Politics Who's Gonna Win?

Derwood · Feb 21, 2012

I'm stuck on this house example.

Am I understanding this correctly: someone who bought a house for $40,000 is going to be pissed about paying an extra $19,000 in taxes when they sell it for over 10x the purchase price?

Baraka_Guru · Feb 22, 2012

Derwood said: ↑

I'm stuck on this house example.

Am I understanding this correctly: someone who bought a house for $40,000 is going to be pissed about paying an extra $19,000 in taxes when they sell it for over 10x the purchase price?
Click to expand...

Maybe better examples would help (hint: the 3.8% tax only applies on gains beyond the $500,000 exemption for married couples, $250,000 for singles); furthermore, it would instead apply to the lesser amount of an investment income amount or an excess of adjusted gross income over $200,000.

So in essence, you are only "screwed" if you have a capital gain beyond $500,000 and an adjusted gross income of over $200,000, but you're only "screwed" on amounts above and beyond that.

Here are a couple of examples of the 3.8% tax for higher income homeowners in 2013:

Capital gain: Sale of a principal residence

Joe and Sally owned their home for 30 years and then sold it, realizing a $525,000 gain. They have $325,000 Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) before adding taxable gain on the house. The tax applies as follows:

• AGI before taxable gain = $325,000
• Gain on sale of residence = $525,000
• Taxable gain = $25,000 ($525,000 minus $500,000) added to AGI
• New AGI = $350,000 ($325,000 plus $25,000 taxable gain)
• Excess of AGI over $250,000 = $100,000 ($350,000 minus $250,000)
• Lesser amount (home sale excess taxable) = $25,000 (taxable gain)
• New 2013 tax due = $950 ($25,000 x 0.038)

Since the new tax applies to the lesser of (a) investment income amount, (b) excess of AGI over the $200,000, or (c) home-sale exemption amount ($500,000 for married couples), Joe and Sally would pay $950 of new tax in addition to the capital gain on $25,000. If Joe and Sally had a gain of less than $500,000 on the sale of their residence, none of that gain would be subject to the 3.8% tax. Whether they paid the 3.8% tax would depend on the other components of their $325,000 AGI.

Sale of a second home (with no rental income more than 14 days)

The Olsens own a lakefront home that they purchased for $275,000. They have never rented it to others, except to other lake neighbors for weekend family reunions. Their annual rental days have always been fewer than 14 days. They sell it for $335,000. In the year of sale they also have earned income from other sources of $225,000. The 3.8% 2013 tax would apply as follows:

• Income from other sources = $225,000
• New AGI = $285,000 ($60,000 plus $225,000)
• Excess of AGI over $250,000 = $35,000 ($285,000 minus $250,000)
• Capital gain = $60,000
• Lesser amount = $35,000 (AGI excess less than second-home capital gain)
• New 2013 tax due = $1,330 ($35,000 x 0.038)

Remember that any new tax on real estate will be for higher-income individuals and this is not scheduled to take hold until 2013. Since three major tax changes occurred in 2010, expect more changes before 2013.
Click to expand...

[Emphasis mine] http://www.texasrealestate.com/web/2/24/241/more/051011.cfm

redux · Feb 23, 2012

I have to give the best line of tonight's debate (unfortunately, probably the last debate) to Ron Paul.

On the topic of contraception and Santorum's rambling response about declining moral values and kids having kids somehow inferring that contraception is responsible (not quite as direct a statement as his earlier statement that contraception is a danger to society). Paul jumps in with "I think it's sort of like the argument that guns kill ... Guns don't kill, criminals kill ... The pill is there ... but the pills can't be blamed for the immorality of our society."

Plan9 · Feb 23, 2012

redux said: ↑

Paul jumps in with "I think it's sort of like the argument that guns kill ... Guns don't kill, criminals kill ... The pill is there ... but the pills can't be blamed for the immorality of our society."
Click to expand...

Mother of God.

Aceventura · Feb 23, 2012

Derwood said: ↑

I'm stuck on this house example.

Am I understanding this correctly: someone who bought a house for $40,000 is going to be pissed about paying an extra $19,000 in taxes when they sell it for over 10x the purchase price?
Click to expand...

