Fuck its silent in here.......

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Who is Who's that lady?

(Who's that la-dy)

[J. Walter Weatherman]

I hope Gil is an HBO subscriber...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Change_(film)

[Wheezer]

I somehow have never really noticed the curious prose stylings of Alan Keyes before:

Based on the evidence of both past experience and current events, I am bound by rational conviction to reach the verdict that the GOP offers no prospect but repeated bitter disappointment to those like me who seek the revival and perpetuation of constitutional, republican government in the United States. I suspect, though, that despite my head, my heart continues to hope that the GOP's flavor of the week presidential nominating process will reveal some candidate who represents, in word and fruitful deed, a forthright articulation of American principle and common sense. For America's sake I may still hope that some such GOP candidate will rouse and convince my spirit enough to justify the triumph of hope over experience. After all, as the Frenchman said, "The heart has its reason that reason does not know."

Le cœur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connaît point. On le sent en mille choses. C'est le cœur qui sent Dieu, et non la raison. Voilà ce que c'est que la foi parfaite, Dieu sensible au cœur.

Naturally.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

I somehow have never really noticed the curious prose stylings of Alan Keyes before:

Where were you in 2004?

[Wheezer]

I somehow have never really noticed the curious prose stylings of Alan Keyes before:

Where were you in 2004?

Still listening to the numbers, I imagine.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Some socialist.

People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what's happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

...

Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country's finances. They've been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It's vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country's fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.

Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can't fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

[Brownie]

Some socialist.

People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what's happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

...

Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country's finances. They've been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It's vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country's fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.

Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can't fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

Buffett doesn't seem to understand how this works...

So how does Mr. Buffett arrive at such a low personal tax rate? He may have been referring to a 2010 IRS study of the 400 richest American taxpayers, a list he's probably on. It showed those people paid an effective federal income tax of 18.1% in 2008.

Yet that study crucially omits the corporate income tax, which is mostly borne by the owners of companies.

Mr. Buffett owns about one-quarter of his investment company Berkshire Hathaway, and his shares are worth about $38 billion. This wealth is mostly stored in what are technically called "unrealized capital gains." Eventually when those gains are converted into income, he will pay a capital gains tax. Even so, in 2008 Berkshire paid $3 billion in corporate taxes. And since Mr. Buffett is the principal owner, he shoulders a big share of that tax.

The reason for the light capital gains and dividend tax is that corporations pay up to a 35% tax on their profits before a dime of it is passed on to shareholders. The real tax rate on corporate income paid to individuals through capital gains and dividends is not 15%. It is closer to 45% once you count the tax on corporate profits. If the dividend tax rises to 20% next year from 15% today, then the total tax on dividends paid to shareholders would be closer to 50%, and that doesn't include state and local taxes.

In case Buffett wants to feel a little better:

Making a reasonable assumption that much of Mr. Buffett's gains-income is from his Berkshire-Hathaway holdings which go back five or so decades, the following scenario is valid: Per U.S. government statistics, the annual national inflation rate averaged 4.44% from 1974 through 2010, a span of 37 years. I will be generous and use an average holding period of half that time for the buy-and-hold of Mr. Buffett's stock. His cost basis, from which a capital gain is calculated, depreciated in constant dollars by more than 82%. Adjusted for that fact, his effective federal tax rate paid on capital gains is over 27%. If Mr. Buffett uses a first-in, first-out method for identifying stock sold, his tax rate goes much higher. And don't forget one must hold any investment at least one year to qualify for the preferential long-term rate. In some years (1980 inflation: 13.58%), that time lag would add significantly to whatever tax rate applied. Yes, 27% is less than 35% or 39.6% or 70%, but is there to be no recognition for risk, investment to create economic activity, or simply the fact that one's capital is being tied up?

Finally, why is Buffett wasting time urging people to give to charities. Asshole. Give to the treasury first:

Feel you're undertaxed? Go ahead, you can remedy it, right here.

[R-V]

Yet that study crucially omits the corporate income tax, which is mostly borne by the owners of companies.

This offhand assumption is the basis for the entire piece. But there's plenty of debate on whether this is actually the case.

The CBO disagrees with the WSJ.

Burdens are measured in a numerical example by substituting factor shares and output shares
that are reasonable for the U.S. economy.  Given those values, domestic labor bears slightly
more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax.  The domestic owners of capital
bear slightly more than 30 percent of the burden.

[CBStew]

Michelle is the BIG WINNER in the Iowa straw poll.  She had 29% of the vote.  157 votes more than number two, Ron Paul, who had 28%.  (A landslide if ever I saw one)  That means that around 160 votes is one percent of the gnumbgnuts who voted in that poll.  So about 16,000 people voted.   Why is this news?  The last person who won the straw poll in Iowa (Romney) didn't even win the Caucus six months later.  

