Kristof broke from his usually international beat and had a great article today regarding how the richest among us pay the lowest tax rates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/opinion/07kristof.html?_r=1

“The carried interest loophole represents everyone’s worst fear about the tax system — that the rich and powerful get away with murder,” says Victor Fleischer, a law professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, who has written about the issue. “Closing the loophole won’t fix the budget by itself, but it gets us one step closer to justice.”

This issue really is more about justice than balancing the budget, but justice in America is important.

A "just" is one where ALL people pay the same percentage with no deductions or "loopholes" I will be on vacation for a few days, but will try to follow this while traveling.

Kristof tweeted a quick response to his article

http://www.futureofcapitalism.com/2011/07/kristof-taxes-and-billionaires

I don't think it's very strong and there are some errors (likely any gold held by Paulson will be held in a manner than allows for the the 15% rate (like a futures contract)), but it's amazing to me that anyone (other than those who benefit) would defend this. Hedge fund people do NOT create jobs, they would admit as much themselves.

Years ago I knew a guy who worked at the Prediction Company, a group of physicists out of Santa Fe who developed these extremely complex realtime databases and computer models at a time when these tools were new to the financial world.

http://www.amazon.com/Predictors-Maverick-Physicists-Theory-Fortune/dp/0805057560

These guys had a window in the 1990s when they just cleaned up. The guy I knew was a young guy and he got out of it while they were still going strong. He said that they had created a competitive advantage in the financial markets where they could respond to events in the financial markets the fastest, by far. He explained that it was a zero sum game so if they won, there were losers, and the losers were most often big pension funds and institutions like TIAA-CREF and the State of Ohio municipal employees retirement fund. So he eventually quit largely because he didn't like enriching himself and his company at the expense of the "widows and orphans" as he put it.

The hedge fund guys do NOT create jobs, they do not create wealth, they just concentrate it.

"The larger question is this: Do we try to balance budget deficits just by cutting antipoverty initiatives, college scholarships and other investments in young people and our future? Or do we also seek tax increases from those best able to afford them? "

"And when Congressional Republicans claim that the reason for their recalcitrance in budget negotiations is concern for the welfare of ordinary Americans, look more closely. Do we really want to close down the American government and risk another global financial crisis to protect the tax bills of billionaires? "
______________________________________________________________________________________________

The last two paragraphs are what bother me the most. It is one thing to close tax loop holes it is another to increase taxes on the rich just because they are rich. The top 10% do pay 75% of the Federal taxes. I don't think you will find anybody who disagrees that the tax code HAS to be re-written. There is no way the hedge fund guys or even GE should get away with paying no taxes just because they hired the best accountants and lawyers to avoid any taxes they can, but also remember our corporations pay the highest corporate taxes in the world at 35%, when they pay it.
Rubio Marco said it best when addressing Congress when he said, "we don't need higher taxes we need more taxpayers" a shot at lowering the unemployment rate and create new taxpayers thus increasing revenue. A combination of this and a re-write of the tax code is something I would agree with. Better yet, kill the income tax and put in a consumption or fair tax.

Randy, it you believe this:

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:There's no question that the tax code needs an enema. And frankly Defiant could get elected president running on a platform that put as it's focal issue that the tax code needs to be rewritten. In all seriousness, campaigning on making the tax code, flat (fair), transparrent, and simple enough for the average citizen to understand without having to hire an accountant, would be a winning issue that would trump abortion, gun control, education, national defense, immigration, entitlements, and anything else. People vote first with their wallets, and candidates who vocally advocate more open tax policies will get more votes.

Why write this?

More wealth distribution communism from George today.

I agree with you. Does that make you a communist? LoL.

The tax code needs to be made more fair, we all need to feel that it is more fair. That's where justice comes into play. There can't be one set of rules for you and another for me. Politically, this is a no-brainier for the republicans. They should accept [at least] this one change, but I don't think they will. There is just way too much of their political money at stake.

geojanes wrote:The tax code needs to be made more fair, we all need to feel that it is more fair. That's where justice comes into play. There can't be one set of rules for you and another for me. Politically, this is a no-brainier for the republicans. They should accept [at least] this one change, but I don't think they will. There is just way too much of their political money at stake.