We are talking about a person who may get one big payday for a lifetime - for what purpose? Why should this individual, who has sacrificed and lived modestly, paid his own way, subsidize anything by force for people not willing to do the same - regardless of the amount. If he wants to donate money to others let that be his choice.
--- merged: Feb 23, 2012 7:21 PM ---

Baraka_Guru said: ↑

Maybe better examples would help (hint: the 3.8% tax only applies on gains beyond the $500,000 exemption for married couples, $250,000 for singles); furthermore, it would instead apply to the lesser amount of an investment income amount or an excess of adjusted gross income over $200,000.
Click to expand...

Two final points. One, we need the IRS rules and regs before we will really know how the tax will be applied. Two, if you are arguing no one will actually pay the tax - what it has no point.

Baraka_Guru · Feb 23, 2012

Aceventura said: ↑

We are talking about a person who may get one big payday for a lifetime - for what purpose? Why should this individual, who has sacrificed and lived modestly, paid his own way, subsidize anything by force for people not willing to do the same - regardless of the amount. If he wants to donate money to others let that be his choice.
Click to expand...

Are you wondering why taxes aren't optional?

Two final points. One, we need the IRS rules and regs before we will really know how the tax will be applied. Two, if you are arguing no one will actually pay the tax - what it has no point.
Click to expand...

1) I don't know the IRS that well, but one would assume they'll have the rules and regulations in place, if they aren't already, before the tax kicks in.

2) I'm not arguing that.

Aceventura · Feb 23, 2012

Here is the language contained in the bill - interpretation is going to be key:

