Obama: Bank Tax

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100114/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_bank_fees

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/us/15tax.html?ref=business

"I think it is entirely reasonable to say that the industry that, A, caused these problems more than any other and, B, benefited from the activity, should be contributing," said Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

"Politics have overtaken the economics," said Scott Talbott, the chief lobbyist for the Financial Services Roundtable, a group representing large Wall Street institutions. "This is a punitive tax on companies that repaid TARP in full or never took TARP."

Even before details came out, Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase & Co., said: "Using tax policy to punish people is a bad idea."

What do you think?

CA v. TX

This artilce is long but it is worth the read. Please read it and tell me what you think. It is comparing CA to TX, but more importantly it is comparing high-tax states to low-tax states.
I'm very interested in your thoughts.

http://www.city-journal.org/printable.php?id=5433

paying health-care

I'm not a huge fan of health-care but I would like to pretend that we do have health-care, just for a little bit. Many people proposing for the health-care plan say this about our current health-care system,

"President Barack Obama praised their work, saying it will “begin the process of fixing what’s broken” in the system.
“We can’t continue to put more and more money into health care,” said Representative Henry Waxman, a California Democrat who runs the House Energy and Commerce Committee."

The threat is that in a few years the cost of the current system would be somewhere around 12% of the GDP of america, or even more. I understand that number is very high and i don't like it either, but here is my question. What if the health-care reform is past and within a few years or so, maybe 10 or 15, the cost of the program reaches 12% of GDP, would we then scrap that program and look for another or would the government continue to run the state-run health-care? I know this question is a "what if" question, and i would rather stay with the facts, but it is highly likely that the cost could reach 12% of GDP or somewhere near that. If it does, then under the rationalization of those who proposed the bill, we should discard that system and find another.

Here is another topic of concern,

"The 1,018-page House Democratic plan builds on a June 19 draft and for the first time includes details on how to pay for the measure. In addition to the levy on millionaire households, the House would place surtaxes of 1.5 percent on couples with incomes of $500,000 to $1 million and 1 percent on those with incomes of more than $350,000.
In 2012, the White House budget office would review the estimated savings from the health-care overhaul. If the savings are $150 billion more than expected, then the government would scrap a planned second set of increases for those making between $350,000 and $1 million. If the extra savings top $175 billion, the surcharge for those incomes would be eliminated altogether.
The surtax on wealthier Americans would be imposed based on adjusted gross income, meaning it would also apply to capital gains and dividends, which are currently taxed at a 15 percent rate. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel said lawmakers targeted high earners because it “causes the least amount of pain on the least amount of people.”

I am not one against taxing the rich, they can afford it. But there does come a time when you can tax the rich too much. In addition, the rich can afford tax experts, and they can find fun and easy ways to get around the tax code. Just look at the 7 people Obama nominated, i'm sure some of bush's guys too but they just didn't get caught. But I want to draw to the last quote by Charles Rangel, "causes the least amount of pain on the least amount of people". I find this quote to be horrifically in bad taste. Yes, they are the rich, but they are still people and to single them out is discriminatory. I'm going to go to the extreme here, but only to prove my point, Let's say some american in 1805 said that slavery of africans "causes the least amount of pain on the least amount of people". He should be shot! but at the time africans were a small minority and there was really no pain for most of the rest of the americans. Or what about today and gay marriage, not allowing gays to marry "causes the least amount of pain on the least amount of people". I'm not sticking up for the rich, but shouldn't we be careful not to single out any group that is a minority? That's what republics do? Is economics a way to categorize people?

the Two parties and spending

I read this from an article that talks about how much taxes need to be raised to balance the budget in 2020. it's kind of crazy how much.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/13/the_consequences_of_big_government.html

here is a quote from it that i think sums up really well how the two parties work when it comes to spending and taxes. "Everyone favors benefits and opposes burdens (taxes). Republicans want to cut taxes without cutting spending. Democrats want to increase spending without increasing taxes, except on the rich. The differences between the parties are shades of gray."
I think that is right on.
Can we think of any other subjects that the two parties are just different shades of gray?

cost of caring

The purpose of the government is to protect the people. healthcare, as some say, falls under the role of the government. But what happens when the government and the nation can't afford it? Right now in the last year Bush and Obama have spent about 1.8 trillion. There is no plan on how to pay for the spending, other than obama saying the economy in the next 5 years is going to grow 4% which will then pay for the spending. That sounds like a lot of hope there. So how can the government write a bill that will cost 1 trillion in the next 10 years?

Should the government just say, "nope, we can't afford healthcare right now"? It seems to me that is the only reasonable option, and it really isn't a very good one.

How much is too much for a government to spend? This is going way past even what Kenyes was thinking. Can the US handle this debt?

Who and what can we tax and cut to afford all this?

Taxes (second post of the day)

How should the people be taxed? What should be taxed? (vices, goods, services, income, property, travel, ect.)