Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (462443)	12/28/2011 2:42:51 PM
From: Bill	Respond to of 794309

What's to be gained by that? Nothing but an election loss.

To: DMaA who wrote (462443)	12/28/2011 3:23:16 PM
From: Neeka	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794309

I know we're not supposed to talk about it, but being a small business person and tax payer, I am distracted by the issue. The Tax Foundation doesn't give either Gingrich or Romney stellar grades for their tax policies. And it doesn't mention that Gingrich would lower corp income tax rate to 15% (as opposed to 25% for Romney) They're not grading BO at all, but do have a link with several available articles. taxfoundation.org "Gingrich: C+ Pros: 1) By moving to a 15 percent flat tax on wages only (not investment income), and ending the estate tax, it would remove the double and triple taxation of saving and investing. 2) By lowering taxes on business and investment, it would make the U.S. more competitive, more attractive for investment, and more pro-growth. Cons: 1) It would keep far too many tax expenditures (deductions for mortgage interest and charitable donations, the child and earned income tax credits, and most business tax expenditures), thus maintaining much of the current tax code's social engineering, preferential treatment, and special interest provisions. 2) There are a number of moving parts or unspecified portions, which adds to uncertainty, makes the tax code more complex and less understandable, and introduces potential instability in revenues. In particular: a) the optional flat tax means the current tax code will continue in parallel; b) the flat tax option will not go into effect immediately but will transition in some unspecified way; and c) the payroll tax will eventually be replaced with private accounts. 3) Unlike many of the other candidates' plans, it continues the current system of worldwide taxation of U.S. corporate income, which is costly to comply with, raises little revenue, and is out-of-step internationally. Romney: C- Pros: 1) By making permanent the 2001/2003/2010 tax laws, it would remove some of the uncertainty in the tax code. 2) Lowering the corporate rate to 25 percent, making permanent 100 percent expensing, and moving to a territorial tax system would make the U.S. more competitive globally and improve our attractiveness for investment. 3) By ending the estate tax, it would eliminate one layer of double taxation of saving and investing. Cons: 1) On the individual side of the code, it really takes no step toward fundamental reform. 2) By making permanent the 2001/2003/2010 tax laws, it fails to reduce significantly the complexity of the current tax code. 3) The exemption of capital gains and dividends for those making $200,000 and below is an arbitrary nod to progressivity. It would do practically nothing to incent investment, since the vast majority of individuals who pay capital gains and dividends taxes make more than $200,000. Instead, it further complicates the code. 4) It fails to reduce significantly the special-interest provisions of the current code. 5) By maintaining multiple tax brackets in the individual code, it ensures individuals will pay different rates. 6) By taxing C-corporations at 25 percent and pass-through business entities at a top rate of 35 percent, the plan would distort business decision-making and could cause some private businesses to flip to C-corporations. " taxfoundation.org