Obama Approval Rating Down To 41% On Gallup - Record Low

SharpshooterTom

http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx

It matches his record lowest set so far for his presidency.

I've always wondered why people say this guys a shoe-in for 2012, but those aren't shoe-in numbers. I mean he's only 18 months away from an election and those numbers are near disasterous. (I realise his RCP average is 46% but he's heading in the wrong direction again).

People keep saying the economy will recover he'll be fine etc but both Clinton Reagan climbed above 50% ratings in october/november their 3rd years and stayed above there until their election. Can Obama do the same in 6 months time? The economy/job situation is still long way off from being statisfactory.

I remember watching Chris Matthews on Msnbc with bunch of panelists back in january after the lame duck session saying Obama will be "flying" come April. So I've waited for april and hasn't quite turned out that way.

Manic Moran

I've always wondered why people say this guys a shoe-in for 2012, but those aren't shoe-in numbers

He doesn't need to be popular to have a second tour. He just needs to pull more votes than the other guy, and so far, viable opposition is seeming a little scarce.

NTM

Overheal

Donald Trump; Paul Ryan; Mitt Romney; Mike Huckabee; and more to come!

@_@

jank

Overheal wrote: »

Donald Trump; Paul Ryan; Mitt Romney; Mike Huckabee; and more to come!

@_@

LOL not really people who inspire confidence. Paul Ryan is interesting but think he would never make it in a national campaign.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

huckabee again?
should be fun

Amerika

Washington D.C. just approved online poker gambling, and what a coincidence... Obama’s Justice Department in conjunction with the FBI just handed out indictments to three major online poker sites (PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker and Absolute Poker) charging them with bank fraud, money laundering and illegal gambling offenses.

Maybe President Obama can get some of these polling companies (well... those that show unfavorable results towards the President) shut down also. I'm sure he can make something up that the mainstream media will buy hook, line and sinker.

Amerika

Wow... Jon Stewart actually calls out President Dishonesty! Looks like Obama’s approval rating went down by one person more as Stewart is dropped off the Whit House Christmas Card mailing list for correctly interpreting Obama’s intent to bypass the legislature and the will of the people by increasing taxes “automatically.”

What? “Spending reductions in the tax code”? The tax code isn’t where we spend, it’s where we collect, and that.... ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I guess what you said is tax “code”, code for raising taxes. You managed to talk about a tax hike as a spending reduction. Can we afford that and the royalty checks you’re going to have to send to George Orwell? That’s the weirdest way of… just say “tax hike”! That’s like saying, “I’m not going on a diet, I’m going to add calories to my excluded food intake!”

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-14-2011/slashdance---democratic-deficit-reduction-plan

Denerick

His poll numbers will bounce once Americans realise that the fiery emotionalism of the hard right will get them nowhere, and once Obama exposes that every Republican with the exception of Paul Ryan and a few libertarians on the fringes, want to protect anywhere up to 80% of federal spending.

People need to realise that politicians react to things. 90% of his time is spent managing various crises, both big and small, that pop up on his radar. In that context, domestic politicking and propaganda is almost an afterthought.

He is wise, reasonable, intelligent and thoughtful. I still think history will remember him fondly. He just needs to come out and hit back at his enemies, most of whom wouldn't last 2 minutes in a proper debate.

Denerick

How dare you criticise Obama! The Republicans are far worse, the problem is that they are lying to the American people and assuming they are stupid. The US has a revenue problem. 'No to tax cuts' is a nice song to sing, but when you're willing to ringfence 80% of federal expenditure you haven't a leg to stand on.

Amerika

Denerick wrote: »

How dare you criticise Obama! The Republicans are far worse, the problem is that they are lying to the American people and assuming they are stupid. The US has a revenue problem. 'No to tax cuts' is a nice song to sing, but when you're willing to ringfence 80% of federal expenditure you haven't a leg to stand on.

You're kidding me right? How about Obama lying to the American people, or at a minimum believing the people are stupid. How would you describe what “Spending reductions in the tax code” is/are? Don't you think it is rather deceitful.

kev9100

Amerika wrote: »

You're kidding me right? How about Obama lying to the American people, or at a minimum believing the people are stupid. How would you describe what “Spending reductions in the tax code” is/are? Don't you think it is rather deceitful.

Nope. Obama has said time and time again he wants the bush tax cuts for the rich gone and a top rate of 39%(I'd like a higher rate personally). And "spending reductions in the tax code" merely means getting rid of tax credits.

