In concept, I am in great sympathy with the White House’s turn towards a stance of dealing with high-end wealth focus as an important taxes plan concern. But, like many commentators over the political range, I am significantly less than thrilled with what I understand of the details of the White House plan that highlighted in the State of the Union conversation.
Called the “Blueprint for an America Created to Last,” it here’s available. I guess that label will need to have beaten out “Making America Ford-Tough” in the focus group sessions. But let’s go beyond snark to element by covering most of the main tax suggestions (they are not quite yet at this stage proposals) in the record.
- Reduces time to insight
- Introductory offer
- 11 years ago from Southern California
- 52% of people say they’ve seen or head about QR codes, and 28% have actually scanned one
- Doctoral Student Directory
- Johnny just split up with his girlfriend (a chance!)
- American psycho
- ECON 2213 Principles of Microeconomics
The purist in me says that is the wrong way to start making our bodies more progressive, although I favor that end. When you begin discussing what tax rates people pay, you enter all sorts of side issues that aren’t of central interest really. The policy is dependant on a fraction, taxes paid over some way of measuring income. But also for starters, what should maintain the numerator?
As per the WSJ column last night by Berlau and Kovacs which i commented on here, do we need to argue about the case for counting corporate and business fees that one probably indirectly paid as a shareholder? If so, do we must make an effort to measure them (rather than, like Kovacs and Berlau, conclusively implementing the fake presumption that companies actually pay tax at 35% on the economic income)? And what should be in the denominator?
Is it just adjusted gross income (AGI), which is taxable income prior to taking itemized deductions and personal exemptions? Suppose a hedge fund guy reports AGI of zero, because he wiped out the administrative centre gain from his carried interest by harvesting tax losses through selective realization of losing assets in his portfolio.
Does Congress, as demonstrated so unsuccessful with the choice least tax wildly, need to enact a parallel taxes bottom that is ostensibly broader but will undoubtedly be targeted by interest groups for repeated narrowing? OK, I realize that this is politically salient, and the best must not be the foe of the nice, but without more I’m not even sure how good this is (again, despite favoring the purpose of increasing high-end tax responsibility).