Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[LosingNow]

Jindal wins La. governor's race

BATON ROUGE (AP) — U.S. Rep. Bobby Jindal won the Louisiana governor's race Saturday, becoming the nation's youngest governor and the first non-white to hold the state's post since Reconstruction.
Jindal, the 36-year-old son of Indian immigrants, carried more than half the vote against 11 opponents. With about 87% of the vote in, Jindal had 53% with 588,002 — more than enough to win outright and avoid a Nov. 17 runoff.

His nearest competitors: Democrat Walter Boasso with 196,104 votes or 18%; Independent John Georges had 156,962 votes or 14%; Democrat Foster Campbell with 141,346 or 13%. Eight candidates divided the rest.

"I'm asking all of our supporters to get behind our new governor," Georges said in a concession speech.

The Oxford-educated Jindal had lost the governor's race four years ago to Gov. Kathleen Blanco. He won the a congressional seat in conservative suburban New Orleans a year later but was widely believed to have his eye on the governor's mansion.

Blanco opted not to run for re-election after she was widely blamed for the state's slow response to hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005.

When he takes office in January, Jindal will become the nation's youngest governor in office.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[RicePlateReddy]

Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)

Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)

Voted NO on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay. (Feb 2006)

Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
Voted YES on continuing military recruitment on college campuses. (Feb 2005)

Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)


.....  Piyush sucks.

[achutank]

Jindal wins La. governor's race

BATON ROUGE (AP) — U.S. Rep. Bobby Jindal won the Louisiana governor's race Saturday, becoming the nation's youngest governor and the first non-white to hold the state's post since Reconstruction.
Jindal, the 36-year-old son of Indian immigrants, carried more than half the vote against 11 opponents. With about 87% of the vote in, Jindal had 53% with 588,002 — more than enough to win outright and avoid a Nov. 17 runoff.

His nearest competitors: Democrat Walter Boasso with 196,104 votes or 18%; Independent John Georges had 156,962 votes or 14%; Democrat Foster Campbell with 141,346 or 13%. Eight candidates divided the rest.

"I'm asking all of our supporters to get behind our new governor," Georges said in a concession speech.

The Oxford-educated Jindal had lost the governor's race four years ago to Gov. Kathleen Blanco. He won the a congressional seat in conservative suburban New Orleans a year later but was widely believed to have his eye on the governor's mansion.

Blanco opted not to run for re-election after she was widely blamed for the state's slow response to hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005.

When he takes office in January, Jindal will become the nation's youngest governor in office.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

[Rocky]

Who cares.
As long as India does not benefit from him in any way, he does not make any difference to us.

[justforkix]

Who cares.
As long as India does not benefit from him in any way, he does not make any difference to us.

This is already "breaking news" in all Indian news channels. Soon, he'll be on an looong Indian tour like Sunita Williams 

[Rocky]

Who cares.
As long as India does not benefit from him in any way, he does not make any difference to us.

This is already "breaking news" in all Indian news channels. Soon, he'll be on an looong Indian tour like Sunita Williams 

Which is so irritating to see. A la Jade Goody of Shilpa Shetty fame.
Let Jindal stay in Lousiana and do his work there.
BTW, is he related to the Jindal group here - the manufacturing ones?

[LosingNow]

Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)

Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)

Voted NO on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay. (Feb 2006)

Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
Voted YES on continuing military recruitment on college campuses. (Feb 2005)

Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)


.....  Piyush sucks.

He is a born again Roman Catholic who believes in "intelligent design" and teaching ID in schools as an alternative to evolution.
..but for the bolded vote..pretty sad record.
--
This is how you win elections in LA.

[LosingNow]

Who cares.
As long as India does not benefit from him in any way, he does not make any difference to us.

This is already "breaking news" in all Indian news channels. Soon, he'll be on an looong Indian tour like Sunita Williams 

Eggjacktly.. who cares for what he stands for.

[RicePlateReddy]

..but for the bolded vote..pretty sad record.

These sort of "low taxes" get us nowhere in the long run. Cap gains and div taxes are really low in the US (and in India I believe). What is the point growing the deficit to unimaginable levels and lowering the taxes on the rich (clearly cap gains and div are a preserve of the upper middle class and rich). It is like playing dot balls till over 40 and hoping Dhoni saves the day. Just like cricket, oversized "last 10 overs" responsibility, is pushed to the next generation 

This is how you win elections in LA.

So he might as well go to Mardi Gras and mingle naturally with the transvestites.

Seriously, don't like his politics, but he seems an affable and driven guy. Doesn't hurt to bring your kid into every frame the last few days.

[RicePlateReddy]

Eggjacktly.. who cares for what he stands for.

Well, if you plan to continue to live in the US and raise a family, you should, no?

[feverpitch]

Who cares.
As long as India does not benefit from him in any way, he does not make any difference to us.

NYT has no news of this election on its front pages.... but its all over NDTV... so we DO gain something from Bobby's victory...

[LosingNow]

..but for the bolded vote..pretty sad record.

These sort of "low taxes" get us nowhere in the long run. Cap gains and div taxes are really low in the US (and in India I believe). What is the point growing the deficit to unimaginable levels and lowering the taxes on the rich (clearly cap gains and div are a preserve of the upper middle class and rich). It is like playing dot balls till over 40 and hoping Dhoni saves the day. Just like cricket, oversized "last 10 overs" responsibility, is pushed to the next generation 

What is the objective of taxes.. raise money or to redistribute wealth.

If it is to raise money, overall revenues are up dramatically despite the tax cuts! Yes, one can increase revenues by lowering taxes (similar to increasing sales by lowering prices).

If your objective is to cut deficits.. cut spending.  It is precisely the reason I say that this administration has paid lip-service to conservative fiscal administration... they are pseudo-republicans. They like to lower taxes which has increased revenues but have increased spending much much more than any democrat would..and that too in war related spending which does nobody (but for the crony defense contractors) any good. BAD!!!