Amerika

kev9100 wrote: »

Nope. Obama has said time and time again he wants the bush tax cuts for the rich gone and a top rate of 39%(I'd like a higher rate personally). And "spending reductions in the tax code" merely means getting rid of tax credits.

I like the way I recently saw it explained... And automatic triggers nonetheless... It is 1984!

I’d like to commend President Obama for his backhanded honesty on this, though. He has finally admitted that he thinks the money that you work for belongs to the government before it belongs to you. He just had to utter the most Orwellian phrase ever spoken by an American president to get the admission out there.

No matter how you spin it, it means TAX INCREASES, and automatic ones at that... Congress need not apply!


And for those who feel they aren’t paying enough in taxes, I wonder how many people actually utilize the government method for handling that. My guess is next to none... just talk, just worthless talk.

https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

You're kidding me right? How about Obama lying to the American people, or at a minimum believing the people are stupid. How would you describe what “Spending reductions in the tax code” is/are? Don't you think it is rather deceitful.

I admire him; he is attempting to get a tax hike in through the back door. Americans don't seem to be able to do basic math; 2+2=4. If you refuse to cut 80% of the budget and refuse to raise taxes, what do you get?

Now if only he could institute a national sales tax, a dramatically higher gas tax, and higher income taxes across the board and I would be a happy man...

Amerika

Denerick wrote: »

Now if only he could institute a national sales tax, a dramatically higher gas tax, and higher income taxes across the board and I would be a happy man...

You're not american, are you?

And you don't have to wait to be happy... just go to the website I listed above, and give till it hurts... and hurts some more... and hurts even more.

kev9100

Amerika wrote: »

You're not american, are you?

It doesn't really matter if he's American or not. It is still very simple. If the GOP genuinely wants to reduce the deficit and not just launch an ideological war against the Welfare State and the basic social contract, you need to increase taxes. There is now way around that.

Denerick

Amerika, how do you propose cutting the deficit without touching 80% of federal expenditure or without raising taxes?

This is a straight up question that demands a straight answer.

Amerika

Funny how no one seems to answer my questions, but expects me to answer theirs.

How about this... Scrap our current tax code. Replace it with a simple 10% flat tax paid by corporations and all individuals (individuals below the poverty line pay no taxes) with no deductions or special interest loopholes... and no estate tax after death. Have congress then live within their means.

(got to go... it's tax day and need to get to the post office.)

kev9100

Amerika wrote: »

Funny how no one seems to answer my questions, but expects me to answer theirs.

How about this... Scrap our current tax code. Replace it with a simple 10% flat tax paid by corporations and all individuals (individuals below the poverty line pay no taxes) with no deductions or special interest loopholes... and no estate tax after death. Have congress then live within their means.

Ok, this is why we shouldn't do that.

1. The level of cuts that would need to happen would be extremely draconian. No medicare, no medicaid, no public education, no social secuirty, no healthcare for vets etc. All these social services would have to be cut and funnily enough, these services benefit the most vulnerable in society. Its just wrong to destroy these services while giving the rich a tax cut.

2. It would cripple the economy. You cannot cut your way to a good economy. Sure, trim the fat and cut spending where it needs to be cut (defence for example) but you also need to invest in stuff like education, infatructure, high-speed rail lines etc. Also, tax cuts for the do not spur growth. Wealth does not spur growth. Demand spurs growth and to increase demand, you need investment.

3. Its a thoroughly unjust and unequal idea. How can you possibly justify giving the rich a tax cut while hitting the poor and the vulnerble with crippling cuts? It is morally unjustifiable and nothing short of class warfare.

Amerika

A flat tax would spur increased work, saving, and investment and boost long-term growth. Couldn’t it possibly generate more revenue for the federal government?

Why would those services you mention need to be eliminated?

High speed rails woul never work here (except in very limited markets), the country is just too big and too far apart.

Class warfare... I don't think so. A flat tax treats people equally.

And don’t over 20 countries or jurisdictions around the world already have flat tax systems?

Denerick

OK Amerika. You just discussed a massive tax cut and talked vaguely about 'congress living within its means'.

Will you definitively state how congress will do so and what will be cut?

kev9100

Amerika wrote: »

A flat tax would spur increased work, saving, and investment and boost long-term growth. Couldn’t it possibly generate more revenue for the federal government?

Why would those services you mention need to be eliminated?

High speed rails woul never work here (except in very limited markets), the country is just too big and too far apart.

Class warfare... I don't think so. A flat tax treats people equally.

