Obama Tax Plan a Frontal Assault on Entrepreneurs(pajamasmedia.com)
pajamasmedia.com
Obama Tax Plan a Frontal Assault on Entrepreneurs
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-tax-plan-a-frontal-assault-on-entrepreneurs/
38 comments
When he says Obama's plan is "putting the cart before the horse" I think he means that it's silly to tax us on the money we earn that we'll eventually invest with and not on the money we invest ONCE we're rich.
I'm not rich, but let's assume I'm on track to become so by way of my ever increasing income. Obama would take more of the income I'm using to build my fortune, leaving me less to invest later on. Lower income taxes would give me more to play with later on, and since I'll already be quite well off by then, paying tax on my capital gains doesn't really bother me.
Personally I don't think this is a great argument and I am in support of Obama's plan, but I do see its point. It's a very long-term argument, and I think that if far smaller investors can use the capital gains 0% tax (such as entrepreneurs who self-fund) then it's an amazing idea. But if small self-funding entrepreneurs cannot take advantage of the 0% tax on capital gains in their own businesses, I'd probably agree with the author as it serves only to unfairly placate the rich.
I'm not rich, but let's assume I'm on track to become so by way of my ever increasing income. Obama would take more of the income I'm using to build my fortune, leaving me less to invest later on. Lower income taxes would give me more to play with later on, and since I'll already be quite well off by then, paying tax on my capital gains doesn't really bother me.
Personally I don't think this is a great argument and I am in support of Obama's plan, but I do see its point. It's a very long-term argument, and I think that if far smaller investors can use the capital gains 0% tax (such as entrepreneurs who self-fund) then it's an amazing idea. But if small self-funding entrepreneurs cannot take advantage of the 0% tax on capital gains in their own businesses, I'd probably agree with the author as it serves only to unfairly placate the rich.
This is simply ridiculous. The author clearly hasn't filled out IRS Form 1120S lately, or any other tax form that actually might be applicable to entrepreneurs. Furthermore, I don't really care if angel investors and venture capitalists have to pay more taxes on their successful investments. There's a difference between investing and inventing.
In regard to health care, adding more tax incentives (read loopholes), thereby increasing the complexity of the laws, and making the market for health insurance "more competitive," when the lack of competition is not the problem in the first place, will make matters far worse. Health care is not a commodity that lends itself to a market. It's a human right, which lends itself far better to [competent] government.
A while back I wrote about some of these issues here:
http://www.aarongreenspan.com/essays/index.html?id=11
In regard to health care, adding more tax incentives (read loopholes), thereby increasing the complexity of the laws, and making the market for health insurance "more competitive," when the lack of competition is not the problem in the first place, will make matters far worse. Health care is not a commodity that lends itself to a market. It's a human right, which lends itself far better to [competent] government.
A while back I wrote about some of these issues here:
http://www.aarongreenspan.com/essays/index.html?id=11
Health care is not a human right. It is not my obligation to make sure that you survive.
Humans are successful because we don't leave our dead, sick, wounded or crippled behind. We won because, instead of doing like other animals and letting the weak or old die alone, we continue to help them and learn from them.
We help other humans who are too weak to be helped. It's part of our primal human nature. When you say that it's not your obligation to make sure I survive, you are saying you want to try it the animal way. The way that failed.
We help other humans who are too weak to be helped. It's part of our primal human nature. When you say that it's not your obligation to make sure I survive, you are saying you want to try it the animal way. The way that failed.
Wrong. Humans are successful (when we are successful) because we use our inherent ingenuity to serve our individual ends and wants without infringing on those ends and wants of others. Maybe these desires include caring for others, which is often the case, but requiring someone to care for another is to strip that person of their natural freedom.
Learn to make distinctions between what is common and what is general.
Learn to make distinctions between what is common and what is general.
You have a very fundamental misunderstanding of biology. Really fundamental. You think a desire such as "caring for others" is somehow a personal choice? Or that God implanted it in us? Caring for others is a biological neccessity of our type of animal - it's why we live, it's why life continues.
There is no such thing as natural freedom. We are born in a collective, we die in a collective and we are nothing without our collective. Humans and monkeys are group first, individual second, and have always been that way. That's why people form 'teams' and have a 'group of friends', have 'families'. It's all small groups which together form larger groups, and the overall aim of each group is to make itself survive, but at the very top, the overall aim is to make the entire human race survive.
Don't believe you are special. That you have 'natural freedoms'. That you have some inherent ingenuity. That's just sillyness.