I don't know what you mean by "fair." That's not a helpful term--like when Harry Reid calls for "shared sacrifice." Useless.

A little more than half of American pays ZERO income tax. None. Zilch. Many of those net an Earned Income Credit, meaning they actually get a refund in spite of paying NO income taxes.

The rich, semi-rich, and middle class pay nearly all of the income taxes.

Republicans have called for tax reform and tax simplification, reducing of deductions, etc. Is that what you mean by "fair?"

The truth is Obama continues to blather about "tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires" while championing tax increases on those making as little as $200K. Now, I know he went to Ivy League schools and all, but does he know what a millionaire is? Hint: it's not $200K.

The tax increases he calls for are the equivalent of firing spitballs at the Sun. They won't have a significant impact and he knows that.

Where's his plan? How can he call anyone out on leadership when he's hiding behind half-truths and survey-tested words that either mislead or are meaningless?

I thought Kristof wrote the article. Did Obama ghost it?

danivon wrote:I thought Kristof wrote the article. Did Obama ghost it?

Kristof parrots Obama on economics, except when Obama isn't being shrill enough.

A little more than half of American pays ZERO income tax. None. Zilch

But they pay payroll taxes... Taxes is taxes.

Right now and for the last 76 years the US government revenue for taxes has been below the average . Usually tax revenues are around 18% of GDP. Right now they stand at 15.5%.
Tax rates are also at their lowest since the end of WWII...
That Tea Partiers are still complaining about "high taxes" is because no one puts the tax rates into the context of history.
But really, in a democracy how long can the richest 1% continue to convince the rest that they should be effectively taxed at a lower rate than many of those in the 50-99 percentiles?
Fairness is a subjective term.... How does someone earning $80,000 feel about paying an effctively higher tax rate than Paulson?

Doctor Fate wrote:I don't know what you mean by "fair." That's not a helpful term--like when Harry Reid calls for "shared sacrifice." Useless.

A little more than half of American pays ZERO income tax. None. Zilch. Many of those net an Earned Income Credit, meaning they actually get a refund in spite of paying NO income taxes.

The rich, semi-rich, and middle class pay nearly all of the income taxes.

Republicans have called for tax reform and tax simplification, reducing of deductions, etc. Is that what you mean by "fair?"

The article is [mostly] about the 15% rate that is given to hedge fund managers. They have this special treatment because they are very good at petitioning congress to make laws that serve their own self-interest. These few hundred individuals have some of the highest incomes and lowest rates of any working person in America.

Yet you seem confused by the word fair in application to this situation. Why?

rickyp wrote:

A little more than half of American pays ZERO income tax. None. Zilch

But they pay payroll taxes... Taxes is taxes.

Right now and for the last 76 years the US government revenue for taxes has been below the average . Usually tax revenues are around 18% of GDP. Right now they stand at 15.5%.
Tax rates are also at their lowest since the end of WWII...
That Tea Partiers are still complaining about "high taxes" is because no one puts the tax rates into the context of history.
But really, in a democracy how long can the richest 1% continue to convince the rest that they should be effectively taxed at a lower rate than many of those in the 50-99 percentiles?
Fairness is a subjective term.... How does someone earning $80,000 feel about paying an effctively higher tax rate than Paulson?

Ricky, I don't know where you got your stats but I googled this and it is showing United States at 26.9% of GDP, not very appealing.
By the time you get done with all the taxes one pays it is near 50% of income, fed, state, local, sales, our founders never envisioned this kind of tax rate while 50% percent don't pay anywhere near this.
They were of the mindset you take care of yourself and contribute to society and now we are turning into a nanny state. That is not the United States that was created.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... age_of_GDP

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I don't know what you mean by "fair." That's not a helpful term--like when Harry Reid calls for "shared sacrifice." Useless.

