He's not getting much traction in the polls, but I was impressed by the boldness of his economic plan. It is going to piss off a lot of special interests, but I think that's why I like it. http://www.scribd.com/doc/63664350/Time-to-Compete-An-American-Jobs-Plan
Huntsman is rapidly getting a well-deserved reputation as the only sane Republican. So his candidacy is doomed. Personally, I agree with some of Huntsman's proposals. Although there are some problems, for example his justification for eliminating the cap gains tax is just plumb stupid. And his accusation that the President has not acted on the South Korea trade agreement is a lie - he obviously knows the truth, which is that Congress has to act on it. barfo
Because it's a "capital gains" tax, not a "capital" tax. The amount invested isn't subject to cap gains tax, only the gain is. barfo
Simplifying the tax code and closing loopholes is going to piss off the AAA Lobby in DC--Accountants, Attorneys and Associations--and they're quite powerful. Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction is going to piss off homeowners all over the country, but in the long term is going to solidify the residential market in this country. Privitizing FNMA and FHLMC and getting rid of the implied government guarantee will also help fix the MBS and residential real estate market. Mostly, it's going to remove a ton of incentives for corporations and organizations to support candidates, because they'll be less they can do for them. And that's the real blow--right at the heart of the way Washington does business. Like I said, there's something for everyone to be pissed off about in this proposal, which is why I think I like it.
The tax code will never be simplified. What is the definition of simplified? You can't define it as a reduction in pages because new pages are added each year to make up for any decrease. Also, a giant 10% decrease wouldn't even scratch the complexity of the code, so dullards would still whine. But the real reason the tax code cannot be simplified is that for every method a person or corporation has of making money, the tax code must mirror that method, or else the method is a tax dodge and everyone moves their money to it to escape taxation. When a new method of making money is invented (like a new form of Wall Street commercial paper), it's tax-free unless the IRS scrambles to write new code. In other words, the tax code must be as complex as the economic system itself. The only way to simplify the tax code is to simplify the economy (=eliminate methods of making money, i.e. socialism). That isn't going to happen. Tax simplification is a pipe dream.
No chance in the universe. You'd get farther talking reality. That's like me saying there should be world peace.
As long as the politicians can be bought, they're not likely to change it. But the idea is becoming more and more popular as they fight over soaking the rich.
It's where the money is. What's more revenue, taxing 200,000 people $1000, or taxing 100M people $100?
That $1000 would have gone into more stock and would have just inflated stock prices. That $100 would have gone into food or some other pressing need that immediately trickles up to his neighborhood retailers, then the retailers' suppliers, then their warehouse distributors, then the manufacturers, then their suppliers, then... Everybody gets to touch the $100.
That $100 is shared sacrifice, gives those people skin in the game. That $1000 doesn't make a dent in the budget mess. When people have skin in the game, they're maybe a little less likely to vote themselves tea and circuses. Something they'd much more likely do if it's someone else shouldering the burden.
I love how the right is now revealing that they are in favor of higher taxes on the poor and middle class. I predict that is going to end badly for you - at some point most Americans are going to realize what your proposals will cost them. A message of "government sucks, but you should pay more for it" is not a winning message. barfo
So you're saying that if rich conservatives had to bear more risk in causing massive suffering, they'd be less likely to vote for schemes like cutting Social Security and Medicare. Okay. I guess I can compromise with you. But don't expect this favor every time.
The rich are already being being soaked. The others may have to be called upon to pay their fair share as well.
