H.R. 5029 - Economic Freedom Act of 2010

[boedicca]

I'd like to see a reform of "prevailing wages" for government workers to eliminate the huge premium paid over the private sector. Tiered salary reductions (more for higher paid), with less at the bottom, and then pay freezes until parity is reached with the private sector. Increases there after limited to a CPI adjustments, but only if the budget is running at breakeven or a surplus.

 

[antagon]

For those who say the Republicans are the party of 'no' and have no ideas, Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) introduced H.R. 5020 - Economic Freedom Act of 2010 - recently. It is still in committee and the Democratic majority probably will not allow it out of committee this year.

The bill has a number of supporters however and, should the Republicans achieve a majority in November, they will bring it to a vote on the House floor early in 2011.

Basically the bill proposes the following:

1) Eliminate the capital gains tax.
2) Reduce the corporate tax rate to 12.5%.
3) Permanently eliminate the death tax.
4) Provide immediate business expensing.
5) Reduce the payroll tax by half for 2010.
6) Repeal the "stimulus" spending (except for unemployment benefits and the tax cuts).
7) Terminate the TARP program.

Would you vote for this? Why or why not?

this all seems dandy, but where is the real fiscal conservatism? when will republicans realize that our debts are the result of their tax-cut shtick?

one of the concerns which every government of the next 20 years must deal with is how to grow government revenues to affect solvency. i know i'm going only from your summary, and have not looked at the proposed bill, but i wonder why they dont take any of these responsibilities, but return to the well over a tired, but volatile popular campaign strategy in cutting taxes.

party of nonsense?

I disagree. Fiscal conservatism includes the government using no more of the people's property than is absolutely necessary in order for government to fulfill is constitutionally mandated responsibilities.

Fiscal conservatism also recognizes that our debts are the result of spending more money than we take in, of programs that have far exceeded their projected costs and have mushroomed into unsustainable entitlements, and of government using the people's money and resources recklessly, unnecessarily, frivolously and/or to increase its own power, prestige, authority, influence, and personal fortunes.

fox: cause and effect - reagan's second round of cuts and our debt problem. no democrats nor republicans have dared align our taxation with spending since, for fear of the loss of political capital.

the us gov't will spend trillions annually. the growth of government spending will outpace the growth of the economy. those two facts must be accepted by any rational economist. the republican method of cutting taxes and calling that conservatism does not effectively reduce the impact of the government budget. it shifts this impact to direct competition with businesses looking for funding and distortions in the rates and value of currency at present and into the future.

ive gone as far as proposing another branch of the government be established to de-politicize the budget much as the founders aimed to isolate the law with the judicial branch. no party is conservative. this bill is tax-cut-conservatism, and has NOTHING TO DO WITH REDUCING THE COST OF GOVERNMENT much like the party sponsoring it has proven over the last 20+ years.

 

[FrankieGA]

corporate tax rates should be left alone or raised, and loopholes allowing transfer to offshore subsidiaries filled more effectively. parring or raising the tax puts effect behind the expensing power in the bill. have companies dodge some of their tax liability, all of it if possible, but have that happen through investment in the US economy.

Why would you raise corporate tax burdens? Reducing the tax burden would encourage Large Corporations to move and grow here in the US as one of the most favorable tax rates in the world. right now we are treading on the high end, and look what it gets you. Raising it or keeping it the same only results in more of the same BS. Companies moving and shrinking in order to reduce their overall tax burden to the Fed's.

 

[antagon]

i take that back. clinton dared. that was conservatism, despite the necessity to bump taxes UP a couple points.

bottom line is, a budget should be met. arbitrary tax relief is impossible with this fact upheld. poof to the republican campaign machine. if they would put a BBA in committee, i'd stop talking shit, but as it is, and after neglecting to enact any of their conservative agenda in the 90's, they're full of the stuff. what more to talk about them?

 

[antagon]

corporate tax rates should be left alone or raised, and loopholes allowing transfer to offshore subsidiaries filled more effectively. parring or raising the tax puts effect behind the expensing power in the bill. have companies dodge some of their tax liability, all of it if possible, but have that happen through investment in the US economy.