What would you do with all your ingenuity if you were the only person on earth? Humans have this illusion of being individualistic, and that they work for themselves first. It's not true. People work for the entire society, because without other humans, nobody can survive, no matter how 'ingenious' he is.
There is no such thing as natural freedom. We are born in a collective, we die in a collective and we are nothing without our collective. Humans and monkeys are group first, individual second, and have always been that way. That's why people form 'teams' and have a 'group of friends', have 'families'. It's all small groups which together form larger groups, and the overall aim of each group is to make itself survive, but at the very top, the overall aim is to make the entire human race survive.
Don't believe you are special. That you have 'natural freedoms'. That you have some inherent ingenuity. That's just sillyness.
What would you do with all your ingenuity if you were the only person on earth? Humans have this illusion of being individualistic, and that they work for themselves first. It's not true. People work for the entire society, because without other humans, nobody can survive, no matter how 'ingenious' he is.
What we're talking about is human ethics, and what you just spouted back at me was a muddled vomit of sociology, if that.
You think you know it all, but you forget that all you know is one perspective. Have you ever actually walked in another mans shoes? Not observed, but walked.
Being a web developer does not make you intelligent. Insulting people who disagree with you shows stupidity.
You have a lot to learn, but it's only experience that can teach you that stuff.
Being a web developer does not make you intelligent. Insulting people who disagree with you shows stupidity.
You have a lot to learn, but it's only experience that can teach you that stuff.
"You think you know it all."
"Insulting people who disagree with you shows stupidity."
Self-referential. I dig it.
Self-referential. I dig it.
Rights are those things that are inherent parts of being a human. When something infringes on my rights, the power of the state is used to maintain them. We have rights to represent the minimal amount of state-sanctioned force that is required to keep us all civil.
You cannot have a right to goods and services that somebody else currently owns. Using the power of the state to acquire medical goods and services is not a basic necessity of being a human.
We've lived millions of years without the state caring for our daily health. We can live millions more without the state and we'll be just be fine.
For a constitutionally-trained lawyer to say that is to engage in demagoguery over substance. We have a problem with health care -- some free market principles do not work when you are dying. But cartoon solutions and slogans are not going to fix complex problems. Mark my words: we'll just end up more in debt, more frustrated, and more vulnerable to even more bullshit promises.
You cannot have a right to goods and services that somebody else currently owns. Using the power of the state to acquire medical goods and services is not a basic necessity of being a human.
We've lived millions of years without the state caring for our daily health. We can live millions more without the state and we'll be just be fine.
For a constitutionally-trained lawyer to say that is to engage in demagoguery over substance. We have a problem with health care -- some free market principles do not work when you are dying. But cartoon solutions and slogans are not going to fix complex problems. Mark my words: we'll just end up more in debt, more frustrated, and more vulnerable to even more bullshit promises.
If I were to have an accident or to fall sick right now, I'd worry about my health, and nothing more, because I live in a country with socialized healthcare. If this were to happen in the U.S, I'd have tens of thousands of dollars of debt. To work my way out of this debt would make me a slave for years.
Support for social heathcare is to recongize that one day you may be in the same position. In fact, when you are a really old man, you WILL be in that position. You'll be on a pension and you'll have lots of illnesses. I pay 8% of my income so that this never has to be a worry.
Social healthcare may not be a fundamental human right, but it's a hell of a convenient thing!
Support for social heathcare is to recongize that one day you may be in the same position. In fact, when you are a really old man, you WILL be in that position. You'll be on a pension and you'll have lots of illnesses. I pay 8% of my income so that this never has to be a worry.
Social healthcare may not be a fundamental human right, but it's a hell of a convenient thing!
> cartoon solutions and slogans are not going to fix complex problems.
Good point. E.g.: "Competition will cause insurance companies to drop price and increase service. Innovation will come to insurance and new and different types of policies will enter the market, making it even more competitive. Consumer behavior will cause people to shop for insurance and minimize costs while trying to increase coverage."
Good point. E.g.: "Competition will cause insurance companies to drop price and increase service. Innovation will come to insurance and new and different types of policies will enter the market, making it even more competitive. Consumer behavior will cause people to shop for insurance and minimize costs while trying to increase coverage."
Health care is not a human right.
You may want to read Article 25.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights before reconsidering that statement.
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
You may want to read Article 25.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights before reconsidering that statement.
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
If you're quoting the UN on human rights, you've already lost.
