PDA

View Full Version : Economics Huntsman releases plan on taxes


FD
09-01-2011, 09:32 AM
Huntsman tax plan goes big and bold

Current polls say Jon Huntsman, former Utah governor and ambassador to China, isn’t a top tier candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. But he certainly has a top-tier economic plan. Huntsman will offer a broad proposal later today – covering taxes, regulation, trade and energy. But I already had a peek at the tax part. And I think it is excellent. Huntsman says he would do the following:

1) Eliminate all deductions and credits in favor of three drastically lower rates of 8%, 14% and 23%.

2) Eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax.

3) Eliminate taxes on capital gains and dividends in order to eliminate the double taxation on investment.

4) Reduce the corporate rate from 35% To 25%. Huntsman would also shift to a territorial tax system and implement a tax holiday for the repatriation of foreign earnings.

Basically, this is the “zero option” Bowles-Simpson tax plan that lowers marginal tax rates and broadens the tax base. But there is at least one big difference. B-S would use part of the money from axing some $1 trillion in annual tax breaks to lower marginal rates and part for deficit reduction – a net tax hike. Huntsman would divert that extra tax revenue into “paying for” the elimination of investment taxes.

At first glance, this looks like perhaps the most pro-growth, pro-market (and anti-crony capitalist) tax plan put forward by a major U.S. president candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1980. But it is not without political risk. In addition to killing tax breaks for businesses, Huntsman would eliminate the mortgage interest deduction, healthcare exclusion, and the child tax credit among other “tax expenditures. ” We’re talking about a whole herd of sacred cows. Both his fellow presidential candidates and Washington lobbyists will likely attack him for some of those ideas.

I would like to see an analysis of the plan’s distributional impact on various household income tax levels. In addition, a CBO-style revenue and spending breakdown would be helpful. Keep on the look out for a chat I had with Huntsman about his economic plan. I will post it sometime after his speech later today on the proposal.
http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2011/08/31/huntsman-tax-plan-goes-big-and-bold/

This looks like a really well thought out and attractive plan. I hope the other GOP candidates soon follow his lead.

Jenson71
09-01-2011, 09:38 AM
I'm not versed well enough in the benefits and costs of those particular taxes, but Huntsman seems like a candidate who values substance over style, and it seems like he would be a benefit to national politics if he remained in leadership positions.

Amnorix
09-01-2011, 09:45 AM
Losing the mortgage deduction is absolutely insane, IMHO.

mlyonsd
09-01-2011, 09:51 AM
Losing the mortgage deduction is absolutely insane, IMHO.Rich bastard.

FD
09-01-2011, 09:54 AM
Losing the mortgage deduction is absolutely insane, IMHO.

Its a huge subsidy to the housing industry that is based on no economic logic. Killing it and offsetting it with lower rates is win-win, you eliminate a distortionary subsidy and increase incentives on everyone.

Cave Johnson
09-01-2011, 09:55 AM
Huntsman's utterly irrelevant in this election cycle, as is his plan.

And, for the record, not all cap gains are double taxed.

cdcox
09-01-2011, 10:06 AM
Its a huge subsidy to the housing industry that is based on no economic logic. Killing it and offsetting it with lower rates is win-win, you eliminate a distortionary subsidy and increase incentives on everyone.

Housing starts drive consumption and the American economy. So other than that, you are right, it has no economic logic.

petegz28
09-01-2011, 10:08 AM
Housing starts drive consumption and the American economy. So other than that, you are right, it has no economic logic.

Agreed except a tax deduction on the interest you pay on your house should never, ever be a factor in your decision to buy a home. If it is then you can't afford the home and don't need to buy it in the first place.

Cave Johnson
09-01-2011, 10:18 AM
Housing starts drive consumption and the American economy. So other than that, you are right, it has no economic logic.

Agreed except a tax deduction on the interest you pay on your house should never, ever be a factor in your decision to buy a home. If it is then you can't afford the home and don't need to buy it in the first place.