And don’t over 20 countries or jurisdictions around the world already have flat tax systems?

1. A flat tax, and a tax cut for the rich of such huge proportions that you are talking about, would decimate revenues. There really is no way around this. Any meagre increase in productivity, which is unlikely to happen anyway, would be dwarfed by the lost tax intake.

2. These services would need to be eliminated under your plan as there would be no money to run them. As long as you believe the government has a duty to look after the most vulnerable through social services, your plan is a non-starter.

3. It is pure class-warfare. Your plan benefits the rich disproportionately by a massive margin. And the idea that a multi-millionaire paying the same amount of tax as someone living paycheck-to-paycheck is equal is laughable.

4. Maybe there are around 20 countries who use a flat-tax system. I really don't think it matters though when one considers the amount of countries that use a progressive tax system.

There I answered your question. Now, as its clear that the GOP's fiscal policy would balloon the deficit and obliterate the economy, how can the GOP ever describe themselves as the fiscally responsible party?

Amerika

So maybe revenue would be reduced to what the federal government received 10 years ago or so. I could live with the size of government, as it was 10 years ago. People weren’t dying left and right for lack of government handouts. And a scale-back of government size no way kills all those programs you listed, so let’s get real here.

Paying the same percent of tax is fair. There aren’t enough rich people making over $200,000 to tax in order to tame our debt. I believe I read somewhere recently that everyone earning over $100,000 equates to a total of about $1.7 Trillion. So taxing everyone making over $100,000 at 100% wouldn’t even pay for this years deficit, would it?

(Maybe we should start talking about the $383 billion we spend annually on illegal aliens… stopping that would at least pay our loan interest. And without government provided resources, they probably would start to go home on their own.)

The current rate of spending guarantees failure and that is what this topic is about… Obama’s failure to address deficit spending which is leading the country to certain economic ruin (as noted by his continued slide in approval ratings)… not mine. His failure to lead or even seriously address the situation was evident in one of the most dishonest and dishonorable presidential speeches ever given recently.

Bottom line, if the President fails to get support for his massive tax increases (or underhandedly get it through without congressional approval) he will either bring the country to ruin (which is what he might want because at that point the government has no choice but to take over the economy) or he will be forced to make hard and severe cuts to the massive growth and size of the government and spending over the last decade.

Regardless... I don’t see much improvements over the next two years by anything Obama is doing to fix US Debt, Gas Prices, Unemployment and the Fed. So the best course of action to save the nation now is to stop his agenda, as he will probably be only a one term president (we can only hope).

all...IMO

kev9100

Amerika wrote: »

So maybe revenue would be reduced to what the federal government received 10 years ago or so. I could live with the size of government, as it was 10 years ago. People weren’t dying left and right for lack of government handouts. And a scale-back of government size no way kills all those programs you listed, so let’s get real here.

Paying the same percent of tax is fair. There aren’t enough rich people making over $200,000 to tax in order to tame our debt. I believe I read somewhere recently that everyone earning over $100,000 equates to a total of about $1.7 Trillion. So taxing everyone making over $100,000 at 100% wouldn’t even pay for this years deficit, would it?

(Maybe we should start talking about the $383 billion we spend annually on illegal aliens… stopping that would at least pay our loan interest. And without government provided resources, they probably would start to go home on their own.)

The current rate of spending guarantees failure and that is what this topic is about… Obama’s failure to address deficit spending which is leading the country to certain economic ruin (as noted by his continued slide in approval ratings)… not mine. His failure to lead or even seriously address the situation was evident in one of the most dishonest and dishonorable presidential speeches ever given recently.

Bottom line, if the President fails to get support for his massive tax increases (or underhandedly get it through without congressional approval) he will either bring the country to ruin (which is what he might want because at that point the government has no choice but to take over the economy) or he will be forced to make hard and severe cuts to the massive growth and size of the government and spending over the last decade.

Regardless... I don’t see much improvements over the next two years by anything Obama is doing to fix US Debt, Gas Prices, Unemployment and the Fed. So the best course of action to save the nation now is to stop his agenda, as he will probably be only a one term president (we can only hope).

all...IMO

To be blunt, utter nonsense.


1. Revenue would not return to the levels of ten years ago. I really can't stress this enough. Under Clinton, there was a progressive tax system with a top rate of 39%. How could a flat tax rate of 10% in the same amount of revenue? The end result would be a huge deficit explosion, crippling cuts to the most vulnerable and a tax-cut for the rich.

