Windfall taxes and tax "holidays"

[Ddrak]

I disagree with both ideas. Raising taxes is only going to result in a price rise at the pump for the consumer while tax holidays are only going to have the effect of increasing profits of oil companies while shortening the already dire budget.

Dd

[Kulaf]

Agreed.

[Klast Brell]

In the mean time the republicans will continue to block changes to CAFE and other things that have a real impact without monkeying with who pays how much taxes.

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

Yep - both are bad ideas. Anything that raises taxes on the people who "run the world" is bad. They'll only pass it along to the consumer in the end. Also, in terms of windfall taxation, with Big Oil being the target -- they don't have the highest profit margin (8.3%). While they've made a boat load of money, doesn't mean they get to keep it all.

Some good information about energy-related ideas for lowering costs, both at the pump and at home...starting with gov't. action.

American Solutions

-TF

[Embar Angylwrath]

I disagree with both ideas. Raising taxes is only going to result in a price rise at the pump for the consumer while tax holidays are only going to have the effect of increasing profits of oil companies while shortening the already dire budget.

Dd

I do, however, support the removal of subsidies and special tax considerations for the oil industry (any industry, actually).

[Ddrak]

Oooh - I see Newt Gingrich has a brand new podium to speak from! It should be noted that "American Solutions" is just the existing administration's policies all dressed up in pretty words. Quoting from their Values:

Ronald Reagan, who learned from Franklin Delano Roosevelt...

Well, that about sums up the revisionism of the entire essay. I suspect Reagan learned more from John Wayne (or Richard Nixon if you want someone in politics) than he did FDR.

The threat to our safety is no longer an army of soldiers or a fleet of warships. It is one man with a suitcase bomb.

Movie plots ftw. Keep the population scared so they vote in more government monitoring and scrutiny. Despite the pretty talk about "small government", Newt is still advocating a very intrusive big-brother government which has the right to make sure you're not a terrorist whether you've done anything or not.

The world that works is the world that gives us FedEx, American Express, eBay, and Travelocity.

And also the world that gave the mortgage meltdown, Enron, Microsoft, the RIAA/MPAA and a whole bunch of other stuff. Interesting how it's presented, isn't it?

The importance of the First Amendment is in protecting religious liberty, which is precisely what most of the original Americans were seeking when they first crossed the Atlantic. But religious liberty is not served when members of government are castigated for religious statements or when courts strike “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance.

"Under God" wasn't in the pledge until the 1950's, so I fail to see how the original Americans had anything at all to do with it. It should also be noted that while the original settlers were most definitely very religious, by the time of the revolution, most of the leading Americans were not particularly religious at all. It's revisionist history.

We are for freedom of religion, a principle that comes from the Bible itself.

?? wtf. Show me where the Bible says this.

Faith means believing that the world is governed by order and justice, not chaos and misery.

Err... ever get out into the world much? Ever read the bible? Go check out the bits that differentiate between man's base nature (chaos and misery) and God's nature.

Every government intervention in the economy pre-supposes two things: first, that government knows what people want better than the people themselves, and second, that government is more effective than free markets in meeting people’s needs.

And yet, we find that the government does have a very important role in regulating an economy. Take the recent collapse of Bear Stearns. Had the government not provided the means for JPMC to buy them out the economic collapse would have blown the 30's crash out of the water. Adam Smith's work assumed a well-informed public able to make intelligent and well-reasoned decisions and there are many cases where that simply fails. While I'm all for limited government intervention, I'm not stupid enough to think that a pure free market will do anything but revert to a feudal-like plutocracy (in fact, Adam Smith himself said this if you actually read his book).

As Americans, we recognize that the way to close the income gap is not to pull the top down but to pull the bottom up.

Doesn't work, and has never worked - especially if you're trying to use it as an argument against redistribution of wealth. It's just trickle-down economics all dressed up pretty.

We justly honor men like Andrew Carnegie and Bill Gates for their philanthropy, but the social good that came from their desire for prosperity was arguably even greater.

Umm... wtf? We're advocating union busting and convicted monopolists because they gave a bunch of money away afterwards?

Health begins with responsible, personal decision-making, but can, of course, be affected by factors outside of anyone’s control. Good government has a role in educating, incentivizing healthy behavior, and providing support for health situations beyond personal control. Ultimate responsibility, however, often comes down to culture, families, and individual choices, none of which a free republic can really control or mandate. This means that we as citizens must take the initiative on health. We must make health not simply a desire but a lifestyle. We must teach our children about the importance of nutrition, exercise, and seeking early, effective treatment. We must honor the pursuit of health in the same way that we honor the pursuit of economic and social achievement.

So Newt really has no policy on health then I guess. The above is just waffle that says a government needs to wave pixie dust over families to magically give their kids the ability to be healthy despite apparently advocating a completely hands-off approach.

