GOP candidates seeking Senate nomination speak to Bergen Republicans
MAY 13, 2014, 10:35 PM LAST UPDATED: TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2014, 11:06 PM
BY MICHAEL PHILLIS
STATE HO– USE BUREAU
THE RECORD
All four Republican candidates vying to be their party’s nominee for the U.S. Senate introduced themselves and answered questions before the Bergen County Republican Organization on Tuesday evening.
Whoever becomes the Republican nominee will face off against Democratic incumbent Cory Booker, who gained the late Frank Lautenberg’s seat in a special election last year. Booker won by double digits and has access to funding at the national party level.
Before about 60 people, candidates emphasized different points, but the general focus was on the economy. Each candidate was given five minutes to introduce themselves to the audience before a short question-and-answer session.
Ideas ranged from downsizing the federal government to strengthening the military and creating jobs. The target wasn’t on each other but focused on Booker.
“What is Cory Booker’s program for economic growth?” asked one of the candidates, Jeff Bell. “I do have an answer. His program is the same as President Obama’s for economic growth: nothing.”
– See more at: https://www.northjersey.com/news/gop-candidates-seeking-senate-nomination-speak-to-bergen-republicans-1.1015242#sthash.85QnAls4.dpuf
Great Op-Ed by Feldstein in WSJ yesterday, Republicans need to pick up on it.
Piketty’s Numbers Don’t Add Up
Ignoring dramatic changes in tax rules since 1980 creates the false impression that income inequality is rising.
By MARTIN FELDSTEIN
May 14, 2014 7:31 p.m. ET
Thomas Piketty has recently attracted widespread attention for his claim that capitalism will now lead inexorably to an increasing inequality of income and wealth unless there are radical changes in taxation. Although his book, “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” has been praised by those who advocate income redistribution, his thesis rests on a false theory of how wealth evolves in a market economy, a flawed interpretation of U.S. income-tax data, and a misunderstanding of the current nature of household wealth….
raising taxes creates more income disparity
https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/05/economist-explains Here’s a different take…the Economist sees it as bad on policy but excellent in data and analysis
Yes interesting. Although since the Economist made the review first they have not yet responded to Feldstein’s points regarding the distortion of the statistics Piketty is using to support his case for global wealth tax and more progressive tax. I will be interested to see if the Economist or Feldstein produces any figures they feel adjust for the errors Feldstein has pointed out. In other words, now that Feldstein has pointed these errors out, how much of a distortion do they actually have?
The Economist is right about one thing, Piketty’s policy ideas are pretty radical.
If you accept the inequality is a problem premise; Prof. Rogoff had a good point / observation which is that there are far better ways to achieve progressive tax. One idea he put forward was ……
“Rogoff views evidence of growing inequality presented by Piketty and others as “persuasive” and he proposes a number of alternative, smaller-scale remedies to control disproportionate wealth accumulation. He suggests a shift to a “relatively flat consumption tax, with a large deductible for progressivity.” Consumption taxes apply to spending, as opposed to income taxes that are levied on wages, benefits, profits from sales, dividends and other gains. Why, Rogoff asks, should we “try to move to an improbable global wealth tax when alternatives are available that are growth friendly, raise significant revenue, and can be made progressive through a very high exemption”?
Rogoff cites a series of suggestions developed by Jeffrey Frankel, a professor at the Kennedy School at Harvard. These include “the elimination of payroll taxes for low-income workers, a cut in deductions for high-income workers, and higher inheritance taxes.”
It’s just very interesting how the implications of the US post WWII middle class rise being more of an anomoly than the norm. Nonetheless, the statistics have garnered attention from all sides, which is a good thing. A lot better than the usual jingoism that comes from both the left and right, dont you think?
yep, raising taxes always disproportionately hits middle class income earners more tun anyone else. the rich have less earned income and more capital gains and dividends as a % of income, and lower incomes pay lower marginal rates in a progressive system. we should close the carried interest loophole, and raise rates on dividends and capital gains so as not to transfer wealth from middle class income earners to rich coupon clippers. That’s generational theft.
#6 but isn’t the taking of people’s money to redistribute it theft (although you probably cloak it by calling it “progressivism” or “social justice”)? Who are you to decide? I suppose we’re supposed to think it’s OK as long as the taxes are for your benefit and fall on someone else.
No #7, I’m in the sweet spot for federal, state and local taxes, making too much in wages and not enough in capital gains & dividends. I get hit with the AMT, and contribute far too much to social security which I’ll never see anything from. I also subsidize free healthcare for muncipal workers, as well as their multi-million dollar pensions which they contributed relatively little to. I think the wealthy coupon clippers can pay more on capital gains and dividends. Why should I pay a higher tax rate than them because I earn more in wages as a % of my income, and have lower dividends as a % of income ? Coupon clippers naturally own more stocks and real estate than a 30-40 year old; they’ve had a lifetime to accumulate more wealth. So why do they deserve a lower effective tax rate, too ? That tax benefit only inflates asset values for real estate, stocks and bonds. I guess I’m supposed to think that’s okay because it benefits retirees while they are alive ?