2. Taxation alone will not get rid of the deficit. But the idea that giving the rich an incredible tax-cut will get rid of the deficit is embarrassing. Oh, and as an aside, I despise the term illegal aliens. They're people, not some kind of monster.

3. Spending saved the U.S.A from th second great depression. When Obama came into office, the U.S economy was in free-fall. The stimulus injected a vital investment and demand that saved the economy from an economic nightmare that few can possibly imagine.

4. A 4% increase in the top-rate is not massive and Obama does need congressional approval. And the idea Obama might "take over the economy" is conspiracy theory nonsense thats actually quite embarrassing.

So once again, the GOP and your economic ideas are based on Friedman style rubbish. And I ask again: how dare the GOP call themselves the party of fiscal responsibilty when they created the deficit in the first place and their plan would make it even bigger?

Amerika

Utter nonsense? Bullcrap! Under a 10% Flat Tax GE would have paid $500 million on their reported $5 billion in profits rather than the $0 they paid under the current tax system, and even more on the $9.2 in profits they parked in selected countries in which they paid no tax. So see, you can generate more revenues for the Federal Government.

At least the GOP tried cutting spending... they had to fight tooth and nail for a measly $39 Billion in this year's budget -- should have demanded $100 Billion or shut down the gov't. How much did your beloved Democrats demand to be cut?

Fallschirmjager

i think i might be able to explain. currently 5% of America pays 40% of the tax take. 49% of the working population pay nothing at all....they are recipients. Now dont hold my feet to the fire on exactly those numbers but i think they are close.

here is a video
http://www.reason.tv/video/show/w2-wtf


the tax code in the US is now something like 71,000 pages. That is not taxation that is opression. the idea that you are compliant is not possible. the IRS is nothing more then a way to threaten the public into submission.

the basic idea of a flat tax (something Ireland needs incidentally, but i digress) is to revert the power back to the citizens. so lets say there is a tax rate of 10%, the idea is you pay that on anything you earn-- emphasis on anything. you can do your tax return on a post-it pad. if you sell shares, or get a windfall or get anything, you owe 10% to the government. Everyone pays, everyone. it removes all the special favours, special classes, special groups and simplifies the tax code to 1 page.

the extra benefit is that it stimulates growth, the more you earn the more you keep. it encourages people to develop new products and services, it encourages people to take a chance and it will stop the current rush to government jobs that is happening in the US. Their would be a growth explosion and it would suck jobs at an unprecedented rate back. i also recall the US population spends over a 4 billion hours doing tax returns, that is insane.

the issue with America is that no amount of taxation can now pay for the debts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ

the above is based on iowahawk's blog which i might add is always excellent.

the fact is that tax hikes never bring in what you expect and they impact growth in a very negative and dramatic fashion: (look no further then than what is happening here in Ireland for proof). cuts have to come and the bad news is they have to be big and harsh. if America is smart, they can use this to propel their economy back to where it should be. the problem with entitlements is they are a drug. we have it in Ireland as bad as anywhere. the USA is no different. It has taken the USA 70 years of adding more and more entitlements to reach this point and no party is innocent. People are far more resilient then they are given credit for. you just need to unleash their power. does a government need a safety net, yes it does, but the issue for all of western europe and the USA is that safety net has become a blanket and it is sucking the life out of us all. we simply cannot afford it. the USA has unfunded liabilities twice the size of the GDP of the PLANET. it is simply not possible to go on this way.

i have linked to this before, i strongly encourage you to look at this link, it is frightening.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

if you want to see the total shambles of Ireland, prepare to be depressed...
(we are bottom left)

http://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html

right now, taxation is exactly the last thing the US needs. what it needs to do is stop spending. all too often the dramatic effect is things mentioned like medicare etc. you dont have to start there but at some point they will have to face those ponzi schemes as well, but you do not need to begin there. the US government should begin by drilling for oil and handing back all the land it now owns. it needs to stop the insanity of importing resources and paying others to develop resources they have themselves. You may not know this but the US has the worlds largest reserve of oil, gas and coal...they dwarf everyone else. what they lack is the will. the unleashing of the US economy will actually restart the planet. it will as it has done countless times before drive innovation up and costs down, you just have to have the will to do it. unfortunately you will need a congress and a president who have to have the willingness to vote themselves to the status of almost irrelevant and get out of the way of American industry and its citizens. Obama is not that man, and the congress is still stuffed with a permanent political class.