‘‘CHAPTER 2A—UNEARNED INCOME MEDICARE
CONTRIBUTION
‘‘Sec. 1411. Imposition of tax.
‘‘SEC. 1411. IMPOSITION OF TAX.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (e)—
‘‘(1) APPLICATION TO INDIVIDUALS.—In the case of an individual,
there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax
imposed by this subtitle) for each taxable year a tax equal
to 3.8 percent of the lesser of—
‘‘(A) net investment income for such taxable year, or
‘‘(B) the excess (if any) of—
‘‘(i) the modified adjusted gross income for such
taxable year, over
‘‘(ii) the threshold amount.
‘‘(2) APPLICATION TO ESTATES AND TRUSTS.—In the case
of an estate or trust, there is hereby imposed (in addition
to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) for each taxable
year a tax of 3.8 percent of the lesser of—
‘‘(A) the undistributed net investment income for such
taxable year, or
‘‘(B) the excess (if any) of—
‘‘(i) the adjusted gross income (as defined in section
67(e)) for such taxable year, over
‘‘(ii) the dollar amount at which the highest tax
bracket in section 1(e) begins for such taxable year.
‘‘(b) THRESHOLD AMOUNT.—For purposes of this chapter, the
term ‘threshold amount’ means—
‘‘(1) in the case of a taxpayer making a joint return under
section 6013 or a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),
$250,000,
‘‘(2) in the case of a married taxpayer (as defined in section
7703) filing a separate return, 1⁄2 of the dollar amount determined
under paragraph (1), and
‘‘(3) in any other case, $200,000.
‘‘(c) NET INVESTMENT INCOME.—For purposes of this chapter—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘net investment income’ means
the excess (if any) of—
‘‘(A) the sum of—
‘‘(i) gross income from interest, dividends, annuities,
royalties, and rents, other than such income
which is derived in the ordinary course of a trade
or business not described in paragraph (2),
‘‘(ii) other gross income derived from a trade or
business described in paragraph (2), and
‘‘(iii) net gain (to the extent taken into account
in computing taxable income) attributable to the disposition
of property other than property held in a trade
or business not described in paragraph (2), over
‘‘(B) the deductions allowed by this subtitle which are
properly allocable to such gross income or net gain.
‘‘(2) TRADES AND BUSINESSES TO WHICH TAX APPLIES.—A
trade or business is described in this paragraph if such trade
or business is—
‘‘(A) a passive activity (within the meaning of section
469) with respect to the taxpayer, or
H. R. 4872—34
‘‘(B) a trade or business of trading in financial
instruments or commodities (as defined in section
475(e)(2)).
‘‘(3) INCOME ON INVESTMENT OF WORKING CAPITAL SUBJECT
TO TAX.—A rule similar to the rule of section 469(e)(1)(B) shall
apply for purposes of this subsection.
‘‘(4) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN ACTIVE INTERESTS IN PARTNERSHIPS
AND S CORPORATIONS.—In the case of a disposition of
an interest in a partnership or S corporation—
‘‘(A) gain from such disposition shall be taken into
account under clause (iii) of paragraph (1)(A) only to the
extent of the net gain which would be so taken into account
by the transferor if all property of the partnership or S
corporation were sold for fair market value immediately
before the disposition of such interest, and
‘‘(B) a rule similar to the rule of subparagraph (A)
shall apply to a loss from such disposition.
‘‘(5) EXCEPTION FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM QUALIFIED
PLANS.—The term ‘net investment income’ shall not include
any distribution from a plan or arrangement described in section
401(a), 403(a), 403(b), 408, 408A, or 457(b).
‘‘(6) SPECIAL RULE.—Net investment income shall not
include any item taken into account in determining self-employment
income for such taxable year on which a tax is imposed
by section 1401(b).
‘‘(d) MODIFIED ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME.—For purposes of this
chapter, the term ‘modified adjusted gross income’ means adjusted
gross income increased by the excess of—
‘‘(1) the amount excluded from gross income under section
911(a)(1), over
‘‘(2) the amount of any deductions (taken into account
in computing adjusted gross income) or exclusions disallowed
under section 911(d)(6) with respect to the amounts described
in paragraph (1).
‘‘(e) NONAPPLICATION OF SECTION.—This section shall not apply
to—
‘‘(1) a nonresident alien, or
‘‘(2) a trust all of the unexpired interests in which are
devoted to one or more of the purposes described in section
170(c)(2)(B).’’.
(2) ESTIMATED TAXES.—Section 6654 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended—
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘and the tax under
chapter 2’’ and inserting ‘‘the tax under chapter 2, and
the tax under chapter 2A’’; and
(B) in subsection (f)—
(i) by striking ‘‘minus’’ at the end of paragraph
(2) and inserting ‘‘plus’’; and
(ii) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph
(4) and inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraph:
‘‘(3) the taxes imposed by chapter 2A, minus’’.
(3) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of chapters for subtitle
A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter
2 the following new item:
H. R. 4872—35
‘‘CHAPTER 2A—UNEARNED INCOME MEDICARE CONTRIBUTION’’.
(4) EFFECTIVE DATES.—The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December
31, 2012.
(b) EARNED INCOME.—
(1) THRESHOLD.—
(A) FICA.—Paragraph (2) of section 3101(b) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by section 9015
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and
amended by section 10906 of such Act, is amended by
striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (A), by redesignating
subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C), and by
inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new
subparagraph:
‘‘(B) in the case of a married taxpayer (as defined
in section 7703) filing a separate return, 1⁄2 of the dollar
amount determined under subparagraph (A), and’’.
(B) SECA.—Section 1401(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as added by section 9015 of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act and amended by section
10906 of such Act, is amended—
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the
end of clause (i), by redesignating clause (ii) as clause
(iii), and by inserting after clause (i) the following
new clause:
‘‘(ii) in the case of a married taxpayer (as defined
in section 7703) filing a separate return, 1⁄2 of the
dollar amount determined under clause (i), and’’; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘under clauses
(i) and (ii)’’ and inserting ‘‘under clause (i), (ii), or
(iii) (whichever is applicable)’’.
(2) ESTIMATED TAXES.—Section 6654 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection
(m) as subsection (n) and by inserting after subsection (l) the
following new subsection:
‘‘(m) SPECIAL RULE FOR MEDICARE TAX.—For purposes of this
section, the tax imposed under section 3101(b)(2) (to the extent
not withheld) shall be treated as a tax imposed under chapter
2.’’.
(3) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply with respect to remuneration received, and
taxable years beginning after, December 31, 2012.
SEC. 1403. DELAY OF LIMITATION ON HEALTH FLEXIBLE
Click to expand...

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr4872enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr4872enr.pdf
http://burgess.house.gov/UploadedFiles/hr3590_health_care_law_2010.pdf

Slowly but surely, I am being forced into reading this mess of a bill.

Baraka_Guru · Feb 23, 2012

So let me get this straight: the Republican choices are either a) crippling austerity, or b) worse debt projections than those under Obama....

Hmm....this must be some liberal propaganda or something, right?

Must be: they don't accept the premise that tax cuts pay for themselves.

3 GOP candidates' plans would increase debt, study says
A nonpartisan group says proposals by Romney, Gingrich and Santorum would push the national debt beyond current projections.

Los Angeles Times
By Lisa Mascaro, Washington Bureau
February 23, 2012, 4:42 p.m.

