All Hank, all the time.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
As does anyone creaming for any change.

AMT plus unlimited Roth IRAs. How about that? (i.e., you pay income tax rates on dividends and k-gains, but only when you withdraw the money from the IRA.

Does one pay those w/r/t Roth IRAs now? I thought withdrawals were tax-free.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Does one pay those w/r/t Roth IRAs now? I thought withdrawals were tax-free.

Same here. I thought that with the Roths, you pay taxes on the income going in, but the withdrawals weren't touched.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Does one pay those w/r/t Roth IRAs now? I thought withdrawals were tax-free.

Oops, my mistake. You do pay before putting it in. The money you take out is untaxed. Same difference, mathematically, and for this policy purpose. Either way dividends and gains are untaxed (or taxed only once).

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Oops, my mistake. You do pay before putting it in. The money you take out is untaxed. Same difference, mathematically, and for this policy purpose. Either way dividends and gains are untaxed (or taxed only once).

The whole "expanding Roths to everyone" is bullshit on two levels -- (a) they want the immediate revenue to offset other tax cuts/this will fuck future revenues and (2) huge, huge shelter for the wealthy. HUGE.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
The whole "expanding Roths to everyone" is bullshit on two levels -- (a) they want the immediate revenue to offset other tax cuts/this will fuck future revenues and (2) huge, huge shelter for the wealthy. HUGE.

On (a) starve the beast
On (b) so? They're paying the taxes now, in full. In exchange, it won't be taxed upon withdrawal. So, what you're doing is taxing consumption and not savings. (and, mathematically, it's identical to allowing a deduction now and taxing later, on withdrawal).

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
As does anyone creaming for any change.

AMT plus unlimited Roth IRAs. How about that? (i.e., you pay income tax rates on dividends and k-gains, but only when you withdraw the money from the IRA.

You know where I stand. The Supremes declared back in 1916 that income was any accretion to wealth. Last time I checked, that included cap gains and dividends. It's like Warren Buffet said, it's absurd that some janitor pushing a broom should be taxed on the way he earns a living and a stock trader like Buffet should get away tax-free.


ETA the pun was intentional.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
On (a) starve the beast
On (b) so? They're paying the taxes now, in full. In exchange, it won't be taxed upon withdrawal. So, what you're doing is taxing consumption and not savings. (and, mathematically, it's identical to allowing a deduction now and taxing later, on withdrawal).

On (a), do you really think this works? Or are you setting out their rationale? Because they aren't starving the beast -- they are maximizing crop yields now at the expense of crop yields later. Or some metaphor like that.

On (b), how is it mathematically the same? The earnings never get taxed. Oh, wait, I guess if we were *saving* and *investing* the current tax revenues, then in theory the returns would be the same as the returns on the money in the Roth IRA.

I think that ignoring temporal issues in this context is unwise. It seems to me this is all about timing, and that the purely formulaic mathematical economic stuff is just being used to cloud the underlying timing issues.

It does sound nice, though.

I think *when* money comes in is not irrelevant.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
On (a), do you really think this works? Or are you setting out their rationale? Because they aren't starving the beast -- they are maximizing crop yields now at the expense of crop yields later. Or some metaphor like that.

On (b), how is it mathematically the same? The earnings never get taxed. Oh, wait, I guess if we were *saving* and *investing* the current tax revenues, then in theory the returns would be the same as the returns on the money in the Roth IRA.

I think that ignoring temporal issues in this context is unwise. It seems to me this is all about timing, and that the purely formulaic mathematical economic stuff is just being used to cloud the underlying timing issues.

It does sound nice, though.

I think *when* money comes in is not irrelevant.

on a, apparently not.

What's mathematically the same is:

A. Allowing a tax deduction for IRA contributions, with taxation on all withdrawals.

B. Allowing no tax deduction for IRA contributions (and thus requiring payment of tax on them, with no taxes later.

It's just a time shift of tax receipts, but properly discounted to present value (based on the actual earnings).

I concede that the budget shenanigans of allowing a 1-year unlimited roth conversion to create revenues is bogus, but I support it because I support the increased use of allowing savings to grow tax free (whether taxed at the outset or upon withdrawal).

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
The Supremes declared back in 1916 that income was any accretion to wealth.

That doesn't mean that it must include all such things, or all the current exemptions would be unconstitutional.

I'm pretty sure (although could be corrected), they were referring there to the outer limits of Congress' authority.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That doesn't mean that it must include all such things, or all the current exemptions would be unconstitutional.

