Asked about Trump’s lead in the polls, Fiorina seemed to dismiss Trump as a Democratic plant.
“I didn’t get a phone call from Bill Clinton before I jumped into the race,” she said. “Did any of you get a phone call from Bill Clinton? I didn’t.”
“Maybe it’s because I hadn’t given money to the foundation or donated to his wife’s Senate campaign,” she added….(read more)
Doubling Capital Gains Tax Rate on Short-Term Investments: Campaign officials have said that their goal is not to address income inequality or to raise money for the federal treasury, but to ‘change investor behavior’.
Under the Clinton plan, investments held between one and two years would be taxed at the normal income-tax rate of 39.6%, nearly double the existing 20% capital gains rate. Neither figure counts an extra 3.8% tax on net investment income included as part of the health-care law, a campaign official said.
MSM handling bad news about Hillary like… pic.twitter.com/Wqj7CCoJXY
— Matt (@Matthops82) July 24, 2015
The campaign isn’t proposing any changes to the capital gains rate for lower-income taxpayers. The change would affect top-bracket single filers with taxable income above $413,201 and married couples filing jointly with taxable income above $484,850.
The rate for top-bracket taxpayers would be set on a sliding scale, with the lowest rate applied to investments held the longest. To qualify for the existing 20% rate, one would have to hold an investment for at least six years.
Mrs. Clinton will lay out the plan in a speech Friday in New York City, where she plans to spotlight what she sees as unhealthy corporate efforts to boost stock prices. She will argue that a focus on short-term results is undercutting longer-term economic growth and hurting American workers.
Capital gains recap, since 1997: Bill: CUT 28% to 20% W: CUT 20% to 15% O: HIKE 15% to 23.8% Hillary (proposed): HIKE 23.8% to 43.4%
— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) July 24, 2015
Mrs. Clinton will also endorse a $15 per hour minimum wage proposal for fast-food workers in New York, a campaign official said. Asked about this on Thursday, she hedged as to whether the minimum wage should be that high nationally but said certain cities can justify higher minimums. “I do recognize that the cost of living in Little Rock is different than the cost of living in Manhattan,” she told reporters. Asked if $15 per hour is justified in New York, she said, “That’s up to local leaders in New York. They certainly believe it is.”
The campaign said she would also call for greater disclosure of stock buybacks by companies, saying that while they may give a quick lift to stock prices, they often come at the expense of research and development spending. She will also call for a review of securities rules related to shareholder activism and rules governing tax treatment of executive compensation. Read the rest of this entry »
…And Paul Ryan is Still Right To Fix It
I selected this article not because of the Paul Ryan budget, but because it has this chart (see below) produced by Veronique de Rugy for the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, that reveals which countries pay what in corporate taxes. We knew the U.S. had among the highest, but like most, I didn’t know the U.S. has the #1 highest. And right behind us are France, Belgium, and Mexico.
I didn’t know that Canada, Iceland, and Switzerland have the lowest. I suspect those countries have fewer rigged policies and armored truck-sized loopholes (managed by corrupt legislators dispensing favors and punishments) and probably enjoy better tax revenues, too, as corporations have far less motive to either move their operations somewhere else, or try to shelter their profits from punitive taxation. Capitol tends to flee high tax regions, and seek lower tax regions. Are Iceland and Canada radical ‘anti-tax’ Tea Party countries? Hardly. The best reason to have an abnormally high corporate tax rate is to insure opportunities for graft and corruption. If a corporation wants tax relief, well, it just needs to know which campaigns to contribute money to.
Veronique de Rugy writes: Chairman Paul Ryan put out the blueprint for his FY2015 budget on Tuesday. I will have more to say about it in the next few days, but first I’ll focus on one idea in his budget: reforming our tax system and, specifically, reducing the U.S. corporate-tax rate from 35 to 25 percent and shifting from a worldwide tax system to a territorial system. These are very good policy proposals.
The extremes of that chart, reflecting 2013 rates, haven’t changed since 2011: National statutory corporate-tax rates among the 34 members of the OECD range from 8.5 percent in Switzerland to 35 percent in the United States.
Despite having the highest national statutory rate, the United States raises less revenue from its corporate tax than the other members of the OECD on average. In fact, the federal corporate-income tax raised just (roughly) 10 percent of total federal tax revenues in 2013.
To make matters worse, yesterday marked a sad anniversary: the second year in a row where the U.S. not only has the highest statutory rate but also has the highest combined rate (39.2 percent) when both the federal and average state rates are added. Japan used to hold the record for combined rates (39.8 percent), until it lowered its combined rate to 36.8 percent in April 2012. Read the rest of this entry »
During the rancorous debate over Obamacare, President Barack Obama and his team said the president’s healthcare plan was modeled on the system Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney implemented in Massachusetts.
However, a New York Times analysis by University of Chicago economics professor Casey B. Mulligan finds that Obamacare’s impact on nationwide marginal tax rates will be 12 times greater than the rate increases under Romneycare in Massachusetts. The finding holds critical implications for employment and work hours.
“The United States is actually more dependent on rich people to pay taxes than even many of the more socialized economies of Europe. According to the Tax Foundation, the United States gets 45 percent of its total taxes from the top 10 percent of tax filers, whereas the international average in industrialized nations is 32 percent. America’s rich carry a larger share of the tax burden than do the rich in Belgium 25 percent, Germany 31 percent, France 28 percent, and even Sweden 27 percent.”
Consider what happened each time the U.S. reduced the tax rate significantly:
- 1920s: The top tax rate fell from 73 percent to 25 percent, yet the rich (in those days, those earning $50,000 and up) went from paying 44.2 percent of the tax burden in 1921 to paying more than 78 percent in 1928.
- 1960s: President John F. Kennedy slashed the top tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent. In the ensuing three years, those making more than $50,000 annually saw their tax payments rise by 57 percent, and their share of the tax burden climbed from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.
- 1980s: The Reagan years saw the top rate fall from 70 percent in 1980 to 28 percent in 1988. What happened to the rich? The top 1 percent went from shouldering 17.6 percent of the income tax burden in 1981 to paying 27.5 percent of the total in 1988. The top 10 percent saw their share of the burden climb from 48 percent in 1981 to over 57 percent in 1988.
More >> via Washington Times