Reporting from Washington— President Obama is roundly criticized by Republicans for running up the nation's debt. But if a Republican takes the White House, the debt will keep climbing — and perhaps even faster than under Obama's proposed policies, a budget watchdog group said.

GOP presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are touting policies that would push the debt beyond current projections — largely because their proposed tax cuts would outweigh spending cuts. Only Ron Paul's plans would begin to sharply decrease the debt, according to a report Thursday from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

The analysis shows how difficult it will be for any president to change the trajectory of the debt. And it underscores the need for bipartisan efforts to increase revenue and curb spending, particularly as an aging population is about to drastically drive up Medicare costs, the group said.

"I don't think cutting revenues further is the responsible thing to do — and they all do it," said Alice Rivlin, referring to the Republican candidates. Rivlin, the founding director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, is a director of the budget watchdog group that released the analysis.

"We're not going to be able to absorb this tsunami of seniors and their need for healthcare with the revenue we have," she said.

Obama's proposals also would push debt above what budget experts say is sustainable.

The nation's debt load is typically measured as a portion of the economy, or gross domestic product — with 60% being an internationally accepted level of debt. The United States' so-called public debt, which excludes transfers among government accounts, is about 70% of GDP.

Under Obama, the public debt is expected to rise over the decade, to 80% of GDP, according to an earlier analysis by the group. It based its projection on his proposals, including ending the George W. Bush-era tax breaks for those earning beyond $250,000 a year.

For its analysis of the GOP candidates, the group compared campaign proposals to existing policies, and those it assumes will occur, including the continuation of the Bush-era tax cuts. Under that baseline, the group said, the debt would reach 85% of GDP by 2021.

Gingrich has noted that the federal budget was balanced when he was House speaker. But the budget group said the policies he's promoting now, including spending on space exploration, would increase the national debt by an additional $7 trillion over the baseline over the next decade to 114% of GDP. Santorum's policies would drive up the debt by an additional $4.5 trillion, to 104%.

Romney's proposals would increase public debt to between 85% and 96% of GDP, depending on the level of new revenue his proposals could generate in addition to the new tax policies he announced this week, the budget watchdogs said.

Only the proposals from Paul, the libertarian Texas congressman, would reduce the debt from current projected levels, by $2.2 trillion, to 76% of GDP.

The budget group didn't take into consideration the Republicans' proposals to slow Medicare costs, because the effect of those changes would be at least a decade away.

The group also dismissed GOP assertions that tax cuts would pay for themselves by spurring economic growth.

The deficit is projected to be $1.1 trillion this year.
Click to expand...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gop-candidates-deficit-20120224,0,5317593.story

Aceventura · Feb 24, 2012

Baraka_Guru said: ↑

So let me get this straight: the Republican choices are either a) crippling austerity, or b) worse debt projections than those under Obama....

Hmm....this must be some liberal propaganda or something, right?
Click to expand...

Refusal to understand the Laffer curve and its impact on tax policy as it relates to economic activity is the problem.

Another cautionary tail to consider, from today's IBD:

Revenue Falls When Wealthy British Pay Their "Fair Share"

Tax Policy: The British government introduced a higher tax rate on the rich in 2010, promising that it would bring in added revenue. But, as any sensible person could have guessed, just the opposite has happened.
Gordon Brown's Labour Party government launched the 50% rate in income taxes allegedly as a means to bring in more revenue.
The London Telegraph reported earlier this year that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs estimated the British version of the Buffett Tax would "show a 'surge' in revenues totaling hundreds of millions of pounds from the first year."
The "surge" wasn't even a trickle. In fact, there was actually a reversal. Collections fell by $800 million compared to income tax payments a year earlier.
As Francesca Lagerberg, head of tax at the accounting firm Grant Thornton, told the Telegraph this week, the apparently unexpected outcome "highlights the fact that high tax rates don't always deliver high tax revenues."
But shouldn't they? Yes, if nothing else changes. But things change. They always do.
As government sources explained to the Telegraph, the lower revenue is the result of "well-off Britons" changing their behavior so they could "avoid the new higher rate."
Ah, but of course. Why didn't British lawmakers think of that before they recklessly predicted that revenue would increase by roughly $1.6 billion?

