08-16-2012, 09:39 AM
|
#560
|
Naega jeil jal naga
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, Georgia From: Silver Spring, Maryland
Age: 40
Posts: 14,750
|
Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
And the ironic thing is a tax increase would do almost nothing to help reduce the deficit.
Review & Outlook: The Obama Rule - WSJ.com
Quote:
The Obama Treasury's own numbers confirm that the tax would raise at most $5 billion a year—or less than 0.5% of the $1.2 trillion fiscal 2012 budget deficit and over the next decade a mere 0.1% of the $45.43 trillion the federal government will spend. When asked about those revenue projections, White House aide Jason Furman backpedaled from Mr. Obama's rationale by explaining that the tax was never intended "to bring the deficit down and the debt under control."
|
Quote:
The Buffett rule is really nothing more than a sneaky way for Mr. Obama to justify doubling the capital gains and dividend tax rate to 30% from 15% today. That's the real spread-the-wealth target. The problem is that this is a tax on capital that is needed for firms to grow and hire more workers. Mr. Obama says he wants an investment-led recovery, not one led by consumption, but how will investment be spurred by doubling the tax on it?
The only investment and hiring the Buffett rule is likely to spur will be outside the United States—in China, Germany, India, and other competitors with much more investment-friendly tax regimes. The Buffett rule would give the U.S. the fourth highest capital gains rate among OECD nations, according to a new study by Ernst & Young, to go along with what is now the highest corporate tax rate (a little under 40% for the combined federal and average state rate). That's what happens when politicians pursue fairness over growth.
|
__________________
"It's nice to be important, but its more important to be nice."
- Scooter
"I feel like Dirtbag has been slowly and methodically trolling the board for a month or so now."
- FRPLG
|
|
|