1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Don't Limit Tax Relief to Families

RG_in_CA Wrote: Sep 23, 2014 3:38 PM
I think the bigger opportunity is in the corporate tax arena; in principle, the corporate income and payroll tax rates should be zero. The only reason these corporate taxes exist is because politicians exploit the fact that most people do not understand that they are simply passed through, not an "extra" source of tax revenue. If these taxes were zero, companies would hire more workers and reduce the cost of goods sold. There would be more employees and all stakeholders (owners, employees and customers) would greatly benefit. Production costs would be greatly reduced so US goods would be more competitive overseas and rather than US companies having an incentive to go offshore, foreign companies would want to relocate here (further improving employment and GDP). The net effect on tax revenues might even be lower, but government expenditure would be greatly reduced as employment increases and the unemployment rate declines, so I suspect the overall deficit could be eliminated with almost no reduction in government services, if that was also a goal. Finally personal income tax simplification could be achieved easily as there would be no need to differentiate between investment income, capital gains and other non-wage sources of income. Again the true reason this does not happen is that politicians realize that most people have an unfavorable view of corporations, as though they suck profits out of the economy, which must be recovered through taxation, rather than providing valuable goods and services and competing in the worldwide marketplace. This is not to say that businesses should not absorb their true and full costs (i.e., externalities) but income and payroll taxation of corporations is almost 100% counter-productive.
Neil Armstrong!
The 24% number is interesting but it is a mistake to call them young and healthy, because I can guarantee you they will end up be young but less healthy than normal. There are 3 types of people that will be motivated to sign up 1) people being subsidized - we have heard already that this accounts for 80% of the enrollees. 2) people who cold not get insurance before because of preexisting conditions 3) People who had insurance but whose plans were discontinued. The question people should be asking is "what percentage of enrollees do not fall into any of these categories?" If that number is measurably greater than 0 it will be a shock and if its close to zero I think that is all the information you need to understand about why this law is a disaster from start to finish.
In response to:

Is Your Food Being 'Poisoned'?

RG_in_CA Wrote: Jun 11, 2013 2:39 PM
http://www.cato.org/events/biotechnology-feeding-world-brave-new-world-agriculture Here is a link to a recent Cato Institute presentation on this subject. I think the challenge to anti-GMO proponents should be to evaluate and provide reproducible peer-reviewed evidence of the dangers and a realistic assessment of the relative benefits, rather than continue to repeat easily debunked generalizations about the dangers of this fantastic technology.
Thank God he won WWII for us!!
In response to:

Romney on Offense Over Dependency 'Gaffe'

RG_in_CA Wrote: Sep 19, 2012 11:31 AM
Let me make a quick observation here. The tactics of the Obama campaign and its many constituents can be very clearly and accurately predicted. Please be assured that there are organizations sitting on a number of such "bombshells" waiting to release them into the media feeding frenzy over the next 6 weeks. The Romney campaign cannot be unprepared or diverted from this but must be prepared in advance to counter attack. Furthermore they must have a better strategy to get in front of the "growing momentum" meme that the mainstream media is now using to try to create a self-fulfilling prophesy of Obama's prospects. If they begin to display an air of desperation or defensiveness, the tactic will have worked perfectly. Please figure this out!
In response to:

There You Go Again

RG_in_CA Wrote: Jul 16, 2012 2:19 PM
Way to go Michael, your father would be very proud!
Hard to pick just 8 - Keystone Pipeline, Message to Medvedev, trying to intiimidate the Supreme Court, Refusal to enforce DOM, Overlooking voter intimidation by Black Panthers, Recess appointmensts when congress not recessed, Shakediown of BP after Gulf Oil Spill, Stuffing the NLRB with pro-union hacks, Trying to tax corporate jet owners while flying separate 747's on vacation, Use of public funds for non-stop campaigning since he was elected. I know that moments can be a bit semantic and I'd go on but I get tired of thinking about his abuses of power and privilege.
In response to:

Ben Parker Was Right

RG_in_CA Wrote: Jul 03, 2012 1:08 PM
Just one small comment, the demos as you call them were in fact betrayed by their elected representatives, who could only pass the bill using coercion and bribes of the less cooperative members - the results of November 2010 demonstrate this pretty clearly. I agree with your conclusions but it is also a lesson in what representative government can become when it primarily represents itself!
In response to:

One-on-One with Jeb Bush

RG_in_CA Wrote: Jun 11, 2012 1:08 PM
I understand the reason people like Mr. Bush would say they would take a 10 to 1 tax deal; it sounds reasonable on the surface and perhaps he thinks it would soften the edge and appeal to a larger portion of the public. However in the current environment spending is completely out of control and we know that any tax increase can both lessen the incentive to control spending and adds to the perverse incentives built into our system that discourage real growth and progress. Not to mention that 1) most of the time the cuts we are debating are cuts in the rate of increase not real cuts and; 2) cuts don't always happen but tax increases do. I would suggest a better response to a 10 to 1 offer would be "Let's just compromise and make it 9 to 0" !
1 - 10 Next