The tragic realities of American slavery and the segregation that followed, the Know-Nothing Party, and the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 should remind us that, even when we are united as a nation, we are capable of betraying our own highest ideals.

This is pretty funny after starting off by saying 90% of Americans think this etc. He appeals to popularity to show his religious arguments and then turns around and says that appealing to popularity is bad.

We are engaged in a world-wide ideological conflict, the outcome of which will be central to the preservation of liberty in our own country and around the world.

Only if you choose to be engaged in such a conflict. In fact, by characterizing the whole thing as a war you give the radicals far more power than they would have had should it not be portrayed in such fearful terms. It's just another way of shouting "TERRORISTS ARE COMING TO KILL YOU IN YOUR BEDS IF YOU DON'T VOTE FOR ME".

Looking back at our nation’s history, nearly all of our most impressive technological developments have come from individual citizens competing in a free marketplace. Advances from the public sector have usually involved the military, as the government is the only real consumer of military technology. Even in such cases, however, private contractors, rather than government scientists, have led the way in technological innovation.

Uhh... not really. Most innovations certainly came from the military, but writing that off as "private" is kinda weird. A pure government contractor is hardly in a field of "free market competition"...

There is a large degree of risk and uncertainty associated with technological innovation, making it almost impossible for highly risk-averse government bureaucracies to produce effective results.

This assumes governments are risk-averse. Given most scientific grants given by governments are expected to operate in the 20% to 30% success rate, Newt's assertions make no real-world sense. While I'd believe an argument that corporations and free-market economics are great for productizing invention, quite often pure research is best achieved directly through government grants and not through private enterprise - especially given Newt's defense of patents which inherently lock up private discovery and stifle innovation for a relatively long time as the cycle of discovery is becoming more and more rapid.

While the concept of "prizes" sounds good, I'm rather skeptical as to their real benefit as a pure incentive. I think they are *part* of a solution, not the entire solution as Newt seems to believe. Sometimes you just need to do pure research and not know where you're going to end up - after all, that's where most modern innovation has actually come from, not people working to a known goal but people just working and suddenly finding something incredibly useful. How could you possibly have set a prize for "inventing a transistor" in 1930?


Newt has a lot of pretty words, but under the covers he's still the same old Newt in the same old groove that pushed the concept of a permanent Republican majority held together by the K-Street project and blatant corruption. He's the same guy that was crucifying Clinton for a blow job while screwing his own mistress on the side. He's just spouting meaningless words to try to gain some relevance again.

Dd

[Trollbait]

?? wtf. Show me where the Bible says this.

I think I can help with that.

49 "Master," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name. We tried to stop him, because he is not one of us."

50 "Do not stop him," Jesus said. "Anyone who is not against you is for you."

The Samaritans Do Not Welcome Jesus
51 The time grew near for Jesus to be taken up to heaven. So he made up his mind to go to Jerusalem. 52 He sent messengers on ahead. They went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him. 53 But the people there did not welcome Jesus. That was because he was heading for Jerusalem.
54 The disciples James and John saw this. They asked, "Lord, do you want us to call down fire from heaven to destroy them?"

55 But Jesus turned and commanded them not to do it. 56 They went on to another village. ~ Luke 9:49-55

Samaritans were not particularly fond of Jews or the Jewish Apostles of Christ. The above passage has two instances where Christ refuses to punish or rebuke non-followers of Him.

The first is where the Apostles come to Christ and say that there is a man casting out demons and we told him to shut up because he is not one of us (meaning not a follower of Christ or in more simple terms not a Christian) but Jesus is very tolerant of this charltan and says to leave him alone.

The second is when he visits a Samaritan town who basically reject him and all he stands for yet even when asked by his Apostles to punish them he rebukes his Apostles instead.

So when this topic has been debated in the past it is generally accepted through these passages are a foundation for the idea that though Christ desires everyone to believe in Him not everyone does and it is not our place on earth to punish those who do not. They are allowed to do as they please. I feel this is an example set by Christ that there is to be Freedom of Religion.

[Harlowe]

So when this topic has been debated in the past it is generally accepted through these passages are a foundation for the idea that though Christ desires everyone to believe in Him not everyone does and it is not our place on earth to punish those who do not. They are allowed to do as they please. I feel this is an example set by Christ that there is to be Freedom of Religion.

Thanks for sharing that Jecks, I knew there would be something about it in the teachings of Jesus. It's odd how so many focus on the Old Testament and really disregard the New Covenant completely.

When the Bible is used to justify oppression or judgement, it always seems to stem from the OT.

[Partha]

Unfortunately, you're going to HAVE to get ready for increased taxes if you're rich.

