy, entrepreneurship should be job #1 for Congress. Make the SBA the new WPA for the new century. Instead of putting people to work on solely "shovel-ready" government infrastructure projects (which they should also do, but I digress), the government should guarantee small business loans disbursed and managed by NCUA-backed credit unions (see what I did there?), who would know more than any large, NYC-based conglomerate the business needs of their community. Loan terms should be manageable and repayment should start at time of profitability according to financial projections as stated in mandatory business plan drawn up by founders/loan seeker. Repayment interest rate shall be 1% + Federal Discount Rate (so, currently 1.75%) and, again, guaranteed by the government. 3) Said small businesses above are far and away the largest drivers of employment growth in the US even without stimulus like #2 above, so get them even further growth by lowering both payroll taxes and offering credits to those who hire within the US (in either part- or full-time permanent positions, not contractors). 4) All businesses with <100 employees are eligible to buy-in to Medicare program and enroll employees regardless of age or health condition. Rates will be determined by current average monthly Medicare premium + 15%, to be paid by both employer and employee (negotiated privately between parties, of course). 5) Keep current Tax cuts but close all loopholes and subsidies, and institute a progressive Capital Gains tax (short and long-term) that mirrors income tax rates.

mcantelon 15y ago

They are defending the broken status quo. Early in the article: "benefits that societies can no longer afford". Society can afford a hell of a lot if managed correctly. Unfortunately, the foxes are managing the henhouse.

HeXetic 15y ago

You are misquoting the article, which actually proposes to "boost the tax take from the wealthy by eliminating loopholes while simultaneously lowering marginal rates." In other words, make the rich actually pay more by eliminating loopholes used to avoid taxes entirely. Compensate somewhat for the increase by lowering the actual tax rate.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
muhfuhkuh 15y ago
"Compensate somewhat for the increase by lowering the actual tax rate." Why should we be "compensating" anything? "The Rich" promised to hire vigorously if we kept Bush tax cuts. They didn't hire then and they aren't now and it's still the same rate.
- HeXetic 15y ago
  Because the Economist's point is that so much of the potential tax revenue is getting excluded due to loopholes that eliminating those loopholes without reducing the marginal tax rate at the same time would amount to an enormous wallop. Maybe "the rich" can bear it, maybe not, but the point is effecting change of that sort would make them pay more, and that regardless of what actual tax rate we want to target, it would be better to start from a position where the actual tax paid by any individual is straightforward to calculate. Only at that point does it become reasonable to figure out at exactly what number to set the tax rates, because until then you don't really know how much tax you're going to get from the person, since they may or may not have avenues of escape.