Wrong. There is a capital gains rate, and the only interest expense a family may deduct is mortgage interest, which BTW, has been deductible as long as we have had an income tax.Our tax code punishes people for saving and investing (which is economically beneficial) and rewards them for going into debt in order to consume (which is economically harmful).
No, there's a hefty penalty on remaining single and childless. However, IMO, "encouraging stable families" is no more the proper goal of a tax that "discouraging smoking". Taxes should raise revenue, period.It punishes people for getting married and forming stable families in which to raise children.
How so? Yes, there are limits on deductions for the expenses associated with passive income and hobbies, but these are necessary to curb tax avoidance.It discourages new business formation and investment.
I dunno whether I agree with this or not.It encourages malinvestment and helps to feed bubbles.
Not sure about your numbers, but yes, the cost of compliance is too high. I'd support a flat tax partially for this reason -- however, the costs associated with third party reporting are offset by their efficiencies and the tax avoidance they inhibit.On top of all that, it costs us a huge amount of money to maintain. We could fight four wars the size of Iraq and Afghanistan, and still have enough left to fund the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, NASA, and the EPA; just on the cost of compliance alone.
What complexity? The IRS Code's? Unless you can explain which loophole you are closing, I cannot agree.The Laffer center estimates that if we could just cut our complexity in half, we would gain 0.5% of extra growth every year which means it would compound over time.
This is my "don't kid a kidder" face, cpwill. No way will Romney do any such thing.That's why both the Bi-Partisan Bowles Simpson plan, the 2012 House Republican plan, and the Romney plan build on the success of earlier tax reforms and strip out corporate welfare, tax loopholes, and complexities in the tax code and replace it with flatter, lower rates with minimized compliance costs and minimized ability to avoid taxes as a necessary step in stimulating economic growth.
First, no one can predict that any closed loophole will generate more revenue. There'll be pushback from the sector who had been enjoying it, and the tax bar is VERY creative. Second, only a naive person could believe Romney will "end corporate welfare", as he'd be defeating the interests of his core constituency as well as betraying the "promise" of trickle down.That they are revenue neutral (IE: since they cut rates only enough to make up the gain given by the stripping of the loopholes) is an added bonus - though Bowles-Simpson estimates it will get us an extra $100 Billion a year, which it suggested we should automatically peg towards debt reduction.
What "loss of uncertainty"? There's an unavoidable efficiency cost associated with every change to the IRS Code.Both of those predictions, it should be noted, are (as i understand it) scored statically; given the likely growth following that significant reduction in complexity there is a strong argument to be made that revenues would rise by considerably more than that. The growth from the loss of complexity and the loss of uncertainty would be explosive and compounding, meaning that every year the effect would be stronger.
BP Oil Spill? Ring any bells?The unemployment rate right now in North Dakota is about 3%. In oil country, even truck drivers can make six figures. We have more oil in the Rocky Mountains alone than Saudi Arabia has; and we have even more natural gas and oil along our shorelines, and even more coal. Energy jobs are A) blue collar jobs that B) pay significantly higher than the median wage and C) cannot be shipped overseas, ever. The growth potentials of this are amazing, and the jobs that would be directly and indirectly created are legion. I'm a pretty pessimistic guy when it comes to our nations' fiscal state, but the growth potential in our energy sector is one of the few things that really gets' me excited. We need to make like Canada, Great Britain, and Russia, and start taking advantage of it to create decent jobs and higher living standards for our people.
Romney was a fund manager who did a lot of mergers and acquisitions, cpwill. I know these guys and their henchmen -- they might possibly have lower morals than your average politician.Generally, Romney is a businessman. He knows how to make stuff grow, and he knows that his reelection would be dependent on him doing so. Obama is a college lecturer. He knows how to give good monologues, but the operations of the free market are a bit opaque to him, so of course he isn't going to be able to handle it skillfully.
OTOH, I do not know any corrupt college or law school professors.