Chelsea Clinton works for a hedge fund, but her mother has been attacking investment banks in her newly-populist speechifying, as not being real "work." And good for her:
"We also have to reward work more," Clinton told a small group of Ohio residents today. "and by that, I mean, I have people in New York working on Wall Street as investment managers, as hedge fund executives. Under the tax code, they can pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes on $50 million dollars, than a teacher, or a nurse, or a truck driver in Parma pays on $50,000. That’s very discouraging to people."
You just feel like, ‘wait a minute. I’m working as hard as I can.’ All those people you see in your law office. They’re working as hard as they can and they feel like they’re just getting further and further behind," Clinton said.
Richard Witty has made the same point to me: that our tax code punishes people who work or take risks as entrepreneurs in favor of speculators, whose profits are taxed at a much lower rate. How great that Hillary is taking on these values/policy issues. Sure hope they rub off on her daughter. What a pity that someone so privileged should go to work in that line. I suppose Hillary can blame the zeitgeist.
Related posts:
{ 9 comments }
Witty….you should read Pat Buchanan's book, Day of Reckoning on what is neede to save the U.S. on the conomic front.
Given the currecny games that the U.S. – based elites are encouraging the Chinese to play, we need to protect our industries that the U.S spent generations developing.
"Richard Witty has made the same point to me: that our tax code punishes people who work or take risks as entrepreneurs in favor of speculators, whose profits are taxed at a much lower rate."
Absolutely true.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece
"Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.".
If you want my typically neurotic and nutty take on the whole US system (and why would you?!?), here it is:
http://americangoy.blogspot.com/2007/12/taxes-are-unfair-american-goys-take-on.html
The maximum tax for capital gains and dividends is 15%, and still subject to itemized deductions and other credits.
The MINIMUM tax on earned income is 15.3% social security tax, + one's marginal tax rate. A moderately successful self-employed individual will pay 45% on their income. (between $80,000 and $90,000 income, after that the social security tax decreases).
That's 3 times the tax rate of one who makes their "living" by investments in equities.
There is no distinction for most people between newly contributed investment capital and investment in pre-existing securities, so the tax law cannot really be said to encourage investment, as much as speculation.
For hedge funds, even short-term gains are taxed partially at the reduced long-term capital gains rates.
(It used to be that if one ran a business – described as more than approximately half one's working hours – 1000 hour/year approximately, the IRS construed that as self-employed income and taxed similarly to a plumber. No longer.)
But, the good news is that if Congress does nothing in the next two years, the capital gains and dividends reductions sunset (expire) at the end of 2009, going back to the Clinton era rates and structures.
Of course, if you are a Ron Paul supporter, you wouldn't favor the idea of tax parity for invested income and earned income.
I am a Ron Paul supporter and I favor the idea for tax parity for invested and earned income. I would also, e.g., favor tax parity for churches. No candidate is ideal on all issues or given subsets of them. The real issue is total spending by government, national socialism creating ever new rights of entitlement both individual and corporate. Economic facism. Slow death on The Fed's inflationary installment plan and generational debt slavery to China & Japan.
Taxing people more to "give" them government benefits and police the world is not the answer. The answer is less government. Freedom to make your own choices. Thirst for liberty made many colonists revolt against the biggest empire of their day. They understood that freedom is better than oppression.
We need more governance than we have now, not less.
We need rational, responsive, and competent governance.
Right now we have irrational, unresponsive, incompetent and therefore VERY expensive governance.
Ron Paul's platform does NOT call for tax parity between forms and entities. He advocates for the elimination of taxation on investment.
You should read more.
"Various other taxes also must be reduced. Capital gains taxes are terribly counterproductive, punishing those who save and invest. "
From the Ron Paul website.
Don't go the "know nothing" approach.
Nice but too conservative. We need 90% top income tax rates like we used to have in the good old days of FDR, Truman, Ike, and JFK. Incidentally, a Jewish-American, Louis Brandeis, was influential in bringing this about, but then people were really interested in being a "light unto the gentiles."
I agree Ron Paul has not put himself on record as favoring parity–that's what I meant when I said no candidate is ideal on all issues or given subsets of them. I was responding to your generalization, "Of course, if you are a Ron Paul supporter, you wouldn't favor the idea of tax parity for invested income and earned income. Sorry for not being more clear. I am a Ron Paul supporter, though I don't agree with his take on some issues–no candidate is perfect. RP would like to transition out of most federal taxes including income and capital gains–I'd like to see a parity of individual income and all forms and entities. If you think Hillary, Obama, or McCain will implement a reasonable taxing and governing regime, you should read up on them more. Which candidate do you think will work best? The individual income tax structure is counter-productive. The trickle-down theory is a net loss too. Don't go the "know everything" approach.
"I am a Ron Paul supporter, though I don't agree with his take on some issues–no candidate is perfect."
I have some close friends that support Ron Paul on the basis of his opposition to the Iraq war and his contempt for Israel (still close friends, we don't open up this topic).
His foreign policy positions are insignficant compared to the great damage that his economic (including his tax position) would yeild.
They are the OPPOSSITE of what the country needs. They destroy the US economy, and in every manner.
The best tax policy is a simple progressive tax plan, comparable to current rates, but gradulally eliminating all itemized deductions except the deduction for state and local taxes (and that replaced by tax credits), with all entities taxed at the same rate structure. (Assertions of double taxation and all. If you want to not be doubly taxed, function as a single entity.)
No juggling what kind of income it is. Parity, based on income.
Since you don't talk to your mentioned close friends on the issue, Richard, how do you know they have contempt for Israel?
And since you don't know him, how do you know RP has such contempt? He has stated he would draw back on ALL foreign aid. He doesn't like the pernicious influence of lobbies, including those under the umbrella of AIPAC. So, how do you imagine RP has contempt for Israel from that?
At least your stated preferred tax policy is better than the current one.
Comments on this entry are closed.