Coonsey’s World

January 31, 2012

Tax Increase or Eliminate Tax Loopholes – Difference?

There is an articlein the Washington Post today discussing the fact that President Obama and Gov. Mitch Daniels agreed on one thing, eliminate tax loopholes, during the State of the Union speeches.

In a column criticizing Obama’s State of the Union, my colleague Charles Krauthammer wrote “it took Daniels about 30 seconds” to “demolish” Obama’s ideas on taxing the rich, and that Daniels had it right when he said that the way to get the rich to pay more was to “eliminate loopholes from which the rich benefit disproportionately.”

If the two parties could come together around this change to the tax system, it would be a very, very big deal. Coburn’s office estimates that millionaires received $30 billion in tax breaks in 2009. Extend that over 10 years, adjust for economic growth and reductions in interest payments, and cutting out those subsidies would save the Treasury well over $500 billion and while making the tax code considerably more progressive.

I’m by no means a tax expert but what the heck is the difference except the ‘appearance’ of no tax increase?  It’s just a fix in the taxing structure?  Gee whiz, big difference huh?

You either tax the wealthy more each year, jumping the amount from say 15% to 25-30% per year……or……you don’t allow them tax deductions that allows them to only pay 15% when filing their taxes, instead you make them pay more …like 25-30% on their investments.  What the heck is the difference.  Would somebody tell me?

Unless of course you tax or take away deductions on investments, savings, holdings, etc… - not wages.  If you only increase taxes on ‘wages’, then of course the amount would be less because most millionaires are living off interest.

January 31, 2012

Maddow: The vulture capitalist feeding cycle

Rachel Maddow shows how Mitt Romney got wealthy because his company got rich putting in Florida and Puerto Rico out of work.  She shows a clip from Jon Stewart’s show.