The US government should be small and limited but unfortunately now its large and uninhibited. when you have a government owning car industries....you have a problem. when you have the head of GE leading task forces and encouraging green energy that , surprise surprise, they develop, you have a problem. facing that problem is the hard part. its easy to continue printing the drug supply, but sooner or later you have to stop...and in the US, the sooner the better for her and as it happens all the rest of us too....

obviously just my opinion...

kev9100

Amerika wrote: »

Utter nonsense? Bullcrap! Under a 10% Flat Tax GE would have paid $500 million on their reported $5 billion in profits rather than the $0 they paid under the current tax system, and even more on the $9.2 in profits they parked in selected countries in which they paid no tax. So see, you can generate more revenues for the Federal Government.

At least the GOP tried cutting spending... they had to fight tooth and nail for a measly $39 Billion in this year's budget -- should have demanded $100 Billion or shut down the gov't. How much did your beloved Democrats demand to be cut?

Whats your point? I have no problem with corportations paying tax. In fact, I think they should pay the current of 35% with no deductions.

And actually, according to the CBO the GOP's deal only cut about 250 million. If I remember corectly, Obama proposed cutting around 12 billion with an inreased top rate of tax and getting rid of many tax credits.

What you and the entire of the Right utterly fail to understand is that draconian spending cuts are bad for the economy. No matter Friedman or the very "serious" Paul Ryan say, if a deficit is to be reduced it has to be done over a long time and piece by piece. Of course, the irony is that the GOP is so economically incompetent their and your plan balloons the deficit. Funny isn't it?

Amerika

People are beginning to realize Hope Is Not A Plan!

Bottom line is... after his deficit reduction speech, the President’s continual fall in approval ratings is a reality check showing the American people have very little confidence in Obama’s economic leadership and against his unwillingness to address our unsustainable debt in a serious manner. Standard & Poors seemingly agrees since they downgraded the outlook for the U.S. debt.

With the upcoming debates on increasing the debt limit and the guaranteed battles over the 2012 budget, there is little hope Obama can switch the discussion from our debt to the economy. My guess is he will switch the discussion in his strategy to gain reelection to the hyper-partisan topic of illegal aliens, err I mean Undocumented Democrats, which has little-to-no chance of passing anything leading to citizenship at the current time.

But he might win reelection if the American people expect the Republicans to gain more seats in the House of Representatives and take control of the US Senate, because the GOP potentials don’t have a standout. The people might just think the “nice guy” Obama could do better in a second term with someone else more responsible taking control of the country’s fiscal matters.

again... IMO

autonomy

There is only two candidates for 2012, Ron Paul and the status quo

Overheal

There are.

vetinari

Oh dear, you do know that if 5% of the population pay 40% of the tax in a progressive system, that means that they own 40% of the wealth?
I live and work in American and still don't understand why people think a small percentage of people owning most of the wealth is a good system.

Call me a socialist if you want but I'd much prefer a scenario where wealth was more evenly distributed. Not in an exactly the same money for everyone scenario but rather where a CEO might might make 40 times the industrial wage as opposed to the 300 > times plus they make today.

Fallschirmjager wrote: »

i think i might be able to explain. currently 5% of America pays 40% of the tax take. 49% of the working population pay nothing at all....they are recipients. Now dont hold my feet to the fire on exactly those numbers but i think they are close.

here is a video
http://www.reason.tv/video/show/w2-wtf


the tax code in the US is now something like 71,000 pages. That is not taxation that is opression. the idea that you are compliant is not possible. the IRS is nothing more then a way to threaten the public into submission.

the basic idea of a flat tax (something Ireland needs incidentally, but i digress) is to revert the power back to the citizens. so lets say there is a tax rate of 10%, the idea is you pay that on anything you earn-- emphasis on anything. you can do your tax return on a post-it pad. if you sell shares, or get a windfall or get anything, you owe 10% to the government. Everyone pays, everyone. it removes all the special favours, special classes, special groups and simplifies the tax code to 1 page.

the extra benefit is that it stimulates growth, the more you earn the more you keep. it encourages people to develop new products and services, it encourages people to take a chance and it will stop the current rush to government jobs that is happening in the US. Their would be a growth explosion and it would suck jobs at an unprecedented rate back. i also recall the US population spends over a 4 billion hours doing tax returns, that is insane.

the issue with America is that no amount of taxation can now pay for the debts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ

the above is based on iowahawk's blog which i might add is always excellent.

