Anybody have any idea what the Dem's have planned for the short term once they take power in the Senate and the House? I wonder if they even had a plan beyond getting power?
This will be the thread to prognosticate on what they will do within the first year of their reign of terror.
As near as i can tell, their plan is threefold:
1. Raise the minimum wage
2. Undo everything Bush has done.
3. do everything Bush hasn't done.
More seriously, I don't know exactly what they can do about some of the things that they have talked so much about. They can put pressure on Bush to bring the troops home by withdrawing funding, but that entails two dangers to them: one, they don't want to be seen as not supporting the troops, and two, even they know that withdrawal will lead to worse problems which will basically come home to roost during what they hope will be a Democratic administration in 2009-13. So now, they have to think a little more like statemen and a little less like politicians. The goal was to capture the Congress. Mision accomplished. Now it will be to manage the war in such a way that it doesn't turn around and bite them on the ass. Much tougher than just opposing. It will be interesting to see how fine a line they try to walk between doing what they promised and doing what they should.
Taxes and the economy. They will try to enact some more taxes, the crowd-pleasing kind that are on the "other guy". Unless they tie those to compromises that they need the president to sign, they will get vetoed. The economy is good, but is already showing signs of slowing, and higher taxes anywhere in the line will only slow it further. it takes a while fo an economy to turn around, but by '08, it will be an election issue again. The Democrats will blame it all on Bush and the good economy fo the last three years will be yesterday's news. Mostly they will act by allowing the Bush tax cuts to die, including the one about the credit for dependent children. Or is it just rich people's kids?
Stem cell research. Nothing will be done. I wish it would, but this was just an election ploy. it is not a high priority.
Same sex marriage. Nothing will be done.
Immigration: Nothing will be done. This will be an '08 election issue.
Corruption: Nothing much willl happen here. Mission accomplished, so why dig around when some of the bodies you unearth may be your own. besides, remember the old saying about power. Now that the dems have the power in the Congress, who do you think the lobbyists will be wining and dining? They may try a few potshots at various people, maybe Cheney, but why? Anyone hear much about how Cheney outted Valarie Plame in retaliation for her husband's lying to the press? didn't the guy who really did it root for a Democratic victory? Yeah, that one's coming back. Best to let sleeping dogs lie. My guess is the next big scandal will involve a democrat.
War on terror. Same problem as the war in Iraq. Now that they can actually make the decisions, they will be reluctant to do the things they clamored for. Wiretaps will be reconsiderd, some minor cosmetic spin on it, and things will go on as before. Who wantsd to have to explaing that osama was on the phone giving details of the planned attack on Atlanta, but they made the CIA hang up? And now there is no Atlanta. What politician wants to take the responsibility for that? Time to compromise. paint it a new color, call it a new name, but it will be business as usual.
Boils down to this: with the exception of taxes, it is much easier to demand changes from others than to make those changes yourself and bear the responsibility for them. So I don't expect radical changes, just enough to keep the vast unwashed believing in them.
At least is what I hope. If they radical enough to try and do all they have promised, God help us all.
Well that wasn't very optimistic. I'll take these in the order you used.
As you indicated, it does sound like they're going to raise the minimum wage.
They're not going to do anything big on Iraq until James Baker's group's report comes out, and they'll largely follow it. IMO Rumsfeld was a disaster; hopefully the new Secretary won't threaten to fire everybody that bothers with contingency plans.
I heard someone (Schumer?) say that they're going to try to close some tax loopholes (I think he specifically mentioned Bermuda), but that rate hikes are unlikely. They surely won't extend the cancellation of the estate tax, but I bet they will increase the exemption.
You're probably right on stem cell research. Bush used his only veto on a bill with a fair amount of Republican support. Now, the Dems might have the votes to override, but it'd be risky.
AFAICT the Dems haven't even been talking about civil unions for gays. Personally I don't see why the government should force people to die alone, but the people have spoken.
Immigration seems to be a big issue for Bush, and something he's specifically mentioned working with the Dems on.
Corruption. Obviously. See also: 1994.
Terror. For starters, I expect them to re-emphasize Afghanistan. Maybe they can associate that with a "victory" plan for Iraq. As for H.R. 3162, some of it, like opening communication among intelligence agencies, was no-brainer stuff. Even if they wanted to make wholesale changes, Bush would obviously never go along. This year's re-authorization did address some of the concerns, and I expect more of them to be addressed. The idea is to give the intelligence agencies the tools they need without creating more of a Big Brother than we already have. Finding the right balance may be "cosmetic" to you, but it sure isn't to me.
No, Gravy, I am not optimistic, but I do have hope.
Your assessment seems generally reasonable to me.