[Brownie]

Michelle is the BIG WINNER in the Iowa straw poll.  She had 29% of the vote.  157 votes more than number two, Ron Paul, who had 28%.  (A landslide if ever I saw one)  That means that around 160 votes is one percent of the gnumbgnuts who voted in that poll.  So about 16,000 people voted.   Why is this news?  The last person who won the straw poll in Iowa (Romney) didn't even win the Caucus six months later. 

The GOP nominee might not have even announced a run. Hell, he might have already said he's not running.

[Brownie]

Yet that study crucially omits the corporate income tax, which is mostly borne by the owners of companies.

This offhand assumption is the basis for the entire piece. But there's plenty of debate on whether this is actually the case.

The CBO disagrees with the WSJ.

Burdens are measured in a numerical example by substituting factor shares and output shares
that are reasonable for the U.S. economy.  Given those values, domestic labor bears slightly
more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax.  The domestic owners of capital
bear slightly more than 30 percent of the burden.

So... lower the corporate rate then?

[morpheus]

Yet that study crucially omits the corporate income tax, which is mostly borne by the owners of companies.

This offhand assumption is the basis for the entire piece. But there's plenty of debate on whether this is actually the case.

The CBO disagrees with the WSJ.

Burdens are measured in a numerical example by substituting factor shares and output shares
that are reasonable for the U.S. economy.  Given those values, domestic labor bears slightly
more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax.  The domestic owners of capital
bear slightly more than 30 percent of the burden.

It's not the CBO, it's one guy who happened to work for the CBO.

Working papers in this series are preliminary and are circulated to stimulate discussion and critical comment. These papers are not subject to CBO's formal review and editing processes. The analysis and conclusions expressed in them are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as those of the Congressional Budget Office. References in publications should be cleared with the authors. Papers in this series can be obtained at www.cbo.gov (select Publications and then Working Papers).

The larger conclusions of the paper seem to argue for the elimination of a corporate tax, or at least replacing it with a more efficient tax.  On another note, there are plenty of economists who don't buy the results.  Gravelle and Smetters find that most of the burden falls on capital, not labor. 

If you agree with Randolph's conclusions, are you then ready to call for a cut or even abolishing the unfair corporate tax which punishes labor at the expense of capital?

Addendum: Brownie and I came to the same final question.

[Brownie]

Yet that study crucially omits the corporate income tax, which is mostly borne by the owners of companies.

This offhand assumption is the basis for the entire piece. But there's plenty of debate on whether this is actually the case.

The CBO disagrees with the WSJ.

Burdens are measured in a numerical example by substituting factor shares and output shares
that are reasonable for the U.S. economy.  Given those values, domestic labor bears slightly
more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax.  The domestic owners of capital
bear slightly more than 30 percent of the burden.

It's not the CBO, it's one guy who happened to work for the CBO.

Working papers in this series are preliminary and are circulated to stimulate discussion and critical comment. These papers are not subject to CBO's formal review and editing processes. The analysis and conclusions expressed in them are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as those of the Congressional Budget Office. References in publications should be cleared with the authors. Papers in this series can be obtained at www.cbo.gov (select Publications and then Working Papers).

The larger conclusions of the paper seem to argue for the elimination of a corporate tax, or at least replacing it with a more efficient tax.  On another note, there are plenty of economists who don't buy the results.  Gravelle and Smetters find that most of the burden falls on capital, not labor. 

If you agree with Randolph's conclusions, are you then ready to call for a cut or even abolishing the unfair corporate tax which punishes labor at the expense of capital?

Addendum: Brownie and I came to the same final question.

And what if labor and capital are one in the same? That's not unusual.

[Eli]

Addendum: Brownie and I came to the same final question.

Shocking.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Yet that study crucially omits the corporate income tax, which is mostly borne by the owners of companies.

This offhand assumption is the basis for the entire piece. But there's plenty of debate on whether this is actually the case.

The CBO disagrees with the WSJ.

Burdens are measured in a numerical example by substituting factor shares and output shares
that are reasonable for the U.S. economy.  Given those values, domestic labor bears slightly
more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax.  The domestic owners of capital
bear slightly more than 30 percent of the burden.

So... lower the corporate rate then?

[ rewinds clusterfuck ]

I'm in favor of a much lower corporate tax rate...if the tradeoff is we increase individual tax rates as an offset so total revenue remains the same. Corporations don't pay tax anyway; people pay tax. Might as well cut out the middleman. And morph is right that a lower corporate tax rate would discourage offshoring and encourage repatriation of capital (and jobs). Permanently lowering the corporate rate is a much better idea than these every-so-often repatriation holidays which totally screw up incentives.