Low Country Vol originally posted this: I rejected most of these initially, but if I were in a position of leadership and had to make something work, I'd concede to these on the following conditions: 1) A streamlined work visa system put into place, allowing migrant and seasonal workers legal passage back and forth across the border. Leniency (not amnesty, but put on a path of legal residency) for those living here now that turn themselves in and can prove they've lived here while staying out of trouble (no theft or violent crimes) for more than 2 years. 2) The operating entities must pay $40,000 per barrel spilled (that's the 35k estimated cost of cleaning up a barrel of oil plus a 5k penalty) to the US government for the entire lifetime of the pipeline, as well as direct compensation to any citizen or business affected negatively by such a spill. That $40k can be used directly for any clean-up efforts, with the remainder put towards the deficit/debt. 3) Allow market forces to enter the medical device industry by making it mandatory for all medical supplies providers and hospitals to have publicly accessible itemized costs and expenses for devices and services. 4) I don't see how I can make this work. We fundamentally disagree on this. I would say single-payer, but that really isn't a compromise now is it? 5) I'm fine with an Aluminum Foil Plan with an insane deductible, but make it to where one has to maintain a certain level of health to continue on it (reasonably physically fit, not smoking, etc)
Deal, if we cut out all loopholes and breaks. Some corporations pay 35 % now, others only 13 % or less.
If the new tax code exceeds 10 pages our hypothetical Congress for the Common Man is probably doing something wrong. As I see it, that allows for 1 page breaking out the flat tax rates, and 9 pages for useless legal jargon.
Not sure how you do that. Some have legit overseas operations. You can't exactly tell people you are going to tax their sales in other countries without a mass exodus. Maybe in the case of Apple and the like you can come up with some sort of formula that says that you can't just put a skeleton crew overseas and declare that your base of operation. Of course that encouraged outsourcing. In the end, the best way to stop this stuff is to lower the tax rate enough so that it's no longer profitable to do it.
I've been saying we need to end the way we give non primary home real estate favorable tax treatment forever. Carried interest is also complete garbage. I charge a fee for investment advice and pay ordinary income taxes, why the hell should a hedge fund or real estate investment company be any different?
I do not have a problem imposing fines. Most of it goes toward Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and the rest to the department of the treasury. Current EPA rules charges a maximum $4300 per barrel if negligence or willful misconduct was found plus the entire cleanup costs. Exxon paid the largest fine to date of 25 million at 5k per barrel in Alaska as a fine recently. The problem lies with the EPA or the Feds for not enforcing the full blunt of the fine as in the case with Enbridge. They were fined a poultry 3.7 million for causing 1 million barrels in the Kalamazoo River in 2010 but Enbridge has paid $1 billion for the clean-up. There are 2.3 million miles of pipelines in the US in which 97,000 barrels are spilled annually. The new pipeline is 875 miles from Montana to Nebraska into the existing pipelines. According to study, the pipelines can withstand an additional 800k barrels a day, but I would ensure more scrutiny to pipeline inspections exist as well.
That was my thought at 17%. It should incent people to stay and others to come. People would have to hide to keep from having a job offered to them.
Are we legitimately looking for a compromise, here? Serious question, as that answer flavors my take, on everything. For example, immigration reform. There are infinite compromises to be had, but none of which are likely to span the wide chasm between the aisles, and still be able to garner enough support from either side. From a political standpoint: If I'm the GOP, I don't budge an inch on immigration reform, force Dems to ram it down the public's throat via Executive Order, and hang that near-fatal millstone around the necks of the Dems, and for the foreseeable future. Then, I take the White House in 2016 (because if amnesty is granted, as expected, it won't matter if the GOP runs Stacey Campfield, and the Dems run Hillary and a reanimated FDR clone as VEEP - even Campfield would easily win that, and in a walk.), promising to repeal every amnesty-esque Executive Order that President Obama passed (thus, the inherent problem when a President tries to legislate with the pen, instead of a legislative process....it only lasts as long as s/he is in office). And it wouldn't end at 1600, but would be just as likely to also give me a super majority in both House and Senate, to boot. It would give the Dems all of tne responsibilitbyo for amnesty, but none of the long-term benefits.
Do you really believe in this wet dream partisan outcome or is it just your wish as to what would happen?
Voldad and droski: let's say we lower the corporate tax rate to something silly low, like 10 %. How does that encourage them to have more employees here, if they can just run a skeleton operation here instead of Ireland or wherever? Won't they employee exactly as many people as they felt like employing here before?
I'm going to guess you wont see many companies move their operations back, but certainly companies like apple would have no incentive to set it up overseas in the first place. I doubt they are saving a lot of money salary wise in Ireland over the US and we still have the best labor force in the world. in particular for technology companies. manufacturing is a different situation all together, but 3d printing and the like will make the unskilled labor cost a percentage of production drop considerably. I have some clients with chip companies manufacturing in china and I assure you'd they'd move back here in a heartbeat if it made sense economically. it's just hard to get the same quality of production elsewhere then it is here. The truly annoying part is even a guy with limited tax knowledge like myself can see multiple ways we could eliminate loopholes without significantly hurting the economy. But no one is willing to do it. Too much money going into Obama and others campaigns I guess. Instead all we focus on are marginal tax rates which is just idiotic.
Of the OP's compromises I'm fine with #1. Control border, guest worker, require employers to verify of face big penalties, some pathway to citizenship for those here. #2 seems overly harsh and any penalties should be in line with other penalties already existing whether the spill occurs via pipeline or truck or rail. #3 (device tax) - reread this one. I don't have a problem with requiring hospitals to disclose charges including prices of devices. The problem is that the list price isn't: 1) what ends up getting paid and 2) isn't paid by the patient. In the end I don't know what this accomplishes but don't see any harm. #4 and #5 - I would suggest we move to a Swiss-style system with these caveats: remove the insurance connection to employment; everyone gets their own insurance. Maintain and individual mandate (probably the only way to handle pre-existing conditions) but DRASTICALLY lower what has to be covered to TRUE medical necessities. None of this fertility, ED, etc. type stuff that got thrown into (the "essential benefits" part of ACA). I'm split on removing Medicare but assuming we don't, all insurance then is private and competition is nationwide. There are subsidies for the low end (to cover the much paired down essentials coverage) then individuals can buy what ever supplemental coverage they like. If employers want to give financial support for insurance then it can come in the form of payments, salary etc. that individual employees use to buy coverage. Finally, I would couple the above system with aggressive HSA type tax incentives. The more consumers see the real cost of their healthcare choices the more they make less costly (but equally effective) choices (see Rand studies for evidence). So long as we move to greater separation between payment and utilization the more we see over utilization and the costs that go with it.
Yep. The reality is a convoluted tax code empowers lobbyists and political leaders by giving them reward/punishment power. I suspect that behind the scenes that accounting lobbies are also against tax simplification given how much their business depends on complication. While flattening the tax code could make it fairer, the real win would be the impact on cronyism and accordingly it will never happen since the people who have to make the change are so vested in keeping it as is.
Obama should veto any tax legislation that doesn't raise the personal and business tax rates to at least 50% requiring every cent of the additional taxes to be immediately given to middle income families....... Compromise that.....