Kids, kids, you're both right. It's a tax incentive that distorts the market, but it also encourages economic development.

The problem is, getting rid of it right now would be a killshot to an already fragile housing market.

SNR
09-01-2011, 10:19 AM
I'm not a Huntsman hater like most on this board are.

But I do find it funny that every time this guy farts the national media's like, "Uhhhhp. You guys hear that? I think it's the rumblings of a successful election campaign by Huntsman!!! Let's investigate!"

BucEyedPea
09-01-2011, 10:29 AM
I don't like getting rid of deductions and credits for lower rates. Because politicians after him will increase the rates and then folks are screwed.

evenfall
09-01-2011, 10:32 AM
I tend to discount him, probably unfairly, because (a) he has no recognition with me at all, and (b) the only people I know who he rates with are moderates/RINOs

Amnorix
09-01-2011, 10:35 AM
Its a huge subsidy to the housing industry that is based on no economic logic. Killing it and offsetting it with lower rates is win-win, you eliminate a distortionary subsidy and increase incentives on everyone.


If you want to phase it out over time, that's fine, but you've got a real estate market that is on its knees and you're basically suggesting shooting it with a shotgun. Doesn't seem like good policy (or at least good TIMING on that policy) to me.

You want to do a phase out beginning 5 years from now and completely phasing it out in 15 years, or something....that might be workable/sensible.

FishingRod
09-01-2011, 10:52 AM
Overall the plan sounds good. To address the concerns mentioned, by either grandfathering in existing mortgages or phasing them out over a period of 5-10 years it would certainly give a short term bump in housing sales and give some time to adjust to the new tax code. I really don’t see where the Government should be involved in its citizens choices of buying a home or choosing to get married or have children. Why should someone receive a lower tax rate than my daughters because they are unmarried, rent and have managed not to give birth to a litter of children?

donkhater
09-01-2011, 11:01 AM
The tax holiday for the repatriation of foreign earnings isn't the greatest idea either.

So companies get the signal that they can bring all that money back into the world's largest market tax free for one year (for example). At the end of the year, they go back to keeping it off shore until the next politcian proposes it again. You might as well eliminate taxes on foreign earnings, because that is essentially what this does.

FD
09-01-2011, 11:07 AM
Housing starts drive consumption and the American economy. So other than that, you are right, it has no economic logic.

The long term housing stock has nothing to do with how mortgage interest is taxed. It just effects the composition of buyers/renters.

FD
09-01-2011, 11:08 AM
If you want to phase it out over time, that's fine, but you've got a real estate market that is on its knees and you're basically suggesting shooting it with a shotgun. Doesn't seem like good policy (or at least good TIMING on that policy) to me.

You want to do a phase out beginning 5 years from now and completely phasing it out in 15 years, or something....that might be workable/sensible.

I agree it would hurt the housing market to eliminate it right now, but having it kick in in 5 years or so would probably boost sales now as people try to take advantage of it.

petegz28
09-01-2011, 11:18 AM
The tax holiday for the repatriation of foreign earnings isn't the greatest idea either.

So companies get the signal that they can bring all that money back into the world's largest market tax free for one year (for example). At the end of the year, they go back to keeping it off shore until the next politcian proposes it again. You might as well eliminate taxes on foreign earnings, because that is essentially what this does.

Actually I think the tax holiday is a great idea. Yes, there needs to be some added to it but in general it's the best idea out there at this time to get capital back into this country.

petegz28
09-01-2011, 11:25 AM
If you want to phase it out over time, that's fine, but you've got a real estate market that is on its knees and you're basically suggesting shooting it with a shotgun. Doesn't seem like good policy (or at least good TIMING on that policy) to me.

You want to do a phase out beginning 5 years from now and completely phasing it out in 15 years, or something....that might be workable/sensible.


The real estate market is on its knees already with the deduction AND super low interest rates. Neither are helping. The only logical reason at this time to no fully implelent the tax deduction now is because of the job scenario. When will people get the fact that to better the housing market and every other situation there has to be jobs. People don't give a fuck about interest rates and deductions when they have a fucking job.