A little more than half of American pays ZERO income tax. None. Zilch. Many of those net an Earned Income Credit, meaning they actually get a refund in spite of paying NO income taxes.

The rich, semi-rich, and middle class pay nearly all of the income taxes.

Republicans have called for tax reform and tax simplification, reducing of deductions, etc. Is that what you mean by "fair?"

The article is [mostly] about the 15% rate that is given to hedge fund managers. They have this special treatment because they are very good at petitioning congress to make laws that serve their own self-interest. These few hundred individuals have some of the highest incomes and lowest rates of any working person in America.

Yet you seem confused by the word fair in application to this situation. Why?

I'm not confused. I don't think "fair" is a helpful word. It is a "useful" word only to those who enjoy and employ class warfare.

Democrats controlled Congress for 4 years, why didn't they address this? Obama is President and had an unassailable majority in Congress for quite some time. If this is so "unfair," why didn't he address it?

Why is it only coming up now, when the Great Uniter is using rhetoric like "holding a gun against the heads of the American people?"

rickyp wrote:

A little more than half of American pays ZERO income tax. None. Zilch

But they pay payroll taxes... Taxes is taxes.

No, it's really not. You might as well say illegal immigrants pay gasoline taxes.

Income tax is separate from payroll taxes. People expect to get some tangible, spendable return on payroll taxes. Not only do many not pay income taxes, they also get a direct "refund" on money that others do pay (EIC).

Essentially, more than 50% of the population is dependent upon the rest of society to carry the weight for them. This is not healthy and lends itself to class warfare. I have no problem with the wealthy paying more. I don't think it bodes well for the country when so many have zero vested interest in the income tax rates. In other words, half the country does not care how high the rates go--it won't impact them.

Doctor Fate wrote:

geojanes wrote:Yet you seem confused by the word fair in application to this situation. Why?

I'm not confused. I don't think "fair" is a helpful word. It is a "useful" word only to those who enjoy and employ class warfare.

Can we forget politics for a moment? Forget Obama, Reid, and all of them. Is that possible? If so, try and then consider the following question: Is it right, or fair, or just, or American, or [your adjective] that fantastically compensated hedge fund managers pay a lower tax rate than just about every other working person?

geojanes wrote:Can we forget politics for a moment? Forget Obama, Reid, and all of them. Is that possible? If so, try and then consider the following question: Is it right, or fair, or just, or American, or [your adjective] that fantastically compensated hedge fund managers pay a lower tax rate than just about every other working person?

I have to be honest: I don't care. You and Kristof are attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill: Your hero wrote:

So take a look at one of the tax loopholes that Congressional Republicans are refusing to close — even if the cost is that America’s credit rating blows up. This loophole has nothing to do with creating jobs and everything to do with protecting some of America’s wealthiest financiers.

If there were an award for Most Unconscionable Tax Loophole, this one would win grand prize.

Wait, wake up! I know that “tax policy” makes one’s eyes glaze over, but that’s how financiers have gotten away with paying a lower tax rate than their chauffeurs or personal trainers. Tycoons have bet for years that the public is too stupid or distracted to note that in many cases they’re paying just a 15 percent tax rate.

What’s at stake is the “carried interest” loophole, and President Obama is pushing to close it. The White House estimates that this would raise $20 billion over a decade. But Congressional Republicans walked out of budget talks rather than discuss raising revenues from measures such as this one.

$20 billion over a decade? $2 billion a year?

Sorry, that's just not a serious proposal. It is smoke and mirrors put forth to obscure the fact that the President has no plan whatsoever to lower the deficit. None. You want me to ignore the politics--but the whole article, and everything the President has done over the past several months, is politics.

So what if I do think it's "unfair?" If I gave the President everything he's asking for, our deficit is still a smoking crater.

Personally, I wish the GOP would come on TV and say, "We have decided to give the President his biggest requests. We will immediately put forth legislation to close the hedge fund loophole and to adjust the deductions for private jets he's been bleating about. Now, perhaps he can tell us what cuts in spending he's willing to make. We eagerly await his plan to reduce our debt and put an end to endless deficit spending."