The word "loophole" bothers me - one man's loophole is another man's incentive. The word originally meant unintended consequences, such as passing a tax on buggy whips, but through a poorly worded phrase in the act, exempting buggy whips made on weekends. Now it means a tax incentive or treatment that either you don't agree with or which is politically expedient to oppose. I have heard every deduction or treatment described as a loophole at one time or another - even the standard deduction. After all, there is no doubt that is of more value to a taxpayer with $50K of income than to one with $15K. Tax break for the rich. But other things are called loopholes, too. Just about everything that is on or has been on Schedule A (itemized deductions) has come under attack. Interest expenses, sales taxes, property taxes, charitable deductions - all have come under attack at times as loopholes. Property taxes favor the wealthy, since only rich people own houses. Interest deductions favor the rich, cause poor people aren't welcome in banks. And so on. So the vague mention of loopholes leaves almost everything in the mix.
A lot of these things have a reason for being, and sometimes it is for the benefit of the whole country, and sometimes just for a few states or regions. Oil depletion, timber allowances, special tax treatments for fishing and mining, these are all treatments that Congressmen from certain states have gotten for their constituencies, but these is often a reasonable logic behind them. There is a reasonable logic behind lower rates for capital gains, which i will discuss privately with anyone, but it is too involved for here and now.
The point, which I have overdone I guess, is that loophole can mean anything you want it to. So of the things he might call a loophole might actually be reasonable ways to treat a specific type of income or deduction. It just makes it easier to attack if you call it a loophole or a tax break for the rich.
I heard Jesse jackson on hannity and Colmes a couple of nights ago expounding that the most wealthy should pay more, that they don't pay their fair share. When hannitty pressed him to define who the weathy are or what a fair share is, he all of a sudden declined to get specific. Hannity asked if $50K/year was the dividing line, and he wouldn't even comment on that.
Don't know what the Bermuda thing is.
You're probably right about the estate tax. It's still an unfair second tax. All they should do is tax the unrealized capital gains at captial gains rates - same if if the property was sold in life. Everything else was bought with after tax money. heck they even want a percentage of depreciated assets. That $15,000 car you bought 8 years ago, now worth $3000 pay half that to the governement because you chose to die. Yeah, makes sense.
As for gay marriage, I really don't care, but a lot of people do, and most of the ones who want it vote democratic, and most of the ones who don't vote Republican. So I think at least some voters voted for the Dems because they thought this would advance the case for gay marriage, and I think nothing will happen. My personal thinking is that if we give gays the same rights as everyone else, then we don't have to create special laws and treatments for them. The fewer people we treat special, whether it is especially good or especially bad, the better.
Immigration - I don't know exactly where I stand on this. I have no problem with the wetbacks themselves, but i do have a problem with porous borders that provide no protection against terrorists.
OptimisticOwl Wrote:The word "loophole" bothers me - one man's loophole is another man's incentive... Don't know what the Bermuda thing is.
Some corporations avoid paying federal tax altogether by declaring themselves to be based elsewhere, with Bermuda being a popular choice.
I know some right-wingers think there should be no corporate taxes. I disagree -- that would necessitate a large increase in personal income tax -- but at least that would be fair across the board. The status quo has most of us paying more than our share while a handful of companies neglect paying any at all. AFAICT there's no incentive there whatsoever.
And can I claim that even intended incentives violate the free-market approach and are therefore liberal, and therefore anti-American? That was actually serious up until "liberal." I have thought for a long time that the tax system is too complex and IIRC you agreed (or maybe I'm mixing you up with I45Owl).
Quote:You're probably right about the estate tax. It's still an unfair second tax. All they should do is tax the unrealized capital gains at captial gains rates - same if if the property was sold in life. Everything else was bought with after tax money. heck they even want a percentage of depreciated assets. That $15,000 car you bought 8 years ago, now worth $3000 pay half that to the governement because you chose to die. Yeah, makes sense.
Interesting idea; has anybody proposed it? The current situation is that it will decrease slowly until 2009, abruptly end in 2010, then return to the 2002 level, which is 55% with a $1M exemption. The Dems have long been in favor of increasing the exemption.
Nobody likes paying taxes, but the bottom line is that the federal budget has ballooned and we can't keep borrowing from China. Something's got to give and it's going to make somebody unhappy. This is true regardless of who's in charge.
Quote:Immigration - I don't know exactly where I stand on this. I have no problem with the wetbacks themselves, but i do have a problem with porous borders that provide no protection against terrorists.
It's a tough issue. Those aren't the exact words I'd use but I agree in principle. I'll add that full registration would be better than the current wink-and-nod system. Also, my understanding is that no terrorist has ever entered by crossing the border. That doesn't mean they won't, and it certainly doesn't mean that we should ignore the possibility, but it should be a factor in any cost-benefit analysis.
With that, I'm going to bed.