Despite the inverted results and the obvious problems they will cause, the British left is insisting that the rate remain in place. Why? Because, the Telegraph reports, the left believes that "it is important to demonstrate that the rich are paying their fair share."
The jealous urge to punish the rich and to enforce a subjective fairness that blinds lawmakers in Britain is the same disorder afflicting politics in this country.
We have a president who wants higher tax rates on the wealthy even if they bring in less revenue, because he thinks it's fair.
Advising that president is Gene Sperling, the White House's top economist. He favors tax policy that ensures that no one escapes paying "their fair share."
We also have congressional members who want to impose their sense of fairness on others. Among them is Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the Democrat who introduced the Pay Their Fair Share Act that would put a discriminatory levy on wealthy Americans.
Naturally there is lusty support for, and eager co-sponsorship of, the bill from within the party.
There is, however, little thinking going on.
Click to expand...

http://news.investors.com/article/602119/201202231855/britain-raises-taxes-loses-revenue.htm

redux · Feb 24, 2012

Aceventura said: ↑

Refusal to understand the Laffer curve and its impact on tax policy as it relates to economic activity is the problem.

...
Click to expand...

Read my lips...."laffer curve = voodoo economics"

The neo-Laffer curve:

The neo-Laffer curve is a satirical construct created by Martin Gardner to establish the fallacy of one of many "laissez-faire" ideas that became collectively known as Reaganomics. It demonstrates a basic error of mathematical confusion that held in its sway, among other things, the executive office of the President of the United States.

Martin Gardner, writing in Scientific American, offered an alternative and more realistic view of government revenue, which he bitingly called "the neo-Laffer curve".

Which is to say that past a certain point of common-sense extrapolation (the 100-99% and 0-1% extrapolations mentioned above), the curve was a tangled mass of gobbledy-gook with seemingly random and potentially infinite "high points" on the x-axis, and thus lowering the tax rate on the rich was as guaranteed to raise government revenue, as, say, President Ronald Reagan changing the color of his socks. Why? Because plotting government revenue and tax rates on a simple curve was frankly just plain dumb. Dumb beyond belief.

The truth of the matter is that the optimal tax rate for government revenue is guided by intensely immediate circumstances and numerous, nigh-uncountable variables, and all the wicked webs that make up history. Laffer's fallacy, whether conscious or unconscious, occurred when he assumed that simply because two ends of his graph could be easily examined and quantified, that the rest of the graph would follow the same rules and thus arrive at a "point". In fact, not only did the graph not follow those rules, it could not by definition of the system it represented.
http://everything2.com/title/neo-Laffer curve

Baraka_Guru · Feb 24, 2012

Aceventura said: ↑

Refusal to understand the Laffer curve and its impact on tax policy as it relates to economic activity is the problem.

Another cautionary tail to consider, from today's IBD.
Click to expand...

Cautionary to Britons!

Germany, the Eurozone's economic darling, has a top marginal rate of 45%. Maybe the Britons should have gone with 45%!

Germany doesn't have much for cautionary tales recently, except maybe with regard to propping up other economies, but that's up for debate.

Germany does, however, have some good "lead by examples."

Wake up, America! Your wealth and prosperity were built upon the backs of workers!

Germany's lesson for U.S. -- keep faith with workers
By Michael Shank and Thorben Albrecht, Special to CNN
updated 8:31 AM EST, Fri February 24, 2012
CNN.com

As Germany continues to rise as lead survivor -- and decision-maker -- in the European Union's economic mire, the U.S. would do well to take a lesson from the country's economic model, particularly in manufacturing.

Losing 4 million jobs over the past 10 years, U.S. manufacturing has hovered at roughly 12% of America's GDP, less than half its percentage in the 1950s. In Germany, however, manufacturing is well on its way toward 25% of GDP. President Barack Obama's pledge this week to lower manufacturing sector taxes to 25%, and January's U.S. manufacturing growth numbers , the highest in seven months, will certainly help stem the tide. But, clearly, a word to the wise is in order.

With America experiencing the highest income inequality since the Great Depression , a gap that mushroomed primarily in the past 30 to 40 years because of trade, tax and labor policies, the answer is in our workers.

Consider U.S. trade policies, which undermined America's working class through the outsourcing and offshoring of U.S. manufacturing and the erosion of labor protections.

Consider its tax policies, which moved wealth from the majority to the minority, thanks to tax loopholes such as low capital gains and dividends taxes, thus favoring nonlabor wealth creation.