Also, cap gains and dividend taxes suffer from couple of  issues - double taxation (the money that is earning these return has already been taxed when it was first earned) and they discourage investment by reducing returns on investment.

On redistribution, the "rich" already pay more than their share of income as taxes. From the 2005 data, the top 1% of income earners in US, earn 21% of national income and pay 39% of the taxes.. top 5% (income cutoff $145K) earn 35% of the income and pay 60% of the taxes, the top 10% (cutoff $104K) earn 46% of the income and pay 70% of the taxes, the top 25% (cutoff  $62K) earn 67% of national income and pay 80% of the taxes.

It is a fairly progressive tax regime...and in 2000 (when Bush took office), the top 5% paid only 55% (vs 60% in 2005) of the total taxes. If anything, his administration has skewed the tax burden more towards the rich!! Fault him for everything (cronyism, iraq war, excessive spending, incompetence....) but not this aspect.

[LosingNow]

Eggjacktly.. who cares for what he stands for.

Well, if you plan to continue to live in the US and raise a family, you should, no?

of course, I care. I was mocking the Indian media with that statement.

[Rocky]

Eggjacktly.. who cares for what he stands for.

Well, if you plan to continue to live in the US and raise a family, you should, no?

of course, I care. I was mocking the Indian media with that statement.

For those of you in the US, I really pity you, for Jindal is how you will all be equated with.
As regards the Indian media, it was already very obvious that they have national interests at the very least of their priority and sensationalism and TRP's at the top of their list. What else could we expect from them.
I can ignore all of this, but what bugs me is why someone thought this so earthshattering that he HAD to introduce this in a CRICKET discussion.

[keep-it-cool]

..but for the bolded vote..pretty sad record.

These sort of "low taxes" get us nowhere in the long run. Cap gains and div taxes are really low in the US (and in India I believe). What is the point growing the deficit to unimaginable levels and lowering the taxes on the rich (clearly cap gains and div are a preserve of the upper middle class and rich). It is like playing dot balls till over 40 and hoping Dhoni saves the day. Just like cricket, oversized "last 10 overs" responsibility, is pushed to the next generation 

Dividends should NOT be taxed. I am a shareholder (part owner) of a company - the dividend is  my share of this company's profit. The company's profit has already been taxed once. Why should it be taxed again when it is distributed?

No reason why capital gains on any asset should not be taxed.

[LosingNow]

Eggjacktly.. who cares for what he stands for.

Well, if you plan to continue to live in the US and raise a family, you should, no?

of course, I care. I was mocking the Indian media with that statement.

For those of you in the US, I really pity you, for Jindal is how you will all be equated with.
As regards the Indian media, it was already very obvious that they have national interests at the very least of their priority and sensationalism and TRP's at the top of their list. What else could we expect from them.
I can ignore all of this, but what bugs me is why someone thought this so earthshattering that he HAD to introduce this in a CRICKET discussion.

2 reasons:
1. As you may have noticed, in this DG, people are discussing this issue beyond the euphoric value of "an Indian getting elected to a position of importance in US".
2. Sometimes we do discuss non-cricketing issues in the cricket section and later move it to ETC or other appropriate section.

[LosingNow]

..but for the bolded vote..pretty sad record.

These sort of "low taxes" get us nowhere in the long run. Cap gains and div taxes are really low in the US (and in India I believe). What is the point growing the deficit to unimaginable levels and lowering the taxes on the rich (clearly cap gains and div are a preserve of the upper middle class and rich). It is like playing dot balls till over 40 and hoping Dhoni saves the day. Just like cricket, oversized "last 10 overs" responsibility, is pushed to the next generation 

Dividends should NOT be taxed. I am a shareholder (part owner) of a company - the dividend is  my share of this company's profit. The company's profit has already been taxed once. Why should it be taxed again when it is distributed?

No reason why capital gains on any asset should not be taxed.

Capital gains on any asset is by definition change in expected value of future cash flows (in the case of stock/shares, the future cash flows from the underlying asset are dividends).

[keep-it-cool]

..but for the bolded vote..pretty sad record.

These sort of "low taxes" get us nowhere in the long run. Cap gains and div taxes are really low in the US (and in India I believe). What is the point growing the deficit to unimaginable levels and lowering the taxes on the rich (clearly cap gains and div are a preserve of the upper middle class and rich). It is like playing dot balls till over 40 and hoping Dhoni saves the day. Just like cricket, oversized "last 10 overs" responsibility, is pushed to the next generation 

Dividends should NOT be taxed. I am a shareholder (part owner) of a company - the dividend is  my share of this company's profit. The company's profit has already been taxed once. Why should it be taxed again when it is distributed?

No reason why capital gains on any asset should not be taxed.

Capital gains on any asset is by definition change in expected value of future cash flows (in the case of stock/shares, the future cash flows from the underlying asset are dividends).

Fair enough. I think I get where you are coming from - technically, if everything is paid out as dividend, there would be no capital gains ... and, hence, since dividends should ideally not be taxed, capital gains should not be taxed either.

But, this relationship will hold true over the longer term. I do not think short term movements are necessarily governed by changes in future cash flows. So, the current system in India where long term capital gain is not taxed and short term / speculative gain is taxed - I think - is a fair state of affairs.

Just to add to the above .. the price of any asset can be more accurately defined as the present value of future cash flows ... where even if future cash flows do not change, factors such as lower cost of capital or higher risk taking ability can change the present value - thereby resulting in a gain that has not been taxed earlier.

Of course, how much taxation is necessary / why should any such gain be taxed at all is an entirely different debate altogether.

[LosingNow]

..but for the bolded vote..pretty sad record.