the fact is that tax hikes never bring in what you expect and they impact growth in a very negative and dramatic fashion: (look no further then than what is happening here in Ireland for proof). cuts have to come and the bad news is they have to be big and harsh. if America is smart, they can use this to propel their economy back to where it should be. the problem with entitlements is they are a drug. we have it in Ireland as bad as anywhere. the USA is no different. It has taken the USA 70 years of adding more and more entitlements to reach this point and no party is innocent. People are far more resilient then they are given credit for. you just need to unleash their power. does a government need a safety net, yes it does, but the issue for all of western europe and the USA is that safety net has become a blanket and it is sucking the life out of us all. we simply cannot afford it. the USA has unfunded liabilities twice the size of the GDP of the PLANET. it is simply not possible to go on this way.

i have linked to this before, i strongly encourage you to look at this link, it is frightening.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

if you want to see the total shambles of Ireland, prepare to be depressed...
(we are bottom left)

http://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html

right now, taxation is exactly the last thing the US needs. what it needs to do is stop spending. all too often the dramatic effect is things mentioned like medicare etc. you dont have to start there but at some point they will have to face those ponzi schemes as well, but you do not need to begin there. the US government should begin by drilling for oil and handing back all the land it now owns. it needs to stop the insanity of importing resources and paying others to develop resources they have themselves. You may not know this but the US has the worlds largest reserve of oil, gas and coal...they dwarf everyone else. what they lack is the will. the unleashing of the US economy will actually restart the planet. it will as it has done countless times before drive innovation up and costs down, you just have to have the will to do it. unfortunately you will need a congress and a president who have to have the willingness to vote themselves to the status of almost irrelevant and get out of the way of American industry and its citizens. Obama is not that man, and the congress is still stuffed with a permanent political class.

The US government should be small and limited but unfortunately now its large and uninhibited. when you have a government owning car industries....you have a problem. when you have the head of GE leading task forces and encouraging green energy that , surprise surprise, they develop, you have a problem. facing that problem is the hard part. its easy to continue printing the drug supply, but sooner or later you have to stop...and in the US, the sooner the better for her and as it happens all the rest of us too....

obviously just my opinion...

nagilum2

vetinari wrote: »

Oh dear, you do know that if 5% of the population pay 40% of the tax in a progressive system, that means that they own 40% of the wealth?
I live and work in American and still don't understand why people think a small percentage of people owning most of the wealth is a good system.

Call me a socialist if you want but I'd much prefer a scenario where wealth was more evenly distributed. Not in an exactly the same money for everyone scenario but rather where a CEO might might make 40 times the industrial wage as opposed to the 300 > times plus they make today.

Vetinari is correct. There is no way a flat tax can cover this unless the flat tax is very high. In principal, however, I like Amerika's philosophy, which is to try to avoid taxes on productivity. So then the question becomes, how do you make up the revenues to enough of a degree that the cuts that are paired with the tax receipts are palatable.

I would propose to dramatically raise the taxes on gifts and inheritance. Opponents of inheritance taxes have gotten away with branding it the "death tax". It becomes a question of what would you rather have. I'd much rather have lower marginal tax rates on productivity, and higher tax rates on unearned income. There are fewer better examples of that than the inheritance. Currently, up to $5M from an individual or $10M from a couple can be passed without incurring tax at all. Additionally, if these folks pass their inheritance to charities, they are exempt from paying.

I'd say we put an immediate tax on inheritance, exempting only the first $50,000 to $100,000, and removing the exemptions for charities. I'd also say we can further increase revenues by eliminating tax shelters routinely used by the wealthiest Americans to prevent their wealth from being taxed. They set up charitable trusts and make heirs employees of the non-profit charity, etc. This needs to be eliminated. The revenues increased should be used to proportionately reduce the amount of taxes paid by individuals that already pay taxes.

These are by no means all of the changes that need to be made. The tax code is in needs of a massive overhaul. The key thing that the tax code should do is encourage wealth production, and discourage transfer of wealth that is not earned. The former spurns growth, innovation, and rewards higher incomes. The latter encourages wealth "preservation" strategies that hinder overall productive capacity through transfer of wealth to unproductive individuals. Worst case is, this tax code encourages older folks to spend down their wealth prior to death because doing so eliminates a tax penalty. But even in this case, there is a massive stimulative effect as older folks, rather than sheltering their income so that their heirs can live well without really having to work for it, try to spend it down while they are still alive. The economy gets a short term boost as that capital is injected into the system, and a longer term boost as those heirs have to work harder and longer to maintain the standard of living that they would have had if they'd gotten that tax-free $10M.

Thoughts?