Bloomberg's Tax Reform Plan
Mike does not realize that the top tax rate was 36% with a 10% surtax on the wealthy (3.6%). Assume a GOP 37% base (very unround number). I assume a 5% of income surtax, rather than on the base 37% tax - or a 44.6% tax. He might was well sell it as a cut from 37% to 36% with a 25% surtax on the high base rate - or 45%. Rookie mistake on his part - or that of his staff. He needs to hire better talent.
Also, a 28% tax on capital has no wings. We have been bargaining from 31% under Bush Sr. (up from Reagan 28% post bubble - which is what pissed of rich donors), to 39.6% and then 28% under Clinton (thank's Larry Summers - note sarcasm). W. went down to 20% (before Pease and ACA). O got us to 25 with surtaxes. Ryan got us to 23 and change with a 21% advertised base. You can guess the trend. It is toward a central figure. End Pease and make ACA a separate Subtraction VAT levy and 24% is a natural consensus number. Also because it can be 20% of price figure for a subtraction VAT.
Now that Cap Gains, Pass through, Corporate and Dividend taxes are at a single rate, they should stay that way. Inheritance too. Mark the Asset VAT to market at option exercise/IPO and sale after gift and inheritance and end quit talking about it in terms of income taxes at all. I will explain this to anyone with a DC office. Sorry, Mayors Pete and Mike. If being mayor of South Bend is a presidential qualification then so is being what was essentially a job as deputy mayor for public safety in DC. Voting for another billionaire would be insanity after Trump.
If I were running a scam, I would call it Identity Theft Central. Some kind of personal-consumption surtax would solve the problem as an afterthought. Just ask me, Holtz-Eakin, Bartlett, Gale, Lindsey, Graetz, Burman and even Ryan/Brady and their DBCFT. The question on tax reform is not how to do it but in giving Norquist donors a reason to support it.
Expanding the SEC fee to a full blown FTT is a nice start. Shifting from a capital gains tax to a full blown asset VAT is better, although a bit more obviously Pergovian. I would consider this to be a feature, not flaw. I don't think any billionaire would unless they found a personal interest in paying more for the sake of the next generation of 1 percenters (who owe majority of the future liability for national debt).
Also, a 28% tax on capital has no wings. We have been bargaining from 31% under Bush Sr. (up from Reagan 28% post bubble - which is what pissed of rich donors), to 39.6% and then 28% under Clinton (thank's Larry Summers - note sarcasm). W. went down to 20% (before Pease and ACA). O got us to 25 with surtaxes. Ryan got us to 23 and change with a 21% advertised base. You can guess the trend. It is toward a central figure. End Pease and make ACA a separate Subtraction VAT levy and 24% is a natural consensus number. Also because it can be 20% of price figure for a subtraction VAT.
Now that Cap Gains, Pass through, Corporate and Dividend taxes are at a single rate, they should stay that way. Inheritance too. Mark the Asset VAT to market at option exercise/IPO and sale after gift and inheritance and end quit talking about it in terms of income taxes at all. I will explain this to anyone with a DC office. Sorry, Mayors Pete and Mike. If being mayor of South Bend is a presidential qualification then so is being what was essentially a job as deputy mayor for public safety in DC. Voting for another billionaire would be insanity after Trump.
If I were running a scam, I would call it Identity Theft Central. Some kind of personal-consumption surtax would solve the problem as an afterthought. Just ask me, Holtz-Eakin, Bartlett, Gale, Lindsey, Graetz, Burman and even Ryan/Brady and their DBCFT. The question on tax reform is not how to do it but in giving Norquist donors a reason to support it.
Expanding the SEC fee to a full blown FTT is a nice start. Shifting from a capital gains tax to a full blown asset VAT is better, although a bit more obviously Pergovian. I would consider this to be a feature, not flaw. I don't think any billionaire would unless they found a personal interest in paying more for the sake of the next generation of 1 percenters (who owe majority of the future liability for national debt).
posted by Michael Bindner at 6:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home