Current members of the UN Human Rights Council:
China Cuba Ghana Nigeria
Current members of the UN Human Rights Council:
China Cuba Ghana Nigeria
The UN is the worst institution we have for advancing international human rights, except for all the others.
You should wash your mouth out with soap for misquoting that. The UN is a treaty body, meant for eliminating global conflict.
That's it. It's not a global government. It has no representation from the masses, it has no balanced system of government, it has no executive to speak of.
It's done a great job of preventing WWIII. Let's leave it at that.
That's it. It's not a global government. It has no representation from the masses, it has no balanced system of government, it has no executive to speak of.
It's done a great job of preventing WWIII. Let's leave it at that.
[deleted]
What if the US doesn't make it a right? What is the UN going to do? Write us some angry letters that threaten us with more angry letters? Fuck the UN and their bullshit.
This nation was built on individual liberty and responsibility, not as a nanny state.
This nation was built on individual liberty and responsibility, not as a nanny state.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The person who wrote this article has never tried to obtain independent health insurance.
For a family of 4, private health insurance with a typical deductable costs something like $1200 per month. That's half a reasonable mortgage, or 3 times the monthly cost of two parents each commuting 50 miles a day on $4 gas, or 3 concurrent car lease payments. Over 60% of Americans today are covered by their employers, who in addition to accessing lower-rate group plans, cover some or all of this expense.
But that's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that out of the 163,000,000 people that would need to switch to private health insurance in these schemes, a huge portion of them will be unable to access a competitive plan. Private health insurers can and do decline coverage for a myriad of reasons. My daughter had a (drug reaction) seizure when she was 3. NO COVERAGE. A friend's wife had a minor women's health issue. NO COVERAGE.
Advocates for private health insurance are quick to point out that they'll work with states to set up "last-resort" health insurance coverage for these people. Those advocates don't understand what the word "competition" means. Those "last-resort" plans already exist (at least in Illinois, Michigan, and California), but they're far more expensive than Blue Cross or United. Insurance works efficiently by creating pools of shared risk. What happens to the plans that get all the "risky" people?
With a couple obvious exceptions, my sense is that no country loves its health insurance system. Canadians bitch about theirs, British people bitch about theirs. But our system is an international joke. We pay more than everyone else, we shift the burden of those payments to the least convenient places in our economy, the average patient receives poorer care, and we still manage to bankrupt people with the system at random intervals.
For a family of 4, private health insurance with a typical deductable costs something like $1200 per month. That's half a reasonable mortgage, or 3 times the monthly cost of two parents each commuting 50 miles a day on $4 gas, or 3 concurrent car lease payments. Over 60% of Americans today are covered by their employers, who in addition to accessing lower-rate group plans, cover some or all of this expense.
But that's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that out of the 163,000,000 people that would need to switch to private health insurance in these schemes, a huge portion of them will be unable to access a competitive plan. Private health insurers can and do decline coverage for a myriad of reasons. My daughter had a (drug reaction) seizure when she was 3. NO COVERAGE. A friend's wife had a minor women's health issue. NO COVERAGE.
Advocates for private health insurance are quick to point out that they'll work with states to set up "last-resort" health insurance coverage for these people. Those advocates don't understand what the word "competition" means. Those "last-resort" plans already exist (at least in Illinois, Michigan, and California), but they're far more expensive than Blue Cross or United. Insurance works efficiently by creating pools of shared risk. What happens to the plans that get all the "risky" people?
With a couple obvious exceptions, my sense is that no country loves its health insurance system. Canadians bitch about theirs, British people bitch about theirs. But our system is an international joke. We pay more than everyone else, we shift the burden of those payments to the least convenient places in our economy, the average patient receives poorer care, and we still manage to bankrupt people with the system at random intervals.
Anyone truly believe that the change from "less taxes for people making < $250K (read: entrepreneurs)" and "if you create value we won't tax you on that" (read: successful entrepreneurs) is going to _dissuade_ anyone from trying?
This is the same "as long as you make the rich richer they'll spill some on everybody else" thinking that, frankly, has no actual merit in fact (Before you downmod me on this, lookup the some actual data!)
This guy should read a biography on Henry Ford.
This is the same "as long as you make the rich richer they'll spill some on everybody else" thinking that, frankly, has no actual merit in fact (Before you downmod me on this, lookup the some actual data!)
This guy should read a biography on Henry Ford.
Even if the article is accurate, the alternative is McCain.
On one hand, this seems like it's linkbait to a poorly researched article. On the other hand... see hand number one.