Secondly the housing market is flooded. That's the problem. You had too many people taking on debt they could never afford and instead of letting free market principles take place you have constant intervention to try and make up for what should not have ever been done in the first place.

I would start all of the above items immdediately and phase in the mortgage deduction piece once jobs started coming back.

patteeu
09-01-2011, 11:27 AM
Sign me up. It sounds like a great plan and a big step in the right direction toward the kind of tax system our country needs to encourage deficit-reducing, job-producing growth in the economy. It's also good because it shifts our tax focus away from taxing production and toward taxing consumption which is important for our ability to compete in the global economy.

I understand that wacking the home mortgage deduction would be a major change and I'd be open to proposals for a more gradual transition, but eliminating that major distortion is better in the long run than preserving it.

If this was the top campaign issue for the Huntsman campaign, I could see myself voting for him. Hopefully, some of the more viable candidates will adopt similar tax proposals.

KC native
09-01-2011, 11:38 AM
Great plan aside from the elimination of cap gains/investment taxes.

petegz28
09-01-2011, 11:48 AM
Great plan aside from the elimination of cap gains/investment taxes.

I agree on the Cap Gains, but not for the reason most would. I think the lower the Cap Gains tax the more volatility you have in the market. Perhaps the happy medium is the elimination of long term cap gains but keep short term? Otherwise the population of traders will grow exponentially and volatility will surely skyrocket in the markets.

Dividends however could be an issue. The corporation pays taxes and then pays dividends on after tax profits. So to tax someone on dividends is truly double-taxation. Plus I think tax free dividend income will spur more investment and be a nice offset for people who depend on dividends but will lose other deductions.

Calcountry
09-01-2011, 12:10 PM
http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2011/08/31/huntsman-tax-plan-goes-big-and-bold/

This looks like a really well thought out and attractive plan. I hope the other GOP candidates soon follow his lead.Sorry, *untsman will not be getting my vote. *untsman is a *unt.

Amnorix
09-01-2011, 01:53 PM
Actually I think the tax holiday is a great idea. Yes, there needs to be some added to it but in general it's the best idea out there at this time to get capital back into this country.


You realize there is absolutely NO shortage of capital in this country amongst large corporations, the largest 500 of which are collectively sitting on over a trillion dollars in CASH...?

Calcountry
09-01-2011, 02:17 PM
You realize there is absolutely NO shortage of capital in this country amongst large corporations, the largest 500 of which are collectively sitting on over a trillion dollars in CASH...?How about some fascism, either they hire people, or have that money taxed so that the government can hire people, right?

banyon
09-01-2011, 06:22 PM
Actually I think the tax holiday is a great idea. Yes, there needs to be some added to it but in general it's the best idea out there at this time to get capital back into this country.

It didn't work when we did it in 2004. Virtually none of the money went to reinvestment in capital investments or job creation. Almost all of it was used by corporate boards to do buybacks (which aren't even usually accretive to shareholders).

banyon
09-01-2011, 06:24 PM
How about some fascism, either they hire people, or have that money taxed so that the government can hire people, right?

That's straight out of Mein Kampf isn't it?

Brainiac
09-01-2011, 08:48 PM
I don't like getting rid of deductions and credits for lower rates. Because politicians after him will increase the rates and then folks are screwed.

I've always thought exactly the same thing.

patteeu
09-02-2011, 07:18 AM
I've always thought exactly the same thing.

It's certainly a reasonable fear given that that's kind of what happened to the Reagan tax reform of 1986.

That's why, IMO, we ought to go to a completely flat rate tax and amend the constitution to prevent progressive rate schemes. Then any tax rate increases will impact everyone proportionally and we'll all be in the same political boat.

NaptownChief
09-02-2011, 07:33 AM
Great plan aside from the elimination of cap gains/investment taxes.



Why?

