Article criticizes Ryan but does not mention a single time that Democrat Senator Wyden contributed to the plan, it is the Wyden-Ryan plan, not the Ryan plan.
Obama supporters must believe people’s rights are from government, that’s why they support big government. Why in the world would anyone want to be controlled by the government and lose his liberty? :banghead:The tax credit is broader than just the oil industry, that is true. The problem with tax credits is that they make zero economic sense. Deducting your costs from your revenue is perfectly reasonable. Giving a tax credit can at times cause people to make investments that ordinarily would not be profitable without the credit. But if it is not profitable, the investment shouldn’t be made anyway. I do think that on some levels big oil does get unfairly demonized. After all they cannot control what the price of oil is. On the other hand, they spend a lot of money to get special favors and for that I have no problem demonizing them.
A subsidy is a direct payment, dollar for dollar and a tax deduction garners you a benefit IF you have income and then only at your marginal rate. These deductions are hardly arbitrary. They are designed to either encourage or discourage certain activities. When I was a kid living on a farm, we used to get money NOT to grow wheat. Obviously the government thought there were too many wheat growers in our area and wanted to discourage wheat production. That was a subsidy. OTOH we got to depreciate our farm buildings and deduct our animals’ hay and grain because the government apparently thought sheep and cattle breeding were worth encouraging. As to the mortgage interest deduction, that is a sacred cow and its disappearance would wreak havoc on the already dismal housing industry. Housing is a HUGE driver of the economy. Right or wrong this deduction has a lot of down the road impact.
Really? Hopefully it didn’t go above your head and you can explain it…?
His point went right over your head.
Do you know the difference between a tax credit and a deduction?
I totally reject the idea in a time of such budgetary problems of keeping the current levels of tax rates for the rich and not being willing to increase rates on the weathiest among us who can most afford more. To bring in more revenue rather than just what eliminating deductions and loopholes would bring in. While asking the poor and the sick to sacrifice so much.
contains a counterintuitive finding: the age group most receptive to House Budget Chair Paul Ryan’s plan to deal with the budget - seniors.
They both have the same effect on your spendable income.
This is a marxist point of view. There is no need for the government to either encourage or discourage any activity. This point of view is a symptom of the fatal conceit that we need government to orchestrate our economic affairs.
And a stupid one at that. It is not the government’s business to determine whether there are too many or too few wheat farmers. If there are too few, the price goes up, more people grow wheat. If there are too many, wheat prices go down, people go out of business. No need for government.
Depreciation and cost of feed and hay are normal business expenses, I agree that is not a subsidy. But if the government would allow you to deduct 20% of your revenue as feed expenses when they were actually 10% of revenue, then that extra deduction would be a subsidy.
We could phase it out and the impact would be minimal. Just think however, how much smaller the financial crisis would have been if mortgage interest was not deductible.
Of course part of the problem is that tax credits do not necessarily create jobs as much as they move them around. Oil companies hire more people, other less favored industries hire fewer people.
Yes.
(Thank you for reinforcing what I said on one of the two recent “intrinsic evils” threads.
)
His point went right over your head.
I quoted all the pertinent posts, so you can see where his point soared over your head.
No need to be sorry. We previously agreed elsewhere to this or that we at least see the universe in completely different ways. I’m fine with that.
This, actually is the biggest problem with Ryan as VP. Romney’s competence as a politician is still very much up for debate. After all, take Wisconsin where a solid majority supported their conservative governor and a majority (at the latest poll) also supports Obama. Ryan obviously brings a new set of ideas to the campaign, but if Romney is elected, Ryan will pretty much be sitting on a shelf for 4-8 years. Each president says this time is different, and then does the same thing.
As David Axelrod, senior advisor to the 2012 Obama Reelect Campaign also said yesterday, I don’t agree with Senator Wyden on this one. I understand though why Republicans can’t grasp the concept of Democrats being a big tent and not walking in lockstep all the time on every issue.
The point of Ron Wyden’s involvement has nothing to do with Democrats being a big tent. The point is that their demonization of the budget plan as “far right” is completely laughable, as it was a bi-partisan plan. Ron Wyden is not even to the right…let alone “far right.”
The same we understand your inability to understand how Vice Presidential nominee Republican Paul Ryan could be bi-partisan in his efforts?
You make my point for me. An appropriate tax increase similar to what was in place inthe 1960’s could narrow that deficit.
