Seems like a great tax plan to me

[Nick Douglas]

Here is a summary from FoxNews about the Democrats' new tax plan:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304999,00.html

Call me what you want, but I think this looks damn good. I know a lot of conservatives are only in favor of changes that include flat taxes or sales taxes, but I think this is a great proposal.

 

[The Sponge]

Now watch how a bunch of middle class people hate this plan because they are brainwashed into thinking they are billionaires. Simply just incredible.

 

[Chadman]

Interesting to see the way things are worded when reporting on it (as always). Need to study it closely, and see what it really means. Of course, anything that repeals cuts will be labeled an increase by conservatives, and a return to previous existing levels by dems. Which are in a sense both true.

One thing I find interesting in this is the closing of loopholes on corporate earnings from abroad. Meaning, a corporation large enough to have a part of their business overseas but brings all the money back to the U.S. would not benefit from having business out of the U.S. and moving more of their operations out of the U.S.

I already see the screaming headlines on Drudge which claim the highest tax increase in history and soaking the rich. I listened to Rangel on Ed Schultz over lunch, and the way he explained it was much different, actually a big tax cut for most.

I'd guess again, both statements are true in some ways. I'm all for making our tax code more simple, and readjusting things to eliminate loopholes that benefit doing business outside the country, I do know that. But, not sure income tax increases at face value are the way to go. Will hold off until I read more.

 

[Spytheweb]

Before any tax change get rid of federal reserve banking system

Before any tax change get rid of federal reserve banking system

Notice that the true purpose of the income tax, according to Ruml, is to protect the totally unbacked Federal Reserve funny "money" from collapsing like the 1923 German mark. Its true purpose is to pay the people with one hand, and to confiscate with the other; thereby inhibiting the inflationary effect of ravenous government spending.

And the scheme has worked. The income tax has delayed the inevitable collapse of the dollar by offering a safety valve through which the inflationary pressure generated by that spending can more safely be released. The income tax does that by transferring purchasing power from the people to the government. Again, the income tax has nothing to do with supporting the government.

Beardsley Ruml said all this fifty-eight years ago. Is it still true today? On November 21, 2002, Ben S. Bernanke addressed the National Economists Club in the District of Conspiracy. Bernanke is one of seven governors of the Federal Reserve, and belongs to its crucial, top-secret Open Market Committee, so he is another horse?s mouth.

Indeed at a celebration of economist Milton Friedman?s 90th birthday, Bernanke wound up his accolade as follows: "Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton . . . regarding the Great Depression: You?re right, we did it."

Last November 21st, in the District of Conspiracy, Bernanke told the economists: "Like gold, U.S. dollars have value only to the extent that they are strictly limited in supply. But the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services. We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation."

In other words, nothing has changed. The Federal Reserve ? the billionaire totalitarian socialist conspirators who illegally force us to pay interest to use our own money ? needs the income tax. Americans don?t.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I liked the article on Drudge--much better than fox.
http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=133
'Largest individual income tax increase in American history'...

RANKING DEM'S NEW PLAN: 4% SURTAX ON INCOMES ABOVE $150,000...
TRIAL RUN FOR '09...

Dow Jones News Wire
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/N...CQDJON200710242253DOWJONESDJONLINE001107.htm&

REMEMBER this is in addition to the other proposed tax increases the mother of all tax increases--gov healthcare--increase self employment tax-50 cent a gal gas tax---

---and I thought somewhere the Dems had proposed all these spending cuts to slash deficit--instead of the increases GW has been vetoing-believe I will remind you--I told you which avenue they always take--should be big hit among their demographical non tax paying constituents.

 

[gardenweasel]

welcome back,nick

 

[Nick Douglas]

Good to see ya, gw.

 

[Chadman]

No surprise that you would prefer the take of the ranking republican on the committee when looking at the plan, Wayne. Shocking! A couple comments about the way the "take" explains things, maybe I'm incorrect in questioning it, I don't know.

1. This comment in particular: "Chairman Rangel will claim that these tax increases go to provide tax cuts to 90 million Americans, but he is selling pure snake-oil.* Many if not most of those taxpayers are getting a purely imaginary ?tax cut.?* Some of them are the roughly 20 million people that Republicans shielded with the Alternative Minimum Tax patch."

So, if I read this right, Rangel is selling snake oil by taking credit for an imaginary tax cut when the dems propose a shield for the AMT, while at the same time the republican takes credit for the same thing with an AMT patch? A patch is different from a shield in what way, exactly?

2. The republican is also claiming record "tax increases" when the existing planned tax cuts of '01 and '03 expire in 2010. This is an interesting take on tax legislation proposed and enacted by the President and republican majority, and the democrats are blamed for it?

Like you say, you can spin numbers pretty much any way you want. Easy to see why you link to the clearly politicized republican spin on the proposal.

 

[Chadman]

Interesting tidbit from the Dow Jones story you linked...

"A lobbyist tracking the bill said the provision would likely hurt those who benefited most from an October 2004 Act allowing a one-time amnesty to repatriate foreign income at reduced tax rates. Companies lobbied for the break arguing they would be able to use the money to create new jobs, but there has been little evidence to suggest that is what happened."

Hmm, do you think that might also be the case with the upper 1% of the people with rapidly escalating incomes? Is there any evidence to show that those who received tax cuts created new jobs, new businesses, etc? Maybe there is...would be interesting to measure this kind of thing, specifically, since it is the conservative battle cry. Evidently, there is little evidence of businesses using the extra money that way.

 

[djv]

Looks like a answer to ATM tax. 91/92 Mil folks get relief. 5/6 Mil folks help pay for it. Seems about right. Looks like it has something for business to.