NaptownChief
09-02-2011, 07:39 AM
Overall I really like this plan and largely agree with it. However getting rid of credits and deductions for homeownership would be devastating on the real estate market. People would be dumping expensive homes into the market like crazy. And if by chance a person's overall tax bill went up then many people would add to the foreclosures cause they couldn't flat out afford the home. Combine that with all those just flat out dumping them because of the loss of the tax benefits and millions of more homes will go underwater.

Further kill the real estate market and you probably put the final nail in the US economy.

Amnorix
09-02-2011, 07:43 AM
How about some fascism, either they hire people, or have that money taxed so that the government can hire people, right?



? You're talking about bringing the money back? The standard rule is that income that is repatriated is taxed. Once you take the income in the US, you're taxed on it, cuz, you know, it's INCOME, and we have an INCOME TAX CODE.

I'm amazed at how often I have to mention this. It's like people don't get that an INCOME tax taxes....errr.......wait a minute.....let me think......oh right.....INCOME!

mlyonsd
09-02-2011, 07:55 AM
It's certainly a reasonable fear given that that's kind of what happened to the Reagan tax reform of 1986.

That's why, IMO, we ought to go to a completely flat rate tax and amend the constitution to prevent progressive rate schemes. Then any tax rate increases will impact everyone proportionally and we'll all be in the same political boat.Preach it brother.

cookster50
09-02-2011, 08:55 AM
The tax holiday for the repatriation of foreign earnings isn't the greatest idea either.

So companies get the signal that they can bring all that money back into the world's largest market tax free for one year (for example). At the end of the year, they go back to keeping it off shore until the next politcian proposes it again. You might as well eliminate taxes on foreign earnings, because that is essentially what this does.

Sounds like amnesty for illegal aliens.

KC native
09-02-2011, 10:09 AM
Why?

B/C a large number of wealthy citizens would never pay taxes if that was the case. It would also strengthen the plutocracy that our country is becoming.

NaptownChief
09-02-2011, 01:13 PM
B/C a large number of wealthy citizens would never pay taxes if that was the case. It would also strengthen the plutocracy that our country is becoming.



Do you understand what a dividend is? Companies can only pay dividends if they have earnings. Those earnings are taxed. If you are a share holder then you are a owner of that company and your earnings is taxed. It is taxed at 35%. State of California Corporate tax rate is 8.84%.

So if you have ownership in a company and receive a dollar in earnings it will be taxed at the corporate level with state and fed rate combined at nearly 46% leaving you 56 cents. Let's say you make a good living and also live in California. If Dems had their way and no preferential treatment on dividends then you would pay 35% to the Fed and around 10% for state and local taxes. So your 56 cents being taxed another 45% leaves you about 31 cents.

So you just earned $1 as a company owner and the government just rapped you for 69% and let you keep 31%.

That sounds fair to you?

KC native
09-02-2011, 01:59 PM
Do you understand what a dividend is? Companies can only pay dividends if they have earnings. Those earnings are taxed. If you are a share holder then you are a owner of that company and your earnings is taxed. It is taxed at 35%. State of California Corporate tax rate is 8.84%.

So if you have ownership in a company and receive a dollar in earnings it will be taxed at the corporate level with state and fed rate combined at nearly 46% leaving you 56 cents. Let's say you make a good living and also live in California. If Dems had their way and no preferential treatment on dividends then you would pay 35% to the Fed and around 10% for state and local taxes. So your 56 cents being taxed another 45% leaves you about 31 cents.

So you just earned $1 as a company owner and the government just rapped you for 69% and let you keep 31%.

That sounds fair to you?

I have no problem with the taxation of dividends. if you don't want to be taxed on them, then don't buy companies that pay them.

Stewie
09-02-2011, 02:14 PM
I have no problem with the taxation of dividends. if you don't want to be taxed on them, then don't buy companies that pay them.

Your mode of thinking is why Obama is such a failure and falling fast.

KC native
09-02-2011, 02:18 PM
Your mode of thinking is why Obama is such a failure and falling fast.