These sort of "low taxes" get us nowhere in the long run. Cap gains and div taxes are really low in the US (and in India I believe). What is the point growing the deficit to unimaginable levels and lowering the taxes on the rich (clearly cap gains and div are a preserve of the upper middle class and rich). It is like playing dot balls till over 40 and hoping Dhoni saves the day. Just like cricket, oversized "last 10 overs" responsibility, is pushed to the next generation 

Dividends should NOT be taxed. I am a shareholder (part owner) of a company - the dividend is  my share of this company's profit. The company's profit has already been taxed once. Why should it be taxed again when it is distributed?

No reason why capital gains on any asset should not be taxed.

Capital gains on any asset is by definition change in expected value of future cash flows (in the case of stock/shares, the future cash flows from the underlying asset are dividends).

Fair enough. I think I get where you are coming from - technically, if everything is paid out as dividend, there would be no capital gains ... and, hence, since dividends should ideally not be taxed, capital gains should not be taxed either.

But, this relationship will hold true over the longer term. I do not think short term movements are necessarily governed by changes in future cash flows. So, the current system in India where long term capital gain is not taxed and short term / speculative gain is taxed - I think - is a fair state of affairs.

Exactly.. I meant to say long term .. tax short term capital gains but not long term. Yep, the Indian system has got it right.
--
BTW, how else can a company pay its shareholders besides dividends?

[keep-it-cool]

..but for the bolded vote..pretty sad record.

These sort of "low taxes" get us nowhere in the long run. Cap gains and div taxes are really low in the US (and in India I believe). What is the point growing the deficit to unimaginable levels and lowering the taxes on the rich (clearly cap gains and div are a preserve of the upper middle class and rich). It is like playing dot balls till over 40 and hoping Dhoni saves the day. Just like cricket, oversized "last 10 overs" responsibility, is pushed to the next generation 

Dividends should NOT be taxed. I am a shareholder (part owner) of a company - the dividend is  my share of this company's profit. The company's profit has already been taxed once. Why should it be taxed again when it is distributed?

No reason why capital gains on any asset should not be taxed.

Capital gains on any asset is by definition change in expected value of future cash flows (in the case of stock/shares, the future cash flows from the underlying asset are dividends).

Fair enough. I think I get where you are coming from - technically, if everything is paid out as dividend, there would be no capital gains ... and, hence, since dividends should ideally not be taxed, capital gains should not be taxed either.

But, this relationship will hold true over the longer term. I do not think short term movements are necessarily governed by changes in future cash flows. So, the current system in India where long term capital gain is not taxed and short term / speculative gain is taxed - I think - is a fair state of affairs.

Exactly.. I meant to say long term .. tax short term capital gains but not long term. Yep, the Indian system has got it right.
--
BTW, how else can a company pay its shareholders besides dividends?

Essentially, a company pays its shareholders whether it actually pays out dividend or not. When I get dividend, I am - in a way - taking some of my money out from the company / investment. If I do not get dividend, it is essentially my money getting reinvested into the company / investment. In either case, the value of my investment has increased.

What a dividend payout does is increase liquidity in the hands of the shareholders - it does not create any incremental value - which is why I find it funny that dividends are taxed.

As for providing liquidity, a stock dividend is one way ... it is definitely much more tax efficient. Investors can sell the additional stock in the market and get the same liquidity.

Alternatively, do a buyback .. and return cash to your shareholders.

PS - of course, that is just the way I look at it. There are different interpretations with everyone having his / her own logic for why dividends should / should not be taxed.

[LosingNow]

Just to add to the above .. the price of any asset can be more accurately defined as the present value of future cash flows ... where even if future cash flows do not change, factors such as lower cost of capital or higher risk taking ability can change the present value - thereby resulting in a gain that has not been taxed earlier.

Of course, how much taxation is necessary / why should any such gain be taxed at all is an entirely different debate altogether.

Exactly.. it is a different debate.
--
FWIW, I think we should not tax any investment income.. a) because it was taxed when it was earned (so the double taxation argument holds) by the individual, and b) it discourages investments by lowering the effective rate of return on the investor.
The fairest (ie most progressive), best (ie revenue maximizing) and investment neutral way to generate revenues is to tax spending.. sales tax, VAT etc. Have no income tax (don't cringe!). However, since it is very difficult to "implement" a no income tax mindset, the next best approach is a flat tax on non-investment income above a certain income level (typically, 2-3 X poverty levels). Steve Forbes had the right idea ..but he had only one good idea

[keep-it-cool]

Just to add to the above .. the price of any asset can be more accurately defined as the present value of future cash flows ... where even if future cash flows do not change, factors such as lower cost of capital or higher risk taking ability can change the present value - thereby resulting in a gain that has not been taxed earlier.

Of course, how much taxation is necessary / why should any such gain be taxed at all is an entirely different debate altogether.

Exactly.. it is a different debate.
--
FWIW, I think we should not tax any investment income.. a) because it was taxed when it was earned (so the double taxation argument holds) by the individual, and b) it discourages investments by lowering the effective rate of return on the investor.
The fairest (ie most progressive), best (ie revenue maximizing) and investment neutral way to generate revenues is to tax spending.. sales tax, VAT etc. Have no income tax (don't cringe!). However, since it is very difficult to "implement" a no income tax mindset, the next best approach is a flat tax on non-investment income above a certain income level (typically, 2-3 X poverty levels). Steve Forbes had the right idea ..but he had only one good idea

I personally dont think that approach will work. There has to be some distinction made between risk capital and non risk capital to provide some incremental incentive to invest in risk capital (beyond the higher return potential that a higher risk investment anyway entails).

Also, every form of investment income has not been taxed already. Let us take investment in debt (say fixed deposits) for example. If I invest in fixed deposits of Reliance ... the interest that I receive (paid by Reliance) is a tax deductible expense for Reliance ... i.e. Reliance's taxable income goes down to that extent. Hence, there is no double taxation here.

Ditto for income tax. The income that I get from my company is allowed as a tax deductible expense for my company - again, no tax paid before it comes to my hands.