I'm pretty sure (although could be corrected), they were referring there to the outer limits of Congress' authority.

You're right on both points. As it happens, for the reasons stated earlier, I believe that it is inherently inequitable to tax wages but not tax dividends and capital gains. I also believe it is inherently inequitable to tax consumption rather than income, and for the same reason.

Both favor the wealthy at the expense of the working poor, the lower and the middle classes. People who need to live on the bulk of their income suffer more of the incindence of tax under either a flat tax that excludes dividends and capital gains or under a consumption tax.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
People who need to live on the bulk of their income suffer more of the incindence of tax under either a flat tax that excludes dividends and capital gains or under a consumption tax.

On the former, I see your point (although I don't know if "suffering the incidence" accurately describes everyone paying the same percentage of their income in tax).

On the latter, there is no reason that one could not have a progressive consumption tax. Indeed, using IRAs/Roths/tax-sheltered savings accounts, in combination with progressive tax bracketing should resolve your concerns (assuming sufficient progressivity).

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
On the former, I see your point (although I don't know if "suffering the incidence" accurately describes everyone paying the same percentage of their income in tax).

On the latter, there is no reason that one could not have a progressive consumption tax. Indeed, using IRAs/Roths/tax-sheltered savings accounts, in combination with progressive tax bracketing should resolve your concerns (assuming sufficient progressivity).

Let's just say that when the government draws the poverty line for a family of four with two kids under 18 at $19,206, I'm more than a little bit skeptical about their ability to provide sufficient progressivity.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
FLORIDA: HARRIS CAMPAIGN GETS EVEN MORE BIZARRE.
Former defense contractor Mitchell Wade -- who already pled guilty to bribing Congressman Duke Cunningham (R-CA) -- picked up the $2,800 tab for a dinner he had with Congresswoman Katherine Harris (R) at an exclusive DC restaurant last year. The value of the unreported dinner far exceeded the $50 congressional gift limits, and was intended to get Harris to help Wade land a $10 million contract. So, who spilled the beans about this to the Orlando Sentinel? The answer: veteran GOP political strategist Ed Rollins, who had worked on Harris' campaign until he and the rest of the staff quit two weeks ago. "Rollins said he and Harris discussed the meal and its cost early this year after Wade" pled guilty to corruption charges, reported the newspaper. The price of the dinner was "news to me," Harris told the newspaper. She also said "her campaign had, at some point, 'reimbursed' the restaurant. When asked how she could have reimbursed a business that was owed no money -- Wade paid the bill that evening -- she abruptly ended the interview and walked off." A Harris staffer later called the Sentinel and begged them to not quote anything Harris said in the phone interview. The next day, Harris changed her story: "I have donated to a local Florida charity $100 which will more than adequately compensate for the cost of my beverage and appetizer." Harris said she thought the bill was so high because Wade may have ordered expensive wines and also brought some bottles home uncorked. As was previously reported, Harris received over $32,000 in illegal campaigns contributions from Wade -- more than any other member of Congress. After Wade pled guilty, Harris later donated an equal amount of money to charities. With stories like this continuing to appear, it is only a matter of time before some other Republican steps forward to challenge Harris in the primary. A statewide poll conducted last week -- for which no one claimed responsibility -- reportedly tested House Speaker Allan Bense in a possible primary contest against Harris. If Harris is the GOP nominee, move incumbent Bill Nelson (D) to the safe column.

You know, I've been critical of Rep. Harris on this board, and I've come to the conclusion that at least some of this criticism was less than warranted. Sure, her claim to fame was as a Republican appointee centrally involved in one of the most contested elections in modern American history, and my initial opinion of her as a potential federal elected official was consequently pretty low.

Even after getting elected to the House of Reprsentatives, I remained skeptical.

But I understand now that my perception was too limited, based solely on news reports about her laughable campaign miscues, about dining with alleged felons, and of still photographs of tight clothing. Only when I saw a recent clip of her on TV did I understand how she's put it all together.

Watch for yourself (via Wonkette), and learn the secret to the first set of TITS! to be elected to the United States Senate.

Gattigap

[SlaveNoMore]

Gattigap
...based solely on news reports about her laughable campaign miscues, about dining with alleged felons, and of still photographs of tight clothing.

Until the tight clothing part, I thought for a minute you were talking about Al Gore

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Until the tight clothing part, I thought for a minute you were talking about Al Gore

Please. You've been posting "Run, Al, Run!" messages in the comments section of DailyKos and Atrios for weeks now. Don't even try to deny it.