You are fucking stupid. Go look up how longs dividends have been taxed. This isn't anything new or radical. Eliminating the taxation on them, however, is.

Stewie
09-02-2011, 02:21 PM
You are fucking stupid. Go look up how longs dividends have been taxed. This isn't anything new or radical. Eliminating the taxation on them, however, is.

Wow! Really? You're a genious. Do you make money anywhere, EVER?

KC native
09-02-2011, 02:24 PM
Wow! Really? You're a genious. Do you make money anywhere, EVER?

Keep buying those gold coins and believing that wall st makes no money on gold, dumbass.

Stewie
09-02-2011, 02:28 PM
Keep buying those gold coins and believing that wall st makes no money on gold, dumbass.

Huh? The banks on Wall Street are short gold. They're being pounded in the ass. They try to play the gold paper game, but that game is over.

KC native
09-02-2011, 02:31 PM
Huh? The banks on Wall Street are short gold. They're being pounded in the ass. They try to play the gold paper game, but that game is over.

Rofl you have evidence to back your claim or are you talking out your ass again?

Also, I like how you say they play the paper game but that paper game price is what you hold out as proof you're doing well with your gold coins.

Stewie
09-02-2011, 02:38 PM
Rofl you have evidence to back your claim or are you talking out your ass again?

Also, I like how you say they play the paper game but that paper game price is what you hold out as proof you're doing well with your gold coins.

Do some fucking research. JPM and Goldman have huge short positions in gold and are getting buried.

The paper gold market is a sham. It has been dying for months. The physical market is taking over.

What was gold when we started a discussion? $600? I don't remember and really don't care.

Amnorix
09-02-2011, 02:47 PM
Do you understand what a dividend is? Companies can only pay dividends if they have earnings. Those earnings are taxed. If you are a share holder then you are a owner of that company and your earnings is taxed. It is taxed at 35%. State of California Corporate tax rate is 8.84%.

So if you have ownership in a company and receive a dollar in earnings it will be taxed at the corporate level with state and fed rate combined at nearly 46% leaving you 56 cents. Let's say you make a good living and also live in California. If Dems had their way and no preferential treatment on dividends then you would pay 35% to the Fed and around 10% for state and local taxes. So your 56 cents being taxed another 45% leaves you about 31 cents.

So you just earned $1 as a company owner and the government just rapped you for 69% and let you keep 31%.

That sounds fair to you?

You're grossly simplifying. Depreciation, for example, can greatly lower one's tax bill without really reflecting a loss in the value of assets.

In any event, there are plenty of pass-through options available for the small business owner and really any business hort of a large publicly held corporation. I'm not an expert on REITs, but I believe even those manage to avoid double taxation (not sure about this).

As for the rest, the issue is the idea of taxing passive income received by the investor at a substantially lower (or zero, as it seems you advocate) rate than income received for actual work. It's more than a little counterintuitive to tax a passive investor who does nothing except deploy his money at a substantially lower rate for his "income" than the poor bastard working a 40 hour work week.

Amnorix
09-02-2011, 03:01 PM
Do you understand what a dividend is? Companies can only pay dividends if they have earnings. Those earnings are taxed. If you are a share holder then you are a owner of that company and your earnings is taxed. It is taxed at 35%. State of California Corporate tax rate is 8.84%.

So if you have ownership in a company and receive a dollar in earnings it will be taxed at the corporate level with state and fed rate combined at nearly 46% leaving you 56 cents. Let's say you make a good living and also live in California. If Dems had their way and no preferential treatment on dividends then you would pay 35% to the Fed and around 10% for state and local taxes. So your 56 cents being taxed another 45% leaves you about 31 cents.

So you just earned $1 as a company owner and the government just rapped you for 69% and let you keep 31%.

That sounds fair to you?


Actually, let me flip this around -- say you own a small to mid-sized company. You don't draw a salary. Your company makes $1MM per year in pure profits. Do you believe the business owner should be able to take $1MM a year out of the company COMPLETELY TAX FREE? NOT EVEN SOCIAL SECURITY (he's not subject to payroll tax under this scenario, obviously)?