Why would you raise corporate tax burdens? Reducing the tax burden would encourage Large Corporations to move and grow here in the US as one of the most favorable tax rates in the world. right now we are treading on the high end, and look what it gets you. Raising it or keeping it the same only results in more of the same BS. Companies moving and shrinking in order to reduce their overall tax burden to the Fed's.

across the board, tax revenues need to go up for the solvency pf government. unlike our states, our federal solvency effects the dollar directly, and we cant play the games we have been the last 30 years. wouldn't raise taxes if we didn't need to reclaim the dough.

As it is these same large corps dont pay much/any taxes. the rate could likely go up without changing that. furthermore, we are one of the most favorable tax rates in the world. the developed world. that wont change if we could gradually make our rates more sensible instead of making a knee-jerk down the line to avoid a credit rating issue waiting on our current course.

when you emplace deductibility such as the expensing provision in this bill, ideally you do take the opportunity to raise taxes, certainly not reducing them. for companies which deduct their liability away as provided, you can say that you have saved a business a killing. for firms leeching off the economy such that they are profitaking excesses they cant even flex off in bonuses, these firms will pick up the bill. where deductions are found in investment in our economy, don't higher taxes affect stimulus and increased revenue for the government at the same time?

review the idea that companies are afraid to open up shop in the US because of tax liability. the US offers revenues. we are, by far, the largest single-nation consumer economy. everyone wants a piece. there is a line waiting to break it, not break out. these lines stretch from low-tax third-world economies to our doorstep looking for a piece of the action. the game does not work how you say. everything indicates that. should the US imperil what businesses and individuals who do pay tax and operate stateside with the consequences of an upside-down revenue policy?

 

[Foxfyre]

altogether, i like the expensing part of the bill most.

the payroll tax holiday should be rolled to the year following the action of the bill such that it could act as stimulus, rather than relief. the former will allow businesses to consider hiring employees early in the year and hope to grow them into their shoes during the holiday. the latter will just cut the government revenue, probably with little resultant hiring.

the capital gains provision should be nixed. capital gains should be treated as taxable income. real savings and lending is preferred economic activity to gambling on investment markets. the republicans are just looking to line some pockets and affect another disaster-bubble to blame on the rest of the country.

corporate tax rates should be left alone or raised, and loopholes allowing transfer to offshore subsidiaries filled more effectively. parring or raising the tax puts effect behind the expensing power in the bill. have companies dodge some of their tax liability, all of it if possible, but have that happen through investment in the US economy.

this bill should be able to project par or improved solvency for the government, at least with the same smoke and mirrors which the HC bill did. with it not passing with spending provisions from tarp still in the wings that is doubtful.

i would like to see a repeal of the alt min tax - the stupidest part of our code which i owe the biggest ass whoppin. that's not in there. i dont think that the payroll tax holiday is realistic. havent we borrowed enough stimulus from medicare and SS? i would like to see new hire deductions, explicitly, in lieu. gimme $6k/ ea. and we'll make jobs.

I gave you a thanks for this one not because I agree with all of it, but because you are raising so many salient points that have to be a part of the debate.

But all taxes are not equal and all do not have the same effect.

Let's start with capital gains:

WHILE CAPITAL GAINS may seem to be a form of income like any other, this is not the case. As the great economist Irving Fisher once explained, it confuses the fruit and the tree. Trees grow and they also produce fruit. The fruit is income and is justly taxed. But growth of the tree is an increase in capital. More capital will produce more income in the future, which will be taxed, but taxing the capital itself is counterproductive.

Cutting the capital gains tax will also have beneficial economic effects. The 1969 and 1986 increases in the capital gains tax -- and the 1978, 1981 and 1997 reductions -- suggest capital gains realizations will expand by more than enough to actually raise federal revenue.
Taxes and Growth | Capital Gains Taxes

The Heritage Foundation has done some excellent research re increasing and decreasing capital gains taxes here:
Capital Gains Tax Hike Unlikely to Increase Revenues | The Heritage Foundation

Bottom line. Lowering or eliminating capital gains frees up revenues and stimulates the economy that historically far exceeds any revenues that might be obtained from the capital gains taxes themselves.

 

[Foxfyre]

corporate tax rates should be left alone or raised, and loopholes allowing transfer to offshore subsidiaries filled more effectively. parring or raising the tax puts effect behind the expensing power in the bill. have companies dodge some of their tax liability, all of it if possible, but have that happen through investment in the US economy.