Consider its labor policies, which failed to increase minimum wages for the majority of America: Minimum wage is worth less now -- adjusted for inflation -- than it was in 1968 when the inequality trend started to take off.

The way America has treated its workers has helped to create a highly precarious socioeconomic reality: One out of every two Americans is in poverty or low-income. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, roughly 50 million Americans are living below the poverty level and surviving on an average annual income of less than $22,500 for a family of four. Another 100 million Americans are living in the low-income bracket, living on average annual income of less than $45,000 for a family of four -- hardly the American dream.

Couple these trends with the devastating financial crisis, which hurt those whose wealth was in basic stocks and first-time home purchases -- as opposed to the wealthy who invested in insurance-backed securities, derivatives and credit default swaps -- and you've bottomed out America's working class.

This is where the United States can learn from Germany.

How Germany stayed economically healthy, while maintaining a strong working class, might offer a lesson or two for America's woes.

Unlike the U.S., Germany recovered quickly from the economic slump in 2009, mainly because German industry managed to keep its skilled work force during the crisis.

This was possible because the German government sponsored short-time work, or a reduction of working hours, thus avoiding layoffs. This measure was possible only where decent wages and management-union trust existed, what Germans call a "social partnership".

Even now, despite some growth in nonunionized companies and income inequality, the export-oriented manufacturing model of social partnership is strong.

Those who believe unions, high wages and workers rights are a burden for business should consider that this sector has been Germany's most successful. Exports, mainly manufacturing, grew by 2.3% (even with 2009 data included), higher than the average growth rate of the German economy over the past 10 years at 1.1%.

Here's how they did it: Instead of trying to outcompete global markets in cheap goods, German industry specialized in high-quality products and kept its share in a growing global market, as other European countries, Japan and the U.S. lost shares to China.

The German manufacturing strategy is based on making existing products better again and again, or as a Mercedes ad put it: "We are inventing the car. Since 1886."

This strategy is possible only with highly skilled and highly motivated workers and requires managers who promote a constant evolution of improvement in products and processes. This change-oriented management is successful because strong union representation on the shop floor, in the form of "work councils," and on supervisory boards ensures that workers' interests are always considered.

In the face of global competition, German manufacturing workers' representation remains strong. It has proved to be successful because it has incorporated the knowledge of workers and their representatives, countering change with fewer conflicts. Contrast this with Germany's services sector, where wages are much lower and the power of unions is much weaker. Growth, not coincidentally, is much weaker, too.

Politicians across the Atlantic, but particularly in Washington, would be well-advised to take a look at the German manufacturing sector. The U.S. is only facing increasing global competition. If America wants an economic tide that lifts all boats, the answer is in its workers.
Click to expand...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/24/opinion/shank-albrecht-manufacturing-jobs/

ASU2003 · Feb 26, 2012

I'm not a fan of Rick Santorum, but he did a very smart thing of sponsering a NASCAR. It looks like Ron Paul will have two cars in the race too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=krCoqrzfPs8

I don't know how much it costs, but it has to be better than spending it on negative ads.

redux · Feb 26, 2012

ASU2003 said: ↑

I'm not a fan of Rick Santorum, but he did a very smart thing of sponsering a NASCAR. It looks like Ron Paul will have two cars in the race too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=krCoqrzfPs8

I don't know how much it costs, but it has to be better than spending it on negative ads.
Click to expand...

I dont know that a car speeding by at 150 mph has much impact.

But the Oscar for best trailer goes to Chris Mathews:

ASU2003 · Feb 27, 2012

I saw that on Chris Matthews yesterday and thought it was perfect. He could have done the same thing for Rick Perry too.

Candidates spend a lot of money on road signs and TV ads that I think are a waste of money, I don't know how much it costs for a sponsorship, but I think it will get the message and their names out there.

Aceventura · Mar 5, 2012

Baraka_Guru said: ↑

Cautionary to Britons!

Germany, the Eurozone's economic darling, has a top marginal rate of 45%. Maybe the Britons should have gone with 45%!
Click to expand...

The point is to find the optimum tax rate. Responsible government official have a difficult job, however, if they use tax policy to try to maximize taxes collected given economic/social conditions, they can maximize government effectiveness.

It is that simple.

On the other-hand when tax policy is constructed for purposes other than maximizing taxes collected, government effectiveness is harmed.