Taxing spending is a good approach ... only thing is that sometimes governments may want to use fiscal policy to move the economy in a particular direction. For example, in a developing economy such as India, I think the thrust should be on encouraging spending so that there is more incentive for companies to produce ... and expand ... and create more jobs ... In such cases, I am not in favour of putting a large burden of tax on spending.

[RicePlateReddy]

Dividends should NOT be taxed. I am a shareholder (part owner) of a company - the dividend is  my share of this company's profit. The company's profit has already been taxed once. Why should it be taxed again when it is distributed?

No reason why capital gains on any asset should not be taxed.

Well, I have Warren Buffet as company in disagreeing. The snippet below is because of the low long term capital gains tax:


Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

Buffett said that was despite the fact that he was not trying to avoid paying higher taxes. "I don't have a tax shelter," he said. And he challenged Congress and his audience to see what the people who "clean our offices" are taxed, to loud applause.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html

[prfsr]

Dividends should NOT be taxed. I am a shareholder (part owner) of a company - the dividend is  my share of this company's profit. The company's profit has already been taxed once. Why should it be taxed again when it is distributed?

No reason why capital gains on any asset should not be taxed.

Well, I have Warren Buffet as company in disagreeing. The snippet below is because of the low long term capital gains tax:


Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

Buffett said that was despite the fact that he was not trying to avoid paying higher taxes. "I don't have a tax shelter," he said. And he challenged Congress and his audience to see what the people who "clean our offices" are taxed, to loud applause.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html

Warren Buffett is a washed-out, has-been Maharathi. We all know what is he capable of. I think we should immediately replace him with a young person and give him as extended a run as Buffett before comparing them.
-P

[LosingNow]

Dividends should NOT be taxed. I am a shareholder (part owner) of a company - the dividend is  my share of this company's profit. The company's profit has already been taxed once. Why should it be taxed again when it is distributed?

No reason why capital gains on any asset should not be taxed.

Well, I have Warren Buffet as company in disagreeing. The snippet below is because of the low long term capital gains tax:


Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

Buffett said that was despite the fact that he was not trying to avoid paying higher taxes. "I don't have a tax shelter," he said. And he challenged Congress and his audience to see what the people who "clean our offices" are taxed, to loud applause.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html

Buffett is welcome to pay more taxes...and have all that additional money spent by this administration in Iraq

[Cover Point]

Buffett is welcome to pay more taxes...and have all that additional money spent by this administration in Iraq

Poor spending does not mean the problem is with how taxation should be.  This is like saying my tea has less sugar so I need to add some salt to my Lassi!

If the tax system is broken (and I believe the rich .... and that would be people like you WN and even some of us dual income families should be paying more of the tax burden). Yes the money should not be spent in wars in Iraq or to pad Pharma companies.  Fixing SS and providing a better health care system for the poor would be a place to spend.

[prfsr]

WN,
I understand your libertarian position. But to say that India has got its taxation right is off the mark. It always amazes me that we tax less than the most capitalistic nation and have far fewer social programs as well.
-P

[LosingNow]

Buffett is welcome to pay more taxes...and have all that additional money spent by this administration in Iraq

Poor spending does not mean the problem is with how taxation should be.  This is like saying my tea has less sugar so I need to add some salt to my Lassi!

If the tax system is broken (and I believe the rich .... and that would be people like you WN and even some of us dual income families should be paying more of the tax burden). Yes the money should not be spent in wars in Iraq or to pad Pharma companies.  Fixing SS and providing a better health care system for the poor would be a place to spend.

1. How much should the top 5% pay, top 10 % pay.. as a % of total revenue vs the 60% and 70% they are contributing now? (75%, 85%), (80%, 90%).. take your pick...and explain to me at what # will your "fairness train" stop and why? How did you come up with that magic #?
2. How do you plan to accomplish that..and if you propose - tax the rich more, make sure you show a way of generating higher revenues. Higher taxes does not imply higher revenues.
--
BTW, I am by no definition rich (you have the wrong perception - because I drink wheat beer ). I am more than happy to pay my share of taxes to the government where I see a good use for their services (which contrary to your perception - I think there are many!).

[LosingNow]

WN,
I understand your libertarian position. But to say that India has got its taxation right is off the mark. It always amazes me that we tax less than the most capitalistic nation and have far fewer social programs as well.
-P

My point was specific to KIC's point on taxing long vs short term capital gains in India.
--
Now that you have labeled me ... you can start attributing other generalizations related to this position to my opinions ... and then be surprised when I don't conform to your labelling

[Cover Point]

Buffett is welcome to pay more taxes...and have all that additional money spent by this administration in Iraq

Poor spending does not mean the problem is with how taxation should be.  This is like saying my tea has less sugar so I need to add some salt to my Lassi!

If the tax system is broken (and I believe the rich .... and that would be people like you WN and even some of us dual income families should be paying more of the tax burden). Yes the money should not be spent in wars in Iraq or to pad Pharma companies.  Fixing SS and providing a better health care system for the poor would be a place to spend.

1. How much should the top 5% pay, top 10 % pay.. as a % of total revenue vs the 60% and 70% they are contributing now? (75%, 85%), (80%, 90%).. take your pick...and explain to me at what # will your "fairness train" stop and why? How did you come up with that magic #?
2. How do you plan to accomplish that..and if you propose - tax the rich more, make sure you show a way of generating higher revenues. Higher taxes does not imply higher revenues.
--
BTW, I am by no definition rich (you have the wrong perception - because I drink wheat beer ). I am more than happy to pay my share of taxes to the government where I see a good use for their services (which contrary to your perception - I think there are many!).

Sir, Wheat or Maida beer has nothing to do with your implied Richitude (I can make up with out Ganguly in them too). I label you rich (without looking at your tax returns) because you have lived the American dream of owning a multinational business. You sir are what everyone aspires to be. We live vicariously through you.