Why would you raise corporate tax burdens? Reducing the tax burden would encourage Large Corporations to move and grow here in the US as one of the most favorable tax rates in the world. right now we are treading on the high end, and look what it gets you. Raising it or keeping it the same only results in more of the same BS. Companies moving and shrinking in order to reduce their overall tax burden to the Fed's.

across the board, tax revenues need to go up for the solvency pf government. unlike our states, our federal solvency effects the dollar directly, and we cant play the games we have been the last 30 years. wouldn't raise taxes if we didn't need to reclaim the dough.

But what does it accomplish if increased tax revenues result in decreased economic activitiy and prosperity? It sounds great that yeah, raise all the taxes to balance the budget.

But if those tax increase result in lost jobs, more folks on unemployment, more folks on food stamps, more folks on welfare, more folks not paying into the system because they have little or no income, those tax increases would be pretty stupid wouldn't you say?

We have to honestly look at cause and effect along with the consequences of tax and spend. Every businessman knows that just raising prices does not necessarily increase the bottom line and can actually hurt it if the tax increase results in his customers going elsewhere or not buying at all.

 

[Bern80]

across the board, tax revenues need to go up for the solvency pf government. unlike our states, our federal solvency effects the dollar directly, and we cant play the games we have been the last 30 years. wouldn't raise taxes if we didn't need to reclaim the dough.

This may be the single most warped narrow minded thing I've read so far. If I were a democrat I'd be laughing my ass off at you. "Look not only am I spending inefficiently, I actually have this donkey (no pun intended) supporting it."

I am sad for the tax issue when I see both righties and lefties playing the governments game. Everyone is arguing about who should have their taxes raised and who should get cuts, but no one seems to want to hold the people that caused the problem accountable.

 

[FrankieGA]

I believe the last number i heard about two months ago are we are number 27 out of 30 ranked from lowest to highest. So we are in 3rd place from being one of the highest tax rates among the industrialized countries. So go ahead and raise them again, lets just push the rest of large corporations out of this country.

Simply put, The result of increased taxes will reduce the output of companies, while the reduced tax rate would increase revenues to the company, which would spur growth, job creation, etc.

If you don't understand that theory, your just plain dumb

 

[rightwinger]

I believe the last number i heard about two months ago are we are number 27 out of 30 ranked from lowest to highest. So we are in 3rd place from being one of the highest tax rates among the industrialized countries. So go ahead and raise them again, lets just push the rest of large corporations out of this country.

Simply put, The result of increased taxes will reduce the output of companies, while the reduced tax rate would increase revenues to the company, which would spur growth, job creation, etc.

If you don't understand that theory, your just plain dumb

How about all those companies having to pay for health insurance for their employees while foreign competition does not?

 

[The Rabbi]

I guess in your little republican cheerleader bubble you live in, it wouldn't help much to explain this, and you might be a little too dumb to understand anyway. But I'm glad to try.

When Barack took office, the economy was hemorrhaging about 750,000 jobs a month, due to the meltdown caused by the Republicans. 3 months into his tenure, it was down to about 450,000 a month, and 3 months more, about 200,000 a month. Now yes, during this period, the aggregate Unemployment rate continued on to up trend, albiet much much slower than in the economy he inherited. So even though in reality the condition was improving, you and your contemporaries chose to focus on the aggregate statistic, which (incorrectly) made it appear that the problem was getting worse.

Now in 3 of the last 5 months, we've actually gained jobs, for the first time since February '08.

Now I'm not trying to be mean, bless your indignant little soul, so you don't have to go crying like a 5 year old to the moderators like you did last time. I'm just trying to point out that you are reverberating faulty information, and make sure that you're aware of it before you wind up looking foolish.

Please, don't paint yourself as the rational one here because you are clearly a partisan hack. Anyone who would write in a neg rep "suck my dick you little assclown" is clearly not playing with a full deck, in addition to violating TOS on this board.
The fact is that the economy lost many more jobs in the 2001 recession but the unemployment rate never went this high. That is because job creation was still strong.
Under "Barak" (I didnt know you were on a first name basis with Barry) that job creation has lagged badly. The last figure for job creation you cite includes many government jobs (which are a drain on the economy, not a help) including census worker jobs, which are temporary by nature.
So we have not gained jobs in any meaningful sense, and the unemployment rate continues to be stubbornly high. It will continue to be this way because Barack has pushed an agenda that punishes job creation, making it expensive and uncertain. ANd this will not change before November, when the Democrats will get the full force of electoral anger.