That sound fair to you?

KC native
09-02-2011, 03:17 PM
Do some fucking research. JPM and Goldman have huge short positions in gold and are getting buried.

The paper gold market is a sham. It has been dying for months. The physical market is taking over.

What was gold when we started a discussion? $600? I don't remember and really don't care.


The paper market is a sham unless you use the paper market's price to prove your point. Riiiiiiiiight. ROFL

So, you don't have any evidence that GS or JPM are short gold?

Stewie
09-02-2011, 03:25 PM
The paper market is a sham unless you use the paper market's price to prove your point. Riiiiiiiiight. ROFL

So, you don't have any evidence that GS or JPM are short gold?

The paper market is under valued. Try to buy an ounce of gold for $1800.

Evidence that GS and JPM are short gold? Yep. It's in their financial statements.

Stewie
09-02-2011, 03:35 PM
This has been going on for years.

http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/373/gold9211.jpg

patteeu
09-02-2011, 03:35 PM
B/C a large number of wealthy citizens would never pay taxes if that was the case. It would also strengthen the plutocracy that our country is becoming.

They would if they had jobs, just like poor people. It's not a wealth tax. We can make sure that rich people who lounge around the pool clipping coupons pay a fair share of taxes by replacing the income tax with a consumption tax.

KC native
09-02-2011, 03:42 PM
The paper market is under valued. Try to buy an ounce of gold for $1800.

Evidence that GS and JPM are short gold? Yep. It's in their financial statements.

If it's in their financial statements then it should be easy for you to point out.

KC native
09-02-2011, 03:44 PM
They would if they had jobs, just like poor people. It's not a wealth tax. We can make sure that rich people who lounge around the pool clipping coupons pay a fair share of taxes by replacing the income tax with a consumption tax.

Yea, except I've already shown you that a consumption tax disproportionately burdens the poor and middle classes.

Stewie
09-02-2011, 03:50 PM
If it's in their financial statements then it should be easy for you to point out.

Do your own fucking work. It's there in black and white.

I had no idea you didn't look at financial statements. With your vast knowledge of every investment that has lost money over the years I figured you'd be a pro about how to lose money.

Today was a BIG day for me. Woohoo!

KC native
09-02-2011, 04:04 PM
Do your own fucking work. It's there in black and white.

I had no idea you didn't look at financial statements. With your vast knowledge of every investment that has lost money over the years I figured you'd be a pro about how to lose money.

Today was a BIG day for me. Woohoo!

I'm not the one making the claims. You make the claim. You back it up.

Aside from that, if you think that financial statements are accurate for telling where they are invested, then you are more fucking retarded than I thought.

Have you ever even looked at financial statements?

Stewie
09-02-2011, 04:11 PM
I'm not the one making the claims. You make the claim. You back it up.

Aside from that, if you think that financial statements are accurate for telling where they are invested, then you are more fucking retarded than I thought.

Have you ever even looked at financial statements?

Really? There's nothing to be gained from financial statements? And you can't figure out where money is flowing with big money?

No wonder you missed the huge rise in gold.

BTW, I've been killing the market for years.


The writing was on the wall in 2001, but you missed it... SORRY!

BTW, I've been killing your "market" for years.

KC native
09-02-2011, 04:15 PM
Really? There's nothing to be gained from financial statements? And you can't figure out where money is flowing with big money?

No wonder you missed the huge rise in gold.

The writing was on the wall in 2001, but you missed it... SORRY!

Where did I say there was nothing to be gained from financial statements? You just keep digging the idiot gold bug hole deeper when you say shit like this. Financial statements are very valuable and I've never said anything to the contrary.

But please enlighten us as to where JPM or GS actually breaks out their individual commodity positions in their financial statements.

KC native
09-02-2011, 04:17 PM
Really? There's nothing to be gained from financial statements? And you can't figure out where money is flowing with big money?

No wonder you missed the huge rise in gold.

BTW, I've been killing the market for years.