And it's also very much politics, something that doesn't belong here. To properly discuss the candidates, parties, and whatnot, you can't stop at their economic policies that might affect people here, but have to consider foreign relations, civil liberties, and a slew of other things that would just bog this site down. Back to hacking.
I was wondering about this. When I first heard his tax plan I didn't think much one way or another. Then I thought, wait! I'm trying to raise money from the super rich!
Usual republican fearmongering. as Marc Cuban said "No self respected businessman/ entrepenour wakes up a day and says I am not going to build a business and try to make millions b/c my marginal tax rate is %35 instead of %25".
If that extra money taxed gets used for something useful such as building High Speed Rail in California, or jump-starting alternative fuels technology, then it is a win win situation for the economy and for people.
If that extra tax money gets spend in useless wars such as the one in Iraq, that is plain economic destruction.
That's why picking the right president is so important, and makes the huge difference between economic prosperity, or economic destruction.
While I may say, that Bush's tax cut, and flood of money (with low interest rates), left the rich flush with money, who invested in short-sighted and useless economic destructive market. For every house that is in foreclosure, every house/street/building that is left half build, that is all economic loss to all.
While it is a good idea to let markets decide private investments in the long run, sometimes it is necessary for the government to step in, and invest in things that are not profitable in the short term, but have huge positive economic impact in the long run. And if pinching some money away from the private market is necessary, so be it.
If that extra money taxed gets used for something useful such as building High Speed Rail in California, or jump-starting alternative fuels technology, then it is a win win situation for the economy and for people.
If that extra tax money gets spend in useless wars such as the one in Iraq, that is plain economic destruction.
That's why picking the right president is so important, and makes the huge difference between economic prosperity, or economic destruction.
While I may say, that Bush's tax cut, and flood of money (with low interest rates), left the rich flush with money, who invested in short-sighted and useless economic destructive market. For every house that is in foreclosure, every house/street/building that is left half build, that is all economic loss to all.
While it is a good idea to let markets decide private investments in the long run, sometimes it is necessary for the government to step in, and invest in things that are not profitable in the short term, but have huge positive economic impact in the long run. And if pinching some money away from the private market is necessary, so be it.
> for something useful such as building High Speed Rail in California
According to http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20080121152955... , the system can't pay back the bonds that are currently on the ballot, bonds that cover less than half of the projected construction costs. Since such projections almost always overestimate revenues and underestimate construction costs, the real gap will be even larger.
Some of the tricks used to get the revenues up include high-rises in Fresno and other central CA cities over the train station. That makes a lot of sense in NYC where land is at a premium, but Fresno?
There's a reason why the ballot statement says that the operating costs "[operating] costs would be at least partially offset by revenue from fares paid by passengers" and doesn't mention interest and principle.
I can't find a breakdown for the operating costs on this version of the project. The last time I saw such a breakdown, the projected salaries and benefits of the folks running the trains exceeded the projected revenues....
If high-speed rail in CA made financial sense, why wouldn't a for-profit enterprise be interested in doing it?
According to http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20080121152955... , the system can't pay back the bonds that are currently on the ballot, bonds that cover less than half of the projected construction costs. Since such projections almost always overestimate revenues and underestimate construction costs, the real gap will be even larger.
Some of the tricks used to get the revenues up include high-rises in Fresno and other central CA cities over the train station. That makes a lot of sense in NYC where land is at a premium, but Fresno?
There's a reason why the ballot statement says that the operating costs "[operating] costs would be at least partially offset by revenue from fares paid by passengers" and doesn't mention interest and principle.
I can't find a breakdown for the operating costs on this version of the project. The last time I saw such a breakdown, the projected salaries and benefits of the folks running the trains exceeded the projected revenues....
If high-speed rail in CA made financial sense, why wouldn't a for-profit enterprise be interested in doing it?
If high-speed rail in CA made financial sense, why wouldn't a for-profit enterprise be interested in doing it?
Because there are externalities which a private company can't benefit from, but that people benefit from.
Because there are externalities which a private company can't benefit from, but that people benefit from.
They benefit, but not enough to pay for it?
More importantly, what's the difference between "private company" and "people?"
More importantly, what's the difference between "private company" and "people?"
Another point on the health care bit. At present, medicare and medicaid spend a combined > $600 billion and rising at 6% annually. In their market (medical insurance) they are the largest players. Absolutely. As a result, other insurance companies structure their plans within those offered by these two entities. They have to, if they want to offer supplementary services to these large markets and have any influence with hospitals (hospitals and doctors do not want to work with multiple completely different systems of paperwork unless they have to).