So if government job creation isn't ideologically viable in your opinion, then why doesn't the private sector rejoin the human race and stop being so afraid to take risks? If businesses want to move forward, they've got to put some shoes on.

Of all the stupid spins of the Left I've seen on this thread (and there are some dandies) this one takes the cake.
First, it isn't a question of ideology but economics. Temporary jobs created by the gov't to hand people checks are not sustainable. The only take money from productive people to give to unproductive people. You might as well hire 10k people to dig ditches and then another 10k to fill them in.
Businesses are not hiring because your president Barack Insane Obama has declared a fatwa on businesses that make money (businesses that lose money get gov't handouts). Have you noticed how many businesses have written down their earnings in anticipation of the new Obamacare? What other mandates will Obama put on businesses? How about banks, where they are considering a tax on assets?
Businesses exist to earn a profit. If gov't makes that difficult, they will respond by freezing hiring and expansion until things become clearer.
That is what has made this recession worse. Job loss was every bit as bad under Bush in 2001. But job creation has lagged and this accounts for the high unemployment rate.

 

[midcan5]

For those who say the Republicans are the party of 'no' and have no ideas, Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) introduced H.R. 5020 - Economic Freedom Act of 2010 - recently. It is still in committee and the Democratic majority probably will not allow it out of committee this year.

No industrial nation in the modern age can survive without taxing the key beneficiaries of its system. This stuff is stupid. If you were to destroy the tax base would you then remove the military as it eats most of that money? Simplistic bunk like this appeals to some but makes zero sense.


Newsflash: Ronald Reagan Raised Taxes (You Idiots) | Firedoglake

The Conservative Nanny State

Hale "Bonddad" Stewart: Ronald Reagan: Fiscal Disaster

 

[Cuyo]

Please, don't paint yourself as the rational one here because you are clearly a partisan hack. Anyone who would write in a neg rep "suck my dick you little assclown" is clearly not playing with a full deck, in addition to violating TOS on this board.
The fact is that the economy lost many more jobs in the 2001 recession but the unemployment rate never went this high. That is because job creation was still strong.
Under "Barak" (I didnt know you were on a first name basis with Barry) that job creation has lagged badly. The last figure for job creation you cite includes many government jobs (which are a drain on the economy, not a help) including census worker jobs, which are temporary by nature.
So we have not gained jobs in any meaningful sense, and the unemployment rate continues to be stubbornly high. It will continue to be this way because Barack has pushed an agenda that punishes job creation, making it expensive and uncertain. ANd this will not change before November, when the Democrats will get the full force of electoral anger.

So if government job creation isn't ideologically viable in your opinion, then why doesn't the private sector rejoin the human race and stop being so afraid to take risks? If businesses want to move forward, they've got to put some shoes on.

Of all the stupid spins of the Left I've seen on this thread (and there are some dandies) this one takes the cake.
First, it isn't a question of ideology by economics. Temporary jobs created by the gov't to hand people checks are not sustainable. The only take money from productive people to give to unproductive people. You might as well hire 10k people to dig ditches and then another 10k to fill them in.
Businesses are not hiring because your president Barack Insane Obama has declared a fatwa on businesses that make money (businesses that lose money get gov't handouts). Have you noticed how many businesses have written down their earnings in anticipation of the new Obamacare? What other mandates will Obama put on businesses? How about banks, where they are considering a tax on assets?
Businesses exist to earn a profit. If gov't makes that difficult, they will respond by freezing hiring and expansion until things become clearer.
That is what has made this recession worse. Job loss was every bit as bad under Bush in 2001. But job creation has lagged and this accounts for the high unemployment rate.

Job creation has lagged because credit was frozen and spending was at a stand still. However, in spite of those issues, job losses improved immediately when the dems took control, and now in the last year-half we're actually gaining jobs.

I think I've thoroughly proven this to be true. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that anything bad that happens in the economy is because of the Democrats, while anything good that happens under Democratic control is unrelated to politics. THAT is why it's impossible to take you seriously.