You guys don't even mention the elephant in the room. The AMT. There has to be somethiong done about that. Couple that with college loan rate reductions and you have helped the MIDLLE CLASS. Where tax relief should btw. Forbes is the reason you guys got the tax break last time. With the new guys in charge you can say bye -bye to the 250,000 dollars and more crowd tax breaks.
Believe me if I were one of you I would vote Republicasn too. I feel your pain. Now it's just time to put the middle class 1st.
Mach, what an piece of wallboard you are. I AM middle class. I DO care about the middle class, and all the other classes too. Stop making implications that are just flat out wrong. Stop looking at me and other conservatives through tinted glasses. By my definition, and by John Kerry's definition, maybe not by yours, whatever the heck that is, I am middle class and far from moving into another class. Yes, i am what the ladies in the personal ads call "financially secure", but that has only been true for that last three or four years. I'm 61. I have been a conservative Republican for decades before i became "financially secure". I hope that you are better off when you are 61 than you are now. I live in a house that I built in 1978 that is currently worth about $125K. You may well live in a nicer one. I have a 2005 car that i lease, and another that is a 1995 model. Wow, me and John Kerry, party, party, party. Life is good. Hey, John, when can i go goose hunting at your club?
I get so sick of cretins constantly telling me that I don't deserve everything I have worked for all my life and that i should be punished for my success by having it all taken from me and given to those who deserve it.
maybe Kerry, Pelosi, Soros, Kennedy, et al are thinking of the middle class when they pass laws, but they damn sure are going to protect their own assets. Read "Do As I Say, Not As I Do, a Study in liberal hypocrisy".
I have NEVER had an anuual income over 200K, the amount Kerry picks as the dividing line line between rich and middle class. But one year I did have negative income. Worked my tail off all damn year to lose $47,000. Get off your damn high horse Mach. I have some assets, enough income to live without worry, but i'm net ready yet for vacation homes in Colorado and Cancun. I bet there are at least two years in the last six that you had more income than me. Maybe three. Time to put the middle class first my ass. Come back when you can tell what middle class is.
Now to talk to Gravy.
Corporations, like people, always do what they can to avoid taxes. it used to be that a lot of them were incorporated in Delaware, for tax and legal reasons. A lot of people move from California or New York to Texas or Nevada for tax reasons. Same thing, both legit.
Taxes are a neccesary evil. The amounts needed and the sources tapped are all that is debatable. yes, if we exempt corporations, the people will have pay more taxes, but since most corporate taxes are passed through, it would seem to be a wash. Nonetheless, i am not one of those who would advocate eliminating corporate taxes while maintaining personal income taxes.
I believe in fairness, I just don't believe in the Democratic version of fairness. The current tax code is riddled with special provisions, many of them for one special interest group or another, proposed and supported by both parties. I think that the fairest tax system is a national sales tax, completly replacing all personal and corporate income taxes and the estate tax. Exempt food, gasoline, and medicine to make it less regressive. Those three items are a big proportion of the expenditures of poor people. Maybe a few other things, but THEN stop tinkering with it. If Senator X from Oregon wants to exempt timber products, and Senator Y from Vermont wants to exempt maple syrup, and Senator Z wants more tax on something made elsewhere, pretty soon we have the same mess we have now. If the Congress wants wants more money, raise it, if they want to give all americans a tax break, lower it. Sounds fair to me. Elect me and I'll put a bill into committe the first week.
Terrorists aren't dumb. They will get in the best way they can. If they can't get in through New York on student visas, they will another way. I don't think we need to make it any easier than it already is. If it wasn't for the terroists, though, I wouldn't care a whole lot about the illegals, although changing attitutdes toward providing health care, retirements, and other benefits for them are an increasing cause for concern. Instead of penalizing businesses that hire them, I would just make it mandatory that 30% be withheld from any emplyee that is not a citizen or doesn't have a green card.. If they file and pay their fair share, they would get most of it back. If they don't file, we keep it. Either way they would be funding their services, and the businesses that hire them would still have their cheap labor.
AFAIK the Delaware thing still happens, and even Rick Perry considers it a loophole. (
link)
The personal issue is different, because as you said it involves people moving. The companies in question obviously don't want to actually move to Bermuda.
Your view of the current tax code is similar to mine. I remembered your sales tax idea. I'm not sure I consider it ideal, and I'd exempt housing rather than gasoline, but regardless it is a lot more appealing than what we have now.
Nobody is suggesting that we make it easier for terrorists to enter. My point was that we need to use intelligence (in both senses of the word) in addressing the issue.
Gravy, I am OK with the concept of exempting housing, but I don't know how to do it fairly. Some people buy, others rent. If we were to exempt the first $10K of a home purchase, or the first $400/month of rent, then in 25 the renter has equaled the benefit of the buyer, and will gain every month thereafter. So give me some details on how you would exempt housing.