If we want real innovation in the health care sector, the personal tax deduction will help but ultimately, we need to get rid of these two bloated freaks. Too bad that that is one sacred cow that no politician is going to touch with a 9 foot stick.
If we want real innovation in the health care sector, the personal tax deduction will help but ultimately, we need to get rid of these two bloated freaks. Too bad that that is one sacred cow that no politician is going to touch with a 9 foot stick.
If your $600bn figure is correct...
US incomplete health care is $600bn/305m people = $2,000 per person.
UK national health service is $120bn/60m people = $2,000 per person.
The US needs a really hard look at why it is getting such a bad deal. You already have socialised medicine (anyone can go to the ER and it gets amortised over private insurance patients - essentially taxing the rich) but that cost is on top of the $2k/person you pay for an inferior national program!
US incomplete health care is $600bn/305m people = $2,000 per person.
UK national health service is $120bn/60m people = $2,000 per person.
The US needs a really hard look at why it is getting such a bad deal. You already have socialised medicine (anyone can go to the ER and it gets amortised over private insurance patients - essentially taxing the rich) but that cost is on top of the $2k/person you pay for an inferior national program!
Actually, everyone in the US is covered, there are just different plans. The gap is wrt insurance. The uninsured have "free" (read taxpayer supported) options. (Yes, there are treatments that aren't covered in those options, just as there are in every system, including those in "universal healthcare" systems.)
Note that about half of the insured are insured through US govt programs. Interestingly enough, the cost of those govt programs is about the same as the cost of the private programs that cover the other half of the insured. And, the results of those govt programs is not better.
If you're going to argue that the US govt can do better than the private sector, you should explain why it doesn't. Same cost, same results. Why will making it universal change any of that?
Better yet - work on the US govt programs and then open them up at cost. When they're better and cheaper, folks will flee the private system. Until then, why should we believe that they will be any better than they are?
Note that about half of the insured are insured through US govt programs. Interestingly enough, the cost of those govt programs is about the same as the cost of the private programs that cover the other half of the insured. And, the results of those govt programs is not better.
If you're going to argue that the US govt can do better than the private sector, you should explain why it doesn't. Same cost, same results. Why will making it universal change any of that?
Better yet - work on the US govt programs and then open them up at cost. When they're better and cheaper, folks will flee the private system. Until then, why should we believe that they will be any better than they are?
The uninsured do not have "free" options. The "taxpayer supported" mechanism kicks in only after you've been bankrupted. There's a difference between uninsured and broke.
The key point remains that the US govt has a huge role in the current healthcare system. The programs that it runs that have comparable scope to the private programs do not produce better results or cost less.
Why should anyone believe that they'd do better if they covered everyone?
Why should anyone believe that they'd do better if they covered everyone?
That's not the key point of your argument at all. Your thesis is that everyone is covered, under different programs. That's demonstrably, decisively false: the "program" that covers the uninsured first denies them long-term preventative coverage, then forces them into emergency rooms, and finally drives them into bankruptcy. It is the most expensive, least efficient mechanism for all parties involved.
The easiest way to come to the conclusion that the government would do better is to recognize that the only way we could possibly do worse would be to let people die in the emergency room instead of treating them.
Your argument appears merely to redefine the word "covered" to mean "screwed".
The easiest way to come to the conclusion that the government would do better is to recognize that the only way we could possibly do worse would be to let people die in the emergency room instead of treating them.
Your argument appears merely to redefine the word "covered" to mean "screwed".
> The "taxpayer supported" mechanism kicks in only after you've been bankrupted.
Some do, but others don't. You can go to county or free clinics. When/if they bill, ignore.
Some do, but others don't. You can go to county or free clinics. When/if they bill, ignore.
You appear to be confusing flu shots and zithromax scripts with a real health care system, which responds to cancer, heart disease, and life-threatening injury.
It's not the ear infections that bankrupt people.
It's not the ear infections that bankrupt people.
There's some arm waving about how increasing the income tax on high wage earners will act as a disincentive to angel investors. Am I misunderstanding tax law, or aren't capital gains (e.g., from startup investments) separate from income for tax purposes?
Then, when Obama's "socialized medicine" plan would actually help, the author rails against it because it has 'failed everywhere it's been tried.' (Except where it has succeeded. And also, the dismal failures mentioned are anecdotal scaremongering.) The solution is held out in front of the author and he rejects it on unrelated, partisan grounds!
Maybe he makes sense to himself, but his oversimplifications haven't adequately made the case for the article title or his two supporting gripes.