And I did say that I consider most two income desis (in addition to the Entrepreneurs) rich.

To the point of what % should be paid by the rich, I say why do we need to put a percent to it? Progressively as you make more money, it is possible to spare a bigger percent of your income towards taxes (hoping that they would be used wisely). I am not an economist. I just know simple numbers. A 10% tax on a family of 4 earning less than 30K would lead to say 3K ... money that this person could possibly use for basics ... like food, like money for a decent education for kids, like a decent house or potentially even a bit of money in retirement.

A 50% tax on someone making 20 million a year may just make the person buy a 100 foot yatch instead of that 120 foot one.

So again, if this means that the rich are paying 90% or 100 %  of the taxes, thats not really the point.

Now to your 2nd point, I really dont understand economics anywhere close to what you do and am totally incapable of answering this point. If you say that shifting the tax base away from the rich and more towards the middle class increases revenue and the other way decreases them, then I cant argue with that. It does seem counter intuitive.

BUT again if the issue is that there are fewer rich people and thus giving poor people tax cuts costs us more than the rich generate then I would say we need to work the system so it does not. Doesnt mean that we give the rich a break ... maybe the poor dont get a proportional break. Maybe keep the taxation same on the poor and increase on the rich and then use the excess revenue towards social causes to help the poor.

Maybe I am a social Democrat!

[RicePlateReddy]

1. How much should the top 5% pay, top 10 % pay.. as a % of total revenue vs the 60% and 70% they are contributing now? (75%, 85%), (80%, 90%).. take your pick...and explain to me at what # will your "fairness train" stop and why? How did you come up with that magic #?

Who is paying even 60% ? I am sure you are aware of tax shelters and the myriad loopholes associated with them. Buffett's quite solid point was that he has none, and a majority of his income is of the form of long term capital gains, and he ends up paying 17%. Whereas his 60k per year secretary was paying a lot higher percent. That seems so patently wrong, and does not require an econ class to justify it!

2. How do you plan to accomplish that..and if you propose - tax the rich more, make sure you show a way of generating higher revenues. Higher taxes does not imply higher revenues.

The real question to ask then is how many % point increases in long term capital gains will it take to keep the tax collections the same, but increase the minimum taxable income higher by 20%? I would guess 5% at most.

[prfsr]

I don't think there is a right figure that fits all. Taxes pay for benefits and different societies need varying amounts of social support. So if I have to pay 90% tax on my personal income over 1 billion, so be it. Of course it is easier for me to say this since I do not earn a billion. I will readily admit that.

-P

[Cover Point]

I don't think there is a right figure that fits all. Taxes pay for benefits and different societies need varying amounts of social support. So if I have to pay 90% tax on my personal income over 1 billion, so be it. Of course it is easier for me to say this since I do not earn a billion. I will readily admit that.

-P

Give or take a dollar or two

[dextrous]

I don't think there is a right figure that fits all. Taxes pay for benefits and different societies need varying amounts of social support. So if I have to pay 90% tax on my personal income over 1 billion, so be it. Of course it is easier for me to say this since I do not earn a billion. I will readily admit that.

-P

of course they do. 10% of americans own 70+% of this country and counting. Who else is going to pay for it?!

[ruchir]

I don't think there is a right figure that fits all. Taxes pay for benefits and different societies need varying amounts of social support. So if I have to pay 90% tax on my personal income over 1 billion, so be it. Of course it is easier for me to say this since I do not earn a billion. I will readily admit that.

-P

You know, US has got it's social welfare program all wrong. If it was in my hands, I would not pay any taxes at all.

1. US pays unemployment allowance to all unemployed adults. That's completely wrong. If a person is able-bodied, he should not receive any allowance from social welfare. That should be reserved for handicap and elderly people. Once US govt forces every able bodied person to work, there would not be any need for mexicans to come over illegally. There are millions of healthy able-bodied people who take unemployment allowance and sit in home smoking pot, like lazy bums. For god's sake, force them to got out and work. There are tons of non-skilled jobs available. Work in construction, landscaping, work as janitor.... work and earn a living rather than brake the sofa at home.

2. Social welfare rewards minor pregnancies. Any woman having a baby and not working received about $1200 per child. This results in majority of black girls and latino girls too having children while being minor and unmarried. Every one hates teen pregnancy, yet US govt rewards it by giving money for it. Let social welfare be corrected to not pay any girl one penny if she is not 18 years or more. I guarantee, teen pregnancy will be eradicated in no time. US govt should not be responsible for paying for the pleasures of it's citizens. If citizens want to enjoy, let them support it themselves. US govt is not responsible to bear the mistakes of it's citizens. You make a mistake, you bear it's consequences.

3. Citizenship by birth. This single law has resulted in damaging US social welfare the maximum. This law was made around late 1700s or early 1800s, when lot of people were coming from Europe. At that time, US needed to boost it's population, and this law was enacted to entice people into coming here. But with time, this law became useless. In fact, this law acts like a single biggest magnet for mexicans to come here illegally. Young teenage mexican girls get pregnant and use their babies as anchor babies, to continue to stay back. What's more, now that the baby is born, US govt is forced to pay to the mother so that she can take care of the child. Take that!!! First you enter illegally, then you bear a child, and now US is force to feed it. This moronic citizenship by birth law needs to be changed to state that a child born in US will become a citizen on birth Only and Only if both parents are legal residents of USA.

4. Majority of our tax dollars marked for healthcare go in giving FREE healthcare to illegal aliens. For every medical thing, like fever or cold, these guy go to Emergency rooms. This results in ERs being perennially full. It takes a long time for legal residents to get care. I would demand that my tax dollar be spent only in giving healthcare to legal residents. Unless the need is life threatening, let all ER rooms ask for some ID other than SSN. Anyone visiting ER for non life threatening reason should be required to prove that s/he is a legal resident of USA.