As for the gasoline, I was trying to exempt things that most people use and that are a big part of the basic cost-of-living for most people.
Don't really see the difference in the corporate/personal thing. To me, they are just entities doing what they can to cut costs.
Gravy - unfortunately, I have been presented with a real example of some of the problems with an estate tax.
An elderly friend of the family died this morning. His widow aksed me what she was suppossed to do for the IRS. Freeze accounts, etc?
Why the hell should a widow have to worry about the IRS at a time like this?
He was a retired dairy farmer, she a retired secretary. They still lived on the farm, and it constitutes 95% of their assets. Over the years the city has grown out to them, and what was 275 acres of farmland 60 years ago is now 275 acres of prime development property.
She had two concerns. She was afraid they would have to sell the property to pay the taxes, and she wanted to live there the rest of her life. The other thing she wants is to leave it to her children and grandchildren.
The first is easy. She won't have to pay a penny of tax, because of the marital exclusion. This is the same way Mrs. Heinz Kerry inherited $850,000,000 without paying a penny of tax.
But the second is much harder. Unlike the Kerry, Kennedy, and Pelosi
families, and the other mega rich, she doesn't have the cash reserves to hire laywers and CPAs to set up and admininster tursts. So if she dies at the wrong time (i.e., not 2010), the farm will have to be sold to pay for the taxes.
Maybe a family farm exclusion can work, but since it has not been used for agriculture for the last 30 years, maybe not.
The estate tax does not hit the richest Americans. It hits the ones at the top of the middle class. The super rich can afford to get around it - The Kennedys paid $133K on a $300,000,000 estate. Who gets hurt ? The people who worked hard all their lives. The guy with three drycleaning outlets, the contractor, etc.
All taxes exist to raise money, but most have some other purpose or use. The home ownership deductions encourage home ownership and help the economy, the charitable deduction is an incentive to make charitable gifts, the exempetion of municipal bond income is to enable municipalites to sell bonds cheaper and not raise local taxes. The estate tax serves no other purpose.
All other taxes are triggered by an economic action on the part of the taxpayer - a buy or sell, earning money, investing. Not true of this tax. The trigger event is dying with too much money but not enough.
A few months ago, I started a thread on this forum called "Estate Taxes" Take a look at it for a fuller treatment on this issue.
OptimisticOwl Wrote:Gravy, I am OK with the concept of exempting housing, but I don't know how to do it fairly. Some people buy, others rent. If we were to exempt the first $10K of a home purchase, or the first $400/month of rent, then in 25 the renter has equaled the benefit of the buyer, and will gain every month thereafter. So give me some details on how you would exempt housing.
I was mostly thinking out loud, but I think $10K is way too low on the buying side.
Quote:As for the gasoline, I was trying to exempt things that most people use and that are a big part of the basic cost-of-living for most people.
I suggested housing because it's a bigger part of basic cost-of-living, and at this point I don't think we should be incentivizing oil consumption.
I'm still more in favor of a massive simplification of the income tax system. Unfortunately, neither is going to happen anytime soon.
Quote:Don't really see the difference in the corporate/personal thing. To me, they are just entities doing what they can to cut costs.
You compared a corporation declaring itself based in Bermuda to an individual moving from, say, Vermont to Texas. The accurate comparison would be to an individual staying in Vermont but claiming they lived in Texas. "Cutting costs" sounds great, but if everybody evades taxes, the government's going to go bankrupt real fast.
Gravy Owl Wrote:I'm still more in favor of a massive simplification of the income tax system. Unfortunately, neither is going to happen anytime soon.
If by simplification you mean flat tax, that has already been done. Ever see some of the early tax forms? There were basically
1. How much did you make?
2. Multiply by X%
3. Send that amount.
Pretty simple. We could go back to square one, but eventually the politicians would get us back to where we are now. Of course the same thing could happen to a national sales tax, but even so i think it, as a consumption tax, is more fair than an income tax, and much simpler to administate. People ahve all sorts of ways to avoid income taxes, but under s antional sales tax, they would have only three choices - save or invest, which are good for the economy, or spend, which triggers the tax. It has the added advantage of taxing the underground economy. I don't know of many drug dealers, for example, paying their income taxes, but they would pay their share whenever they bought their expensive toys. Same thing for profesional gamblers, kids mowing lawns, and people working "on the side". Most states already have a vehicle for collecting sales taxes, so the IRS could piggyback on that.
By the way, if you want a good laugh, go back and read in the Congressional Record some of the rhetoric about the passage of the initial income tax. One guy stood up in congress and said that if we enact this tax on the top 1%, someday it might spread as far as the top 5% of our nation's earners. Of course this was refuted. Wouldn't ever happen, it was said.