As a friend - OK not as a friend, you're too much of a dousche to be a friend, but as advice - Try starting an entry that does not unilaterally blame the democrats for everything that ails every-fuckin-body.

 

[The Rabbi]

So if government job creation isn't ideologically viable in your opinion, then why doesn't the private sector rejoin the human race and stop being so afraid to take risks? If businesses want to move forward, they've got to put some shoes on.

Of all the stupid spins of the Left I've seen on this thread (and there are some dandies) this one takes the cake.
First, it isn't a question of ideology by economics. Temporary jobs created by the gov't to hand people checks are not sustainable. The only take money from productive people to give to unproductive people. You might as well hire 10k people to dig ditches and then another 10k to fill them in.
Businesses are not hiring because your president Barack Insane Obama has declared a fatwa on businesses that make money (businesses that lose money get gov't handouts). Have you noticed how many businesses have written down their earnings in anticipation of the new Obamacare? What other mandates will Obama put on businesses? How about banks, where they are considering a tax on assets?
Businesses exist to earn a profit. If gov't makes that difficult, they will respond by freezing hiring and expansion until things become clearer.
That is what has made this recession worse. Job loss was every bit as bad under Bush in 2001. But job creation has lagged and this accounts for the high unemployment rate.

Job creation has lagged because credit was frozen and spending was at a stand still. However, in spite of those issues, job losses improved immediately when the dems took control, and now in the last year-half we're actually gaining jobs.

I think I've thoroughly proven this to be true. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that anything bad that happens in the economy is because of the Democrats, while anything good that happens under Democratic control is unrelated to politics. THAT is why it's impossible to take you seriously.

As a friend - OK not as a friend, you're too much of a dousche to be a friend, but as advice - Try starting an entry that does not unilaterally blame the democrats for everything that ails every-fuckin-body.

No, you haven't proven it.
Job losses began increasing when the Dems won Congress. They accelerated after Obama was sworn in. Job creation is still minuscule, if you exclude the public sector, in fact a net loss of jobs still.
Nothing good has happened under Democratic control. Only less bad. And imposing higher taxes and more mandates on business will guarantee that the next 3 years will be years of high unemployment. No amount of spinning will change that.

 

[Cuyo]

Of all the stupid spins of the Left I've seen on this thread (and there are some dandies) this one takes the cake.
First, it isn't a question of ideology by economics. Temporary jobs created by the gov't to hand people checks are not sustainable. The only take money from productive people to give to unproductive people. You might as well hire 10k people to dig ditches and then another 10k to fill them in.
Businesses are not hiring because your president Barack Insane Obama has declared a fatwa on businesses that make money (businesses that lose money get gov't handouts). Have you noticed how many businesses have written down their earnings in anticipation of the new Obamacare? What other mandates will Obama put on businesses? How about banks, where they are considering a tax on assets?
Businesses exist to earn a profit. If gov't makes that difficult, they will respond by freezing hiring and expansion until things become clearer.
That is what has made this recession worse. Job loss was every bit as bad under Bush in 2001. But job creation has lagged and this accounts for the high unemployment rate.

Job creation has lagged because credit was frozen and spending was at a stand still. However, in spite of those issues, job losses improved immediately when the dems took control, and now in the last year-half we're actually gaining jobs.

I think I've thoroughly proven this to be true. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that anything bad that happens in the economy is because of the Democrats, while anything good that happens under Democratic control is unrelated to politics. THAT is why it's impossible to take you seriously.

As a friend - OK not as a friend, you're too much of a dousche to be a friend, but as advice - Try starting an entry that does not unilaterally blame the democrats for everything that ails every-fuckin-body.

No, you haven't proven it.
Job losses began increasing when the Dems won Congress. They accelerated after Obama was sworn in. Job creation is still minuscule, if you exclude the public sector, in fact a net loss of jobs still.
Nothing good has happened under Democratic control. Only less bad. And imposing higher taxes and more mandates on business will guarantee that the next 3 years will be years of high unemployment. No amount of spinning will change that.

OK I got it - Congress pushes the "Recession" button.

So, the dot-com burst that happened under Clinton, well that must have been the fault of the Republican congress, right?