Having given vent to my frustrations on how tax dollars are spent, via this rant, let me say that it is probably okay to increase tax % for individuals as the taxable salary increases, but it will be counterproductive to tax businesses more if their profits increase. The moment you tax a business more, the next moment the increase will be transfered to the consumer. Thereby, it will be the consumer who will bear the increase in tax on a business.

Even for individuals, the tax % should not be ridiculous. I mean if a businessman is earning millions a year, he naturally has that kind of intelligence, initiative and talent to do so. So, why should he be taxed a ridiculous %, just for being better than the rest? What kind of logic is that?

It is said that top 10% of earning population of US pays about 70% of total tax earnings by IRS. What more do you want? If you just go by figures, then even 99% taxation will seem too less. I mean I make $1 billion a year. Tax me 99%. So I am left with $1 million after tax. Hell, that is more that combined after-tax income of all the janitors working in Pentagon!!! What the hell, tax him more.

[Rocky]

2 reasons:
1. As you may have noticed, in this DG, people are discussing this issue beyond the euphoric value of "an Indian getting elected to a position of importance in US".
2. Sometimes we do discuss non-cricketing issues in the cricket section and later move it to ETC or other appropriate section.

You did not know that the discussion would revolve on his policies and not the "euphoric value" when you posted it, did you?   

Anyways, taxation only works when citizens perceive value for their taxes.
Denmark is taxed very highly but on the whole citizens are happy to pay taxes because the Govt takes good care of them and their needs.
Whereas in India, even though taxes are comparitively low, the yield per rupee taxed for the citizen is very low. Hence, avoidance is the goal.
In a capitalist system, taxation tends to reward income generation. Hence a white collar worker tends to get taxed heavier than an entrepreneur who generates income via investments.
Sops are only an eyewash for the middle class, so that they think they pay less tax. The rich businessman in every country is encouraged to pay less tax in percentage. So you reward performance and income generation.

[CLR James]

Buffett is welcome to pay more taxes...and have all that additional money spent by this administration in Iraq

Poor spending does not mean the problem is with how taxation should be.  This is like saying my tea has less sugar so I need to add some salt to my Lassi!

If the tax system is broken (and I believe the rich .... and that would be people like you WN and even some of us dual income families should be paying more of the tax burden). Yes the money should not be spent in wars in Iraq or to pad Pharma companies.  Fixing SS and providing a better health care system for the poor would be a place to spend.

1. How much should the top 5% pay, top 10 % pay.. as a % of total revenue vs the 60% and 70% they are contributing now? (75%, 85%), (80%, 90%).. take your pick...and explain to me at what # will your "fairness train" stop and why? How did you come up with that magic #?
2. How do you plan to accomplish that..and if you propose - tax the rich more, make sure you show a way of generating higher revenues. Higher taxes does not imply higher revenues.
--
BTW, I am by no definition rich (you have the wrong perception - because I drink wheat beer ). I am more than happy to pay my share of taxes to the government where I see a good use for their services (which contrary to your perception - I think there are many!).

The top 5 % is not a family or group. They are not paying 70 percent tax on an individual basis. Perhaps all this can be explained the fact that between 1983 and 2004, the income of the top 1 % rose by 78 %, while the low 40 lost by 59 % in real dollar terms. We are living in a second gilded age. The top echelon contributing more to the pie is a myth. They are getting a disproportionately high part of it.

[prfsr]

Ruchir,
Your questions are dealt with in (I am making an educated guess) 2 years of courses. So there is no way I can address all of that in one post. Here are some brief answers.

1. If you stop unemployment allowances, it will force some to work and many others to crime. India/Bengal in the 70's was a classic example. It is in the interests of a healthy society to minimize economic inequity. One way of doing this is by paying people for free. By the way I personally know people who choose to be "bums". You can have them living on the street or you can provide some free housing. Take your pick.

2. A humanitarian society protects children. That the parents abuse the system is a problem but it is preferable to having hordes of kids with no food/shelter out there. FYI, pregnancies will happen with or without the payment. Look at the militant countries in a certain part of the world to see what happens when you have millions of kids and no money or hope of money.

3. Again, the problem is not citizenship, the problem is illegal immigration. Govts have looked the other way for many reasons. In your solution you will create a new generation of illegals who have no money or hope. The only thing they can become is criminals.

4. The healthcare system is a problem because every professional milks it as much as they can and then some more. Insurance companies make huge profits even after that. About not paying for illegal immigrants -- why is it more acceptable to you if all illegal immigrants were suddenly made legal? You still pay the same!

5. ER rooms not letting people die like in India is the best feature of the system. I am proud to stay in any society that does that. Of course various studies claim that providing healthcare for all is cheaper than the current system. I am not educated enough in the area to validate this.

6. Taxation is a major field and I claim no great expertise. However the claim " why should he be taxed a ridiculous %, just for being better than the rest? What kind of logic is that?" is presumptuous. Saying that a person earns more because he is better is at best a loose statement. What defines better? If a doctor with a private practice earns more than a state-of-the-art medical researcher (who does not have a practice), why is the former better? Why is a basketball player better than a hockey player or gymnast?

One pays taxes to live in a society. If you think you do not need others, consider your health insurance, auto insurance. If you think you do not need govt support, consider police, fire dept, highway authority etc.

Clearly there has to be a balance -- communism is one extreme where almost everyone makes similar amounts. No taxes is the other extreme. Neither is good for society. 99% taxes do not exist. Close to 60% does.

-P

[CLR James]

I don't think there is a right figure that fits all. Taxes pay for benefits and different societies need varying amounts of social support. So if I have to pay 90% tax on my personal income over 1 billion, so be it. Of course it is easier for me to say this since I do not earn a billion. I will readily admit that.

-P

You know, US has got it's social welfare program all wrong. If it was in my hands, I would not pay any taxes at all.

