THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.

6 Comments

1. ropelight says:

   January 28, 2012 at 08:21

   I’m beginning to see some evidence of an improving economy, although improvement does seem fragile, spotty, self-conscious, and speculative. Here in SW Florida where new shopping centers and strip malls set empty for the last 3 years and are just now beginning to fill in are welcome sights. Still, there are fewer and fewer jobs available, and little reason to expect significant change as long as Obama refuses to cut taxes and reduce government regulations.
2. Editor says:

   January 28, 2012 at 08:55

   The economy will improve because that’s simply what the economy does: we have cycles of expansion and contraction. But our government — whether led by Republicans or Democrats — seems to believe that it can somehow control the economy, and so the government continually tries to meddle, continually tries to tinker with it, thinking that they can somehow make things better.

   People are upset that Mitt Romney only paid an effective 13.9% rate of federal taxes? He was following the laws, as set down by men who thought that they could improve the economy by encouraging investment, by having separate, lower rates of taxation for dividends and capital gains. Warren Buffett thinks that he should pay a higher percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary, but his company, Berkshire-Hathaway, owes back taxes to 2002 due to a dispute with the Infernal revenue Service, as Berkshire Hathaway tries to, you guessed it, pay the lowest legally required amount in taxes.

   From The Wall Street Journal:

   
   

   Will Buffett Avoid the Buffett Rule?

   
   The sage of Omaha is already positioned to shield most of his rising wealth from such a tax.
   By JAMES FREEMAN

   Billionaire Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett is once again thrilling the political class by volunteering other people to pay higher taxes. Long-time observers recall his opposition to former President George W. Bush’s efforts to reduce the tax rate on dividends. Since Berkshire pays no dividends, Mr. Buffett had little at stake but enjoyed the opportunity to pose as if he were a rich guy eager to cough up more dough to Washington.

   In the current debate, President Obama is pushing the “Buffett Rule” to ensure that high-income earners pay higher tax rates. But even if it’s enacted, don’t expect the Buffett Rule to have much impact on Mr. Buffett. By an amazing coincidence, the sage of Omaha is already positioned to shield most of his rising wealth from such a tax.

   Political journalists who don’t read the business press are the most likely to be duped by Mr. Buffett’s pose as a public-spirited billionaire happy to pay more to support the government. He frequently suggests that tax hikes will have little impact on investment activity. In a New York Times op-ed last August, Mr. Buffett said, “I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off.”

   But he seems to have concluded that a potential tax bill might have scared off some owners of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad when Berkshire was negotiating to buy it. According to a January 2010 Barron’s story, Mr. Buffett “said that, while he’s not enthusiastic about issuing more shares, the deal is too large to be all-cash and that he wants to give Burlington shareholders a tax-free option.”

   More at the link.

   Personally, I’d like to see all income, regardless of the source, taxed at the same rate. Ideally, that would mean higher rates for taxes on capital gains and dividends, and lower rates on ordinary income, and a complete end to the ridiculous “progressive” tax rate structure. Once we achieve that — if ever, and I’m not optimistic — the government should stay the heck out of tryig to “manage” the economy, by rewarding some forms of economic activity and penalizing others through different tax rates. If we ever got to that point, while the economic conditions would dictate entrepreneurs’ investment decisions, at least there wouldn’t be nearly the uncertainty that they now face when it comes to guessing what kind of idiocy the government will impose.
3. ropelight says:

   January 28, 2012 at 13:12

   The Left says they’re all for equality, ad nauseum, but when it comes to paying taxes they always want others to pay more and more. Right now, half the population pays no federal income taxes at all while the rest of us pay too much.

   Obmam says he wants fairness, but his concept of what’s fair includes him spending our money on projects that only benefit his reelection campaign. That’s not fair, that’s crooked.
4. John Hitchcock says:

   January 28, 2012 at 13:55

   It would be nice to see that chart of his, where he showed what would happen to the GDP over the years as a result of his Porkulus bill. You know, the one that had the US doing far better for far longer than previous history. Let’s see how close he and his “economists” came, shall we?
5. John Hitchcock says:

   January 28, 2012 at 13:58

   Oh, that also included a reduction in the deficit, to levels clearly above the Republican Trifecta (Prez/House/Senate) deficits but below current.
6. ropelight says:

   January 29, 2012 at 08:52

   Obama pissed away Trillions of dollars and we got virtually nothing in return except his idiot claim that things could be worse.

   The only way he could make things worse is to get reelected to a second term so he could piss away another 6 or 7 Trillion bucks.