 

[The Rabbi]

Job creation has lagged because credit was frozen and spending was at a stand still. However, in spite of those issues, job losses improved immediately when the dems took control, and now in the last year-half we're actually gaining jobs.

I think I've thoroughly proven this to be true. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that anything bad that happens in the economy is because of the Democrats, while anything good that happens under Democratic control is unrelated to politics. THAT is why it's impossible to take you seriously.

As a friend - OK not as a friend, you're too much of a dousche to be a friend, but as advice - Try starting an entry that does not unilaterally blame the democrats for everything that ails every-fuckin-body.

No, you haven't proven it.
Job losses began increasing when the Dems won Congress. They accelerated after Obama was sworn in. Job creation is still minuscule, if you exclude the public sector, in fact a net loss of jobs still.
Nothing good has happened under Democratic control. Only less bad. And imposing higher taxes and more mandates on business will guarantee that the next 3 years will be years of high unemployment. No amount of spinning will change that.

OK I got it - Congress pushes the "Recession" button.

So, the dot-com burst that happened under Clinton, well that must have been the fault of the Republican congress, right?

Except the dot-com companies weren't gov't regulated and the banks and brokerages and Fannie/Freddie are. And the gov had plenty of advance knowledge that they were over-lending and putting crap in their portfolios.
Nice try at spinning but fail.

 

[Cuyo]

No, you haven't proven it.
Job losses began increasing when the Dems won Congress. They accelerated after Obama was sworn in. Job creation is still minuscule, if you exclude the public sector, in fact a net loss of jobs still.
Nothing good has happened under Democratic control. Only less bad. And imposing higher taxes and more mandates on business will guarantee that the next 3 years will be years of high unemployment. No amount of spinning will change that.

OK I got it - Congress pushes the "Recession" button.

So, the dot-com burst that happened under Clinton, well that must have been the fault of the Republican congress, right?

Except the dot-com companies weren't gov't regulated and the banks and brokerages and Fannie/Freddie are. And the gov had plenty of advance knowledge that they were over-lending and putting crap in their portfolios.
Nice try at spinning but fail.

Ahh... Yes of course. I knew that one had to be different some how.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK I got it - Congress pushes the "Recession" button.

So, the dot-com burst that happened under Clinton, well that must have been the fault of the Republican congress, right?

Except the dot-com companies weren't gov't regulated and the banks and brokerages and Fannie/Freddie are. And the gov had plenty of advance knowledge that they were over-lending and putting crap in their portfolios.
Nice try at spinning but fail.

Ahh... Yes of course. I knew that one had to be different some how.

Yeah, amazing how that works. Two things that aren't the same are actually dissimilar. Whodathunkit?

 

[Foxfyre]

For those who say the Republicans are the party of 'no' and have no ideas, Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) introduced H.R. 5020 - Economic Freedom Act of 2010 - recently. It is still in committee and the Democratic majority probably will not allow it out of committee this year.

No industrial nation in the modern age can survive without taxing the key beneficiaries of its system. This stuff is stupid. If you were to destroy the tax base would you then remove the military as it eats most of that money? Simplistic bunk like this appeals to some but makes zero sense.


Newsflash: Ronald Reagan Raised Taxes (You Idiots) | Firedoglake

The Conservative Nanny State

Hale "Bonddad" Stewart: Ronald Reagan: Fiscal Disaster

It isn't a matter of taxation. Nobody is saying that taxes are not necessary in order for the government to operate.

It is a matter of how the taxes are administered and how the money is then spent.

To tax only the effective, efficient, productive is to punish effectiveness, efficiency, productivity.

To spend only on the ineffective, inefficient, non productive is to reward those characteristics or activities.

It shouldn't take a genius to figure out that punishing success and rewarding failure or the substandard is going to promote a lot more substandard and failure than success.

And once you no longer have enough of the successful left to punish then voila! You have the high permanent unemployment and stagnant economies of Europe.

We can do better.

 

[MaggieMae]

Fiscal conservatism includes the government using no more of the people's property than is absolutely necessary in order for government to fulfill is constitutionally mandated responsibilities.

Define "people's property." Government's constitutionally mandated responsibilities have necessarily expanded exponentially because we are no longer a country of 4 million, but a country of 309 million.