1. US pays unemployment allowance to all unemployed adults. That's completely wrong. If a person is able-bodied, he should not receive any allowance from social welfare. That should be reserved for handicap and elderly people. Once US govt forces every able bodied person to work, there would not be any need for mexicans to come over illegally. There are millions of healthy able-bodied people who take unemployment allowance and sit in home smoking pot, like lazy bums. For god's sake, force them to got out and work. There are tons of non-skilled jobs available. Work in construction, landscaping, work as janitor.... work and earn a living rather than brake the sofa at home.

2. Social welfare rewards minor pregnancies. Any woman having a baby and not working received about $1200 per child. This results in majority of black girls and latino girls too having children while being minor and unmarried. Every one hates teen pregnancy, yet US govt rewards it by giving money for it. Let social welfare be corrected to not pay any girl one penny if she is not 18 years or more. I guarantee, teen pregnancy will be eradicated in no time. US govt should not be responsible for paying for the pleasures of it's citizens. If citizens want to enjoy, let them support it themselves. US govt is not responsible to bear the mistakes of it's citizens. You make a mistake, you bear it's consequences.

3. Citizenship by birth. This single law has resulted in damaging US social welfare the maximum. This law was made around late 1700s or early 1800s, when lot of people were coming from Europe. At that time, US needed to boost it's population, and this law was enacted to entice people into coming here. But with time, this law became useless. In fact, this law acts like a single biggest magnet for mexicans to come here illegally. Young teenage mexican girls get pregnant and use their babies as anchor babies, to continue to stay back. What's more, now that the baby is born, US govt is forced to pay to the mother so that she can take care of the child. Take that!!! First you enter illegally, then you bear a child, and now US is force to feed it. This moronic citizenship by birth law needs to be changed to state that a child born in US will become a citizen on birth Only and Only if both parents are legal residents of USA.

4. Majority of our tax dollars marked for healthcare go in giving FREE healthcare to illegal aliens. For every medical thing, like fever or cold, these guy go to Emergency rooms. This results in ERs being perennially full. It takes a long time for legal residents to get care. I would demand that my tax dollar be spent only in giving healthcare to legal residents. Unless the need is life threatening, let all ER rooms ask for some ID other than SSN. Anyone visiting ER for non life threatening reason should be required to prove that s/he is a legal resident of USA.


Having given vent to my frustrations on how tax dollars are spent, via this rant, let me say that it is probably okay to increase tax % for individuals as the taxable salary increases, but it will be counterproductive to tax businesses more if their profits increase. The moment you tax a business more, the next moment the increase will be transfered to the consumer. Thereby, it will be the consumer who will bear the increase in tax on a business.

Even for individuals, the tax % should not be ridiculous. I mean if a businessman is earning millions a year, he naturally has that kind of intelligence, initiative and talent to do so. So, why should he be taxed a ridiculous %, just for being better than the rest? What kind of logic is that?

It is said that top 10% of earning population of US pays about 70% of total tax earnings by IRS. What more do you want? If you just go by figures, then even 99% taxation will seem too less. I mean I make $1 billion a year. Tax me 99%. So I am left with $1 million after tax. Hell, that is more that combined after-tax income of all the janitors working in Pentagon!!! What the hell, tax him more.

Ruchir,

The problems that I have with your points is that they are all based on anecdotal evidence and popular myths.

1. Many of us say that the market apparently takes care of everything. That is not true. All able bodied people are not able to find work all the time. We have, even in the US, a consistent unemployment rate. People are often laid off and jobs are shifted overseas. What should the unemployed do without social security? Sell drugs instead of buying them?

2. Is there a study that says that social welfare directly increases teenage pregnancy? If so, could you refer me to it? I ask because you say that you 'guarantee' that teenage pregnancy will stop if welfare is stopped. Society, as Pfsr correctly pointed out, is a much more complex phenomenon.

3. If citizenship is not accorded by birth, how else should it be accorded? This is potentially an explosive situation because if one leaves it to discretions of 'certain' people, they might exploit that privilege to discriminate in terms of race and other issues.

4. Once again anecdotal. I wonder how you can talk about the American Health Care system as a whole (the problems therein are just way way too many) simply by saying that illegal immigrants fill up emergency rooms all the time? If I say that I have never seen a single unauthorized alien in emergency rooms my ten years here, will that make my point more justified than yours?

[ruchir]

1. If you stop unemployment allowances, it will force some to work and many others to crime. India/Bengal in the 70's was a classic example. It is in the interests of a healthy society to minimize economic inequity. One way of doing this is by paying people for free. By the way I personally know people who choose to be "bums". You can have them living on the street or you can provide some free housing. Take your pick.

A very very bad precedence, in my opinion, to pay people free to just exist. We are rewarding unemployment. The idea is to do the right thing, rather than do the wrong thing because doing the right thing is difficult. USA has the capability to police these new criminals. For example, take those unemployed, who live in so-called 'projects'. First, they get free housing, then they get unemployment allowance. So, if you support wasting money on these lazy bums while crying yourself hoarse that schools don't get enough money and education quality in public schools is going down, then I guess you have no right to cry. If they have to live for free then let them live for free in jails, after police catches them committing crime. Right or wrong, I don't agree with paying these bums to just exist.

2. A humanitarian society protects children. That the parents abuse the system is a problem but it is preferable to having hordes of kids with no food/shelter out there. FYI, pregnancies will happen with or without the payment. Look at the militant countries in a certain part of the world to see what happens when you have millions of kids and no money or hope of money.