The writing was on the wall in 2001, but you missed it... SORRY!

BTW, I've been killing your "market" for years.

Cute edits. Until you sell your gold coins and get your money out of them, then you haven't beaten shit. You've already been shown to be full of shit when it comes to your claimed return numbers. Keep adding to the bullshit.

Stewie
09-02-2011, 04:20 PM
Meh. You're boring. Where are your gains? I've shown mine.

KC native
09-02-2011, 04:23 PM
Meh. You're boring. Where are your gains? I've shown mine.

Run away from your claims as fast as you can. I'm still waiting for you to show us where in the financial statements that GS or JPM say they're short gold.

Stewie
09-02-2011, 04:24 PM
Cute edits. Until you sell your gold coins and get your money out of them, then you haven't beaten shit. You've already been shown to be full of shit when it comes to your claimed return numbers. Keep adding to the bullshit.

Sorry you've lost money. Don't take it out on me that's made a ton of money in this market.

Stewie
09-02-2011, 04:25 PM
Run away from your claims as fast as you can. I'm still waiting for you to show us where in the financial statements that GS or JPM say they're short gold.

Really? You're so ignorant that you don't understand why the banks don't like gold?

KC native
09-02-2011, 04:26 PM
Sorry you've lost money. Don't take it out on me that's made a ton of money in this market.

I haven't lost shit. I got out before the crash and went into the markets for an 8% bump in 3 months in 09. I underestimated government stimulus so I got out before most of the rally happened.

Keep making shit up though. It makes your gold bug nuttiness that much more hilarious.

KC native
09-02-2011, 04:28 PM
Really? You're so ignorant that you don't understand why the banks don't like gold?

OMFG, this bullshit again. Please tell us why banks don't like managed futures accounts, or gold etf buyers. Please us why they don't like commissions on the trades in the gold market or why they don't like their proprietary positions.

Keep running from the financial statements claim too. ROFL

Stewie
09-02-2011, 04:34 PM
I haven't lost shit. I got out before the crash and went into the markets for an 8% bump in 3 months in 09. I underestimated government stimulus so I got out before most of the rally happened.

Keep making shit up though. It makes your gold bug nuttiness that much more hilarious.

Huh?

Gold isn't at $1800+?

8%? Wow!

I don't make shit up. I'm pretty sure gold is killing all markets.

Weren't you so sure about gold a couple of years ago? Yeah, I thought so.

Stewie
09-02-2011, 04:36 PM
OMFG, this bullshit again. Please tell us why banks don't like managed futures accounts, or gold etf buyers. Please us why they don't like commissions on the trades in the gold market or why they don't like their proprietary positions.

Keep running from the financial statements claim too. ROFL

I'd respond but you can't put a put a sentence together.

KC native
09-02-2011, 04:39 PM
Huh?

Gold isn't at $1800+?

8%? Wow!

I don't make shit up. I'm pretty sure gold is killing all markets.

Weren't you so sure about gold a couple of years ago? Yeah, I thought so.

Again, you buy gold coins. When you sell those (which you'll probably never do because your gold bug nuttiness is almost equivalent to BEP's general nuttiness) then you can claim a return. Until then, all you have is a shiny gold coin.

At least my performance numbers are honest unlike the shit you try to throw around.

So, when are you going to show us where in the financial statements that GS or JPM say they are short gold? Or when are you going to show us that banks hate gold because they don't make any money on it?

KC native
09-02-2011, 04:39 PM
I'd respond but you can't put a put a sentence together.

You haven't responded to one thing that you've been challenged on in these posts. You really are a special kind of BEP type of crazy.

go bowe
09-02-2011, 05:52 PM
You haven't responded to one thing that you've been challenged on in these posts. You really are a special kind of BEP type of crazy.

i dunno...

ms peabrain is pretty nuts on all subjects, not just gold...

mikey23545
09-02-2011, 05:57 PM
Yea, except I've already shown you that a consumption tax disproportionately burdens the poor and middle classes.