Why the refusal to acknowledge this, let alone the Laffer Curve?
--- merged: Feb 27, 2012 at 4:48 PM ---

redux said: ↑

I dont know that a car speeding by at 150 mph has much impact.
Click to expand...

From a person from the home city of the NASCAR Hall Of Fame, you have got to be kidding!

Go Danica

redux · Feb 27, 2012

Aceventura said: ↑

...
From a person from the home city of the NASCAR Hall Of Fame, you have got to be kidding!

Go Danica

Click to expand...

NASCAR driver Danica Patrick isn’t particularly concerned about the Obama administration’s dictate that religious employers provide health care plans that cover contraceptives.

“I leave it up to the government to make good decisions for Americans,” Patrick, a Roman Catholic, told The Daily Caller Tuesday when asked about the controversy.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/21/d...-up-to-the-government-to-make-good-decisions/

Oh no, the Daily Caller readers went apeshit....that mindless socialist hussy!

Go Danica!

Aceventura · Feb 27, 2012

redux said: ↑

NASCAR driver Danica Patrick isn’t particularly concerned about the Obama administration’s dictate that religious employers provide health care plans that cover contraceptives.

“I leave it up to the government to make good decisions for Americans,” Patrick, a Roman Catholic, told The Daily Caller Tuesday when asked about the controversy.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/21/d...-up-to-the-government-to-make-good-decisions/

Oh no, the Daily Caller readers went apeshit....that mindless socialist hussy!

Go Danica!
Click to expand...

You interpret her statement in a manner not consistent with what she actually said. I think she understands that contraception is not at risk in this country.

Regarding, stereotyping - who is more guilty the NASCAR fan, people who support good drivers - or the psudo-intelectuals who think they have the NASCAR fan all figured out. Go figure, one of the most popular drivers to hit NASCAR in ages is a female Catholic from Wisconsin! She could even be a Democrat who supports gun control, I don't know - but we still lover her. She has guts, she is a good driver, and is willing to earn it.

Baraka_Guru · Feb 27, 2012

Aceventura said: ↑

The point is to find the optimum tax rate. Responsible government official have a difficult job, however, if they use tax policy to try to maximize taxes collected given economic/social conditions, they can maximize government effectiveness.
Click to expand...

I suppose that this is what the Britons are figuring out, just like Germans and Canadians have (the latter of whom have top marginal rates of approximately 45%).

On the other-hand when tax policy is constructed for purposes other than maximizing taxes collected, government effectiveness is harmed.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean here, other than perhaps "it's all about balance."

Why the refusal to acknowledge this, let alone the Laffer Curve?
Click to expand...

I haven't. I agree with you. (Laffer Curve aside.)

redux · Feb 27, 2012

Aceventura said: ↑

...
Regarding, stereotyping - who is more guilty the NASCAR fan, people who support good drivers - or the psudo-intelectuals who think they have the NASCAR fan all figured out...
Click to expand...

Stereotyping? One only need read the comments from The Daily Caller reaaders below the article.

samcol · Feb 27, 2012

redux said: ↑

NASCAR driver Danica Patrick isn’t particularly concerned about the Obama administration’s dictate that religious employers provide health care plans that cover contraceptives.

“I leave it up to the government to make good decisions for Americans,” Patrick, a Roman Catholic, told The Daily Caller Tuesday when asked about the controversy.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/21/d...-up-to-the-government-to-make-good-decisions/

Oh no, the Daily Caller readers went apeshit....that mindless socialist hussy!

Go Danica!
Click to expand...

of course, leave it up to the government to make good decisions, typical response of someone who could give a shit about politics. maybe she should stick to nascar instead of political opinions. apparently she's qualified to speak on the matter because she's 1. a catholic, and 2. a woman., and 3. a catholic woman in nascar...wait what is this i dont even?

Log in or Sign up

Politics Who's Gonna Win?

Derwood Slightly Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

redux Very Tilted

Plan9 Rock 'n Roll

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

redux Very Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

ASU2003 Very Tilted

redux Very Tilted

ASU2003 Very Tilted

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

redux Very Tilted

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

redux Very Tilted

samcol Getting Tilted

Log in or Sign up

Politics Who's Gonna Win?

Derwood Slightly Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

redux Very Tilted

Plan9 Rock 'n Roll

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

redux Very Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

ASU2003 Very Tilted

redux Very Tilted

ASU2003 Very Tilted

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

redux Very Tilted

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

redux Very Tilted

samcol Getting Tilted

Useful Searches