Not for a second I am saying don't care for the children. I am saying make parent bear the responsibility of the children. Let parents know that they don't have a right to bear a child if they are minor. I don't agree with you that teen pregnancies will continue to happen at the same rate if they are not paid for. Also, example of militant countries is a not in proper context. My point is that nearly all the teens, who get pregnant, do so to get the money from the govt. If there is any other reason for teens to get pregnant without the father caring for the child, I would like to be enlightened. So, when we know that mothers are abusing the system, the right thing to do is to correct the system rather than let it bleed. See various programs on CNN etc. You will see how these so-called caring mothers care for their kids on govt money. They take the money and then blow it up on drugs, accessories etc. while the kids grow up crawling on roadside. I say if the money is really supposed to be spent on kids then kids should be taken away from these mother and then money be spent on them. But if the kids remain with such mothers then they are anyways growing up just the way you described. So why give any money to the mothers, to blow up on coke?

3. Again, the problem is not citizenship, the problem is illegal immigration. Govts have looked the other way for many reasons. In your solution you will create a new generation of illegals who have no money or hope. The only thing they can become is criminals.

Again, sir, why should the govt be afraid of criminals? The problem IS citizenship. Why do you think mexican girls get pregnant within months of coming into USA illegally? Why do you think mexican girls come here illegally in the first place? The burning star of Citizenship by birth is bigger incentive for mexican girls to come to USA, than anything else. Take away this incentive and see how suddenly there won't be any girls coming to USA illegally. And how is not giving citizenship going to result in more criminals? If the child is not born to legally resident parents, the child is not given citizenship. How does that result in him becoming criminal, even later on in life? I am dumbfounded by this. What will actually happen is that with no guaranteed citizenship, first the illegal inflow of females will reduce. Next, the burden on public hospitals will reduce because they will be taking care of less number of free pregnancies and child births. There will be less burden on public schools as less and less such kids will be born, whose parents don't pay taxes that go to support the schools. Just taking away automatic citizenship will have a multitude of good effects on the legal residents of the society. So, again, you have to weigh the pros and cons. The only con you have given is that such kids will become criminals, for which we have police. The pros that I have listed, and I can list more, far outweigh the cons IMO. Successive govts have looked away because they looks at mexican as a vote bank (Indian style).

4. The healthcare system is a problem because every professional milks it as much as they can and then some more. Insurance companies make huge profits even after that. About not paying for illegal immigrants -- why is it more acceptable to you if all illegal immigrants were suddenly made legal? You still pay the same!

You have a misconception so huge that Aronld can drive all his hummer through it at the same time. Do you even know why health insurance rates have sky rocketed in past few years? Here's the reason: all illegals use the ERs for any kind of medical need. On top of that, they don't pay the bills. ER sends a bill to their home address, which is a fake one. So, in past years just about all public hospital ERs have been running losses going into millions of dollars. Hospitals can run like that, can they? So what do they do? They increase their service charges to the PAYING public. That is you and me. Now, this results in insurance carriers having to bear most of the burden because paying public is only paying the Co-pay. Right? So what do the insurance carriers do? They increase the monthly premium charged to the paying public. Not only that, they also increase the amount of co-pay. So, now what is the situation? Just because illegals are getting treated for free, it is people like you and me who are bearing their costs by now paying double or triple the monthly insurance premium that we used to pay 5-6 years ago. Does that tell you anything? Oh, and one more thing. Why should we make the illegals, legal? Just so that now technically it becomes justifiable for me to bear their cost? Sorry, I don't buy that. I will never ever support any illegal alien being given legal status.

And this thing is not limited to health insurance only. It goes to auto insurance too. Have you noticed that auto insurance carriers have increased their rate too. Know why? Because the accidents involving these illegal alien who are not insured, are rising every year. So, all auto insurance carriers have now built in these costs into their quotes for policies. Point being, if illegal aliens were not there, we would be paying less for health and auto insurance.

5. ER rooms not letting people die like in India is the best feature of the system. I am proud to stay in any society that does that. Of course various studies claim that providing healthcare for all is cheaper than the current system. I am not educated enough in the area to validate this.

I too am proud to live in a system that provides ER care for everyone, no questions asked, for life threatening emergencies. I have said so before, that I support it. But when the visit is not for a life threatening emergency (which is 99% of all illegal visits), I find it impossible to give them free care on my tax dollars. First of all, they broke US laws by entering into US illegally. As a criminal, they don't deserve to use any amenities and facilities that are there for legal residents to use. Since they don't have a right to use them, I don't support my tax dollars going towards that. I am compassionate enough to say that help them in case of life threatening emergencies, but not otherwise. You risked everything by coming to USA illegally, so now face those risks. US can not reward you for breaking it's laws. Enough of this compassion shyte.

6. Taxation is a major field and I claim no great expertise. However the claim " why should he be taxed a ridiculous %, just for being better than the rest? What kind of logic is that?" is presumptuous. Saying that a person earns more because he is better is at best a loose statement. What defines better? If a doctor with a private practice earns more than a state-of-the-art medical researcher (who does not have a practice), why is the former better? Why is a basketball player better than a hockey player or gymnast?

Who is stopping the medical researcher from opening his own practice? If he can do that and earn more, so be it. If he wants to remain a researcher, then it's his choice. Why should you penalize the doctor for it? Same for the gymnast? Why doesn't he go ahead and become a basket ball player? Probably because he is not built for that game. So? Is this the fault of the basketball player? Why should he be penalized for physical deficiencies of a gymnast?

One pays taxes to live in a society. If you think you do not need others, consider your health insurance, auto insurance. If you think you do not need govt support, consider police, fire dept, highway authority etc.

Clearly there has to be a balance -- communism is one extreme where almost everyone makes similar amounts. No taxes is the other extreme. Neither is good for society. 99% taxes do not exist. Close to 60% does.

I pay my taxes, and I don't believe I can exist on my own. I have said that I don't agree with the manner in which my tax dollars are being spent. I have a right to disagree, don't I? I also said if it was in my power, I wouldn't pay taxes. That doesn't mean I will stop paying taxes.

I pay for my Health, Auto insurance. So how is that useful here? Police, Fire dept, highways, I agree with. They run on my dollar. True, and I happily pay for them too. But it doesn't mean I agree with all areas where my tax dollars go.