A bit more on this from Bloomberg.
Keeping the cap at $3.4 million, or indexed to inflation, may seem more reasonable. But then the cap is arbitrary and hardly has any impact. There's already a limit on how much people can contribute to these accounts each year ($53,000 for a 401(k), including employer match; $5,500 for an IRA if you are not self employed and under 50). These limits make it nearly impossible to have tens of millions of dollars in retirement accounts anyway.
The cap will initially only impact a rarefied population. But that population will grow as more people reach retirement with career-old-401(k) plans (defined contribution pension plans did not really catch on until the mid 1990s) and rates rise. There are better ways to reform the tax code and collect revenue from the wealthy. A cap based on current, historically low interest rates, merely adds more complication and little benefit.....snip~
The Problem With Obama's Plan to Limit Retirement Savings - Bloomberg Business
http://www.debatepolitics.com/govern...make-deal.html (Apple Avoids Big Taxes By Pretending It's Based In Ireland. "Let's Make a deal")
These new taxes would fund Infrastructure that almost everyone/every state/congress wants and the country needs.
Things DO have to be funded.
Otherwise there will rightly be deficit Criticism.
You can't agree with spending money but not taxing to get it.
Is there a better one?
And yes, MMC, It's troubling to see Obama's budget deficit rising into the out years. Not even pretense of balance.
But he is expecting GOP cuts from his opening gambit which may cut those deficits significantly.
So in the deal joG, may also be a cutting of our Too high overall top USA corporate 35% rate to 28%....The proposal improves on an idea that the administration has pushed since the summer of 2013. The administration's budget last year proposed a smaller four-year bridge-and-highway fund. While it paid for it by taxing accumulated foreign earnings, it did not specify a formula.
This time, the budget will call for the one-time tax on the up to $2 trillion in estimated U.S. corporate earnings that have accumulated overseas. That would generate about $238 billion, by White House calculations. The remaining $240 billion would come from the federal Highway Trust Fund, which is financed with a gasoline tax.
The former chairman of the House Ways and Means, now-retired Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., proposed a similar idea last year with a lower mandatory tax, but the plan did not make headway in Congress.
At issue is how to get companies to bring back some of their foreign earnings to invest in the United States. The current 35% top tax rate for corporations in the United States, the highest among major economies, serves as a disincentive and many U.S. companies with overseas holdings simply keep their foreign earnings abroad and avoid the U.S. tax.
Under Obama's plan, the top corporate tax rate for company profits earned in the U.S. would drop to 28%. While past foreign profits would be taxed immediately at the 14%, going forward new foreign profits would be taxed immediately at 19%, with companies getting a credit for foreign taxes paid....
IOW, More competitive, not less.
Though it probably needs to be even lower.
Last edited by mbig; 02-02-15 at 10:42 AM.
I'm personally sick of not being able to dunk a basketball because of racism.
I could care less what he is wanting the tax money for.
a subsidiary is a separate entity from it's holding company.
as long as that money doesn't enter the US the government cannot tax that money and has no legal authority to do so.
also that isn't a tax cut but a tax increase on businesses. that 28% is in addition to the taxes that they already pay in the US.
so not only are those companies having to pay taxes in their respective countries they now have to pay a tax in the US as well.
also it doesn't matter who the president is.