Truth of the matter is, when the so-called Golden Age of the '50's was occurring, that massive public financing of both infrastructure and education for the GI's was paid for with a top tax rate well over 75%. We didn't see government start starving to death until Reagan cut top tax rates down below 50% at the end. Now the top tax rate is, what, 35% and capital gains is 20%? Then you wonder why your bridges and levees collapse.

The election of Obama will replay 1932, with a revision of New Deal economics.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Unfortunately, you're going to HAVE to get ready for increased taxes if you're rich.

Truth of the matter is, when the so-called Golden Age of the '50's was occurring, that massive public financing of both infrastructure and education for the GI's was paid for with a top tax rate well over 75%. We didn't see government start starving to death until Reagan cut top tax rates down below 50% at the end. Now the top tax rate is, what, 35% and capital gains is 20%? Then you wonder why your bridges and levees collapse.

The election of Obama will replay 1932, with a revision of New Deal economics.

Lefties like to point out that top tax rate of 75% as a yearning for yesteryear, but it's always without an understanding of how "income" was defined then and now. Trotting out those percentages without understanding what was classifed as "taxable income" at the time is ignorant.

[Ddrak]

So when this topic has been debated in the past it is generally accepted through these passages are a foundation for the idea that though Christ desires everyone to believe in Him not everyone does and it is not our place on earth to punish those who do not. They are allowed to do as they please. I feel this is an example set by Christ that there is to be Freedom of Religion.

Interesting quotes - hadn't really thought about them in that light before. Great points.

Dd

[Partha]

Unfortunately, you're going to HAVE to get ready for increased taxes if you're rich.

Truth of the matter is, when the so-called Golden Age of the '50's was occurring, that massive public financing of both infrastructure and education for the GI's was paid for with a top tax rate well over 75%. We didn't see government start starving to death until Reagan cut top tax rates down below 50% at the end. Now the top tax rate is, what, 35% and capital gains is 20%? Then you wonder why your bridges and levees collapse.

The election of Obama will replay 1932, with a revision of New Deal economics.

Lefties like to point out that top tax rate of 75% as a yearning for yesteryear, but it's always without an understanding of how "income" was defined then and now. Trotting out those percentages without understanding what was classifed as "taxable income" at the time is ignorant.

Then why don't you explain the differences, Herr *chuckle* Doktor?

[Trollbait]

I will gladly pay higher taxes if it means an end to this war and a stronger economy since the dollar will regain some ground.

Whatever money I pay in taxes will be more than made up in reduced fuel prices and by proxy reduced prices on goods.

If McCain says he will end this war if he is elected then I will vote for him otherwise I am voting for Obama.

[Harlowe]

I thought you said if it was Hillary vs. McCain you'd vote McCain, but if it's Obama vs. McCain you'd vote Obama?

[Klast Brell]

If McCain says he will end this war if he is elected then I will vote for him otherwise I am voting for Obama.

Then you might want to Google "McCain + 100 years"

[Embar Angylwrath]

Unfortunately, you're going to HAVE to get ready for increased taxes if you're rich.

Truth of the matter is, when the so-called Golden Age of the '50's was occurring, that massive public financing of both infrastructure and education for the GI's was paid for with a top tax rate well over 75%. We didn't see government start starving to death until Reagan cut top tax rates down below 50% at the end. Now the top tax rate is, what, 35% and capital gains is 20%? Then you wonder why your bridges and levees collapse.

The election of Obama will replay 1932, with a revision of New Deal economics.

Lefties like to point out that top tax rate of 75% as a yearning for yesteryear, but it's always without an understanding of how "income" was defined then and now. Trotting out those percentages without understanding what was classifed as "taxable income" at the time is ignorant.

Then why don't you explain the differences, Herr *chuckle* Doktor?

I just did, but you didn't get it. If you're going to post something about a 75% bracket, put it in context by explaing what was and what wasn't taxable income at the time.

I can remember in the mid 80s, just about any interest paid on anything you bought was deductible. Credit cards, boats, loans, etc. When Reagan reduced the income tax brackets, he also eliminated the interest deduction (except for first and second homes). I think even you can see how applying some arbitrary tax bracket of yesteryear to today is meaningless. There is just too much more in the tax code for a simple comparison of tax brackets from one time in our history to todat, to have any relevance.

If you want an apples to apples comparison, why don't you compare the total amount of revenues collected as a percentage of gross income?

[Partha]

That's not apples to apples either, because brackets were not indexed for inflation until 1981.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Then take the actual bracket and actual gross income in a given year, and see what percentage of actual revenue as a percentage of total gross income the US govt collected.

[Partha]

Ah, you're going for the old Heritage Foundation dodge. They make really nice tables showing that Federal receipts are ~18% of GDP...which is also a fairly worthless comparison, as well, but it doesn't stop you from trying to make that argument.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Make your own table then Partha. Use the info provided on the IRS and Census websites.