Some of the more patriotic millionaires and billionaires are actually intelligent. They understand that they did well with President Clinton with higher taxes, know their lifestyle will not appreciably change with higher taxes, and are ready to support the economy by assisting with their share.
Unearned income is a real problem in the tax code. A venture capitalist spoke and said that some are worried that it will hurt the rich and claimed it is just the opposite. It helps everyone. Senator McConnell is hoping for a fight over entitlements.
The CTJ (Citizens for Tax Justice) have a nice explanation about tax entitlements, which I have, frankly, never understood before. To read this and understand the issues, click here. One sentence contained begins to show a part of the problem It reads:"What makes tax expenditures similar to spending programs is that they are special tax provisions that are designed to accomplish some social or economic goal unrelated to equitable tax collection. They are like "entitlements" because they are not subject to annual budget appropriations, but are paid out to any business or individual that meets the eligibility rules, regardless of the total cost". After it discusses a great deal done for low income people, it adds a more interesting sentence. "Most government spending through the tax code is not targeted toward low-income people, however. In fact, tax breaks tend to reward those with the most lobbying muscle in Washington, especially organized business interests."
Areas of entitlements and subsidies get a bit murky when trying to separate them. Another interesting thought was raised. "Still another fundamental question about many tax expenditures at least those structured as personal deductions is their "upside-down" nature. Who could imagine a direct government spending program that paid an increasing share of, say, mortgage costs as peoples' incomes rose? Yet that's exactly the effect of the current deduction for mortgage interest."
Certainly with the rapidity of change in all things economic in our country today, we should change the rules and examine entitlements yearly as the budget is set up.
Lastly, I need to better understand why some people are paid NOT to grow something. There was a time when we tried to help people who lost their jobs. There is not a lot of history circulated about paying people who can no longer follow their professions. Many teachers became computer specialists, people went back to school and learned new vocations and professions. If something does not get examined frequently, it is not keeping current with the needs of our times.
Unearned income is a real problem in the tax code. A venture capitalist spoke and said that some are worried that it will hurt the rich and claimed it is just the opposite. It helps everyone. Senator McConnell is hoping for a fight over entitlements.
The CTJ (Citizens for Tax Justice) have a nice explanation about tax entitlements, which I have, frankly, never understood before. To read this and understand the issues, click here. One sentence contained begins to show a part of the problem It reads:"What makes tax expenditures similar to spending programs is that they are special tax provisions that are designed to accomplish some social or economic goal unrelated to equitable tax collection. They are like "entitlements" because they are not subject to annual budget appropriations, but are paid out to any business or individual that meets the eligibility rules, regardless of the total cost". After it discusses a great deal done for low income people, it adds a more interesting sentence. "Most government spending through the tax code is not targeted toward low-income people, however. In fact, tax breaks tend to reward those with the most lobbying muscle in Washington, especially organized business interests."
Areas of entitlements and subsidies get a bit murky when trying to separate them. Another interesting thought was raised. "Still another fundamental question about many tax expenditures at least those structured as personal deductions is their "upside-down" nature. Who could imagine a direct government spending program that paid an increasing share of, say, mortgage costs as peoples' incomes rose? Yet that's exactly the effect of the current deduction for mortgage interest."
Certainly with the rapidity of change in all things economic in our country today, we should change the rules and examine entitlements yearly as the budget is set up.
Lastly, I need to better understand why some people are paid NOT to grow something. There was a time when we tried to help people who lost their jobs. There is not a lot of history circulated about paying people who can no longer follow their professions. Many teachers became computer specialists, people went back to school and learned new vocations and professions. If something does not get examined frequently, it is not keeping current with the needs of our times.
No comments:
Post a Comment