Nearly half the wage earners in this country pay no income tax at all....Is that the poor you're talking about?

NaptownChief
09-02-2011, 06:19 PM
You are ****ing stupid. Go look up how longs dividends have been taxed. This isn't anything new or radical. Eliminating the taxation on them, however, is.


Murder has been going on for thousands of years but that doesn't make it reasonable or the right thing to do.

NaptownChief
09-02-2011, 06:25 PM
Yea, except I've already shown you that a consumption tax disproportionately burdens the poor and middle classes.

Disproportionately over the current situation of not pay shit....but ignoring the current shitty system, a consumption tax couldn't be more proportionate. People are taxed exactly proportionate. Poor people don't buy much so they are taxed little, rich people buy a lot and they are taxed a lot.

I recently read a funny tweet that is spot on. It went something like this:

"It's high time that 50% of good Americans who pay NO taxes to stop carrying that evil other half that doesn't pay their fair share..."

patteeu
09-02-2011, 07:03 PM
Yea, except I've already shown you that a consumption tax disproportionately burdens the poor and middle classes.

No, if it's a flat rate consumption tax it proportionally burdens them. That's why it's called a proportional tax.

NaptownChief
09-02-2011, 07:05 PM
No, if it's a flat rate consumption tax it proportionally burdens them. That's why it's called a proportional tax.


Yes but the liberals have taught them that if they don't get a complete free lunch then it is disproportionate...

go bowe
09-02-2011, 07:08 PM
Nearly half the wage earners in this country pay no income tax at all....Is that the poor you're talking about?

dave lane posted some figures the other day that showed that 50% iuncludes retirees and students and children who work and that only 17% don't pay taxes because they are too poor...

do you want to raise taxes on retirees, students and children to force poor people to pay "their share"?

i don't...

otoh, i think the additional child tax credit should be eliminated and the original child credit limited in some way...

NaptownChief
09-02-2011, 07:13 PM
do you want to raise taxes on retirees, students and children to force poor people to pay "their share"?



Who cares if they are retired or a student? If a student were Mark Zuckerberg making billions creating the next Facebook should we exempt them because they are a "student"?

If we are going to tax income it is simple....tax income!

KC native
09-02-2011, 10:08 PM
No, if it's a flat rate consumption tax it proportionally burdens them. That's why it's called a proportional tax.

No, it's extremely regressive because lower wage earners pay a disproportionate share of their income towards taxes. This is pretty basic patty.

patteeu
09-02-2011, 10:36 PM
No, it's extremely regressive because lower wage earners pay a disproportionate share of their income towards taxes. This is pretty basic patty.

You're confusing income with the base of a consumption tax which is consumption. It's proportional.

NaptownChief
09-02-2011, 10:43 PM
No, it's extremely regressive because lower wage earners pay a disproportionate share of their income towards taxes. This is pretty basic patty.


It is very basic that it is very proportionate. If there is a consumption tax of lets say 20%. Person A makes $30k a year Person B makes $300k per year.

Both person A and person B spend everything they make. They both paid 20% of their income in taxes. How the hell can that be more proportionate?

Person A only paid $6k in taxes while person B paid $60k in taxes while not even remotely even it is still EXACTLY a proportionate share of their income.

KC native
09-02-2011, 11:17 PM
It is very basic that it is very proportionate. If there is a consumption tax of lets say 20%. Person A makes $30k a year Person B makes $300k per year.

Both person A and person B spend everything they make. They both paid 20% of their income in taxes. How the hell can that be more proportionate?

Person A only paid $6k in taxes while person B paid $60k in taxes while not even remotely even it is still EXACTLY a proportionate share of their income.

A flat tax is regressive. A national sales tax is regressive. There is no debate that those are regressive tax systems.

patteeu
09-02-2011, 11:25 PM
A flat tax is regressive. A national sales tax is regressive. There is no debate that those are regressive tax systems.

The last several posts prove that there's a debate. I reject your premise that the degree of regressivity/progressivity must be measured on the basis of income.