I recently read this article published in the commentary section of the Austin American Statesman website on September 17th titled Perry Rightly Defends Tuition Program, discussing immigration related topics. The article, I believe was written from a Republican point of view, as the title seems to be biased. The author commend Governor Rick Perry on his defense and views on illegal immigration and in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. The author is basically claiming that the state of Texas is justified in paying tuition of illegal immigrant because those individuals are here at no fault of their own and working towards goal to improve their situation. Perry states " I'm proud that we are having those individuals be contributing members of our society rather than telling them you go be on the government dole." When discussing an opposition's rebuttal, the author calls the representative "shortsighted." He credits himself by reminding the audience that the Supreme Court noted that free public education benefits us all.
I believe the article is extremely biased and disagree with the author. When asked what he would do to remove illegal immigrants from our country, Rick Perry avoids the question and blames the problem on the federal government. Lack of security. Shouldn't that be the area of focus?
Towards the end of the article the author admits to bold statements such as "is free public education a lure to illegal immigrants [for votes], perhaps.." and even shares the high courts opinion on the subject that the Texas law "contributed to the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime."
The author of this article did a good job. A good job of convincing me that his opinion is skewed.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Capitol Gains Tax, Rational?
I recently read an interesting article published on September 11th and written by Stephen Mufson and Jia Lynn Yang in the business section of The Washington Post. Titled "Capital Gains Tax Rates Benefit Wealthy Feed Growing Gap Between Rich and Poor", the article is a discussion of current and former capital gains tax rates compared to wage taxes and how and why they work in our economy.
The beginning of the article discusses the different viewpoints of the benefits of capital gains tax rates. "The rates on capital gains...should be a key point over negotiations over how to shrink the budget deficit, some lawmakers say". Republicans, looking to keep the rate low, are interested in protecting the "preferential treatment of money earned through investment over money earned through labor". While democrat Chris Van Hollen of the congressional super-committee, argues that "there is no strong economic rationale for the huge gap that exists now between the rate for wages and the rate for capital gains".
Proponents of the low capital gains tax believe that it will encourage business and build capital. Alan Greenspan's view on the subject is that the effect of the tax "as best I can judge, is to impede entrepreneurial activity and capital formation". Republicans agree that the appropriate tax rate is zero and believe the capital gains tax to be a tax on job creation. On the other hand, the article goes on to say how tax experts contest the idea that lower rates are beneficial saying "lower capital gains taxes are a mixed bag", and "it is not clear that an absence of risk-taking is what's ailing the economy".
Though the issue of the capital gains tax leans towards the Republican ideology, it tends to be a bipartisan issue. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi believes that "raising taxes on capital gains and dividends could discourage individuals and businesses from saving and investing". It is agreed that the tax could hinder job creation and innovation.
Lastly, the article goes into detail about how the tax issue is mostly political, being controlled by political contributors and lobbyists. The author says that in spite of the economic arguments "the steady cutting of the capital gains tax rate reflects the political power of the rich, who are more likely to contribute to politicians and benefit from the work of lobbyists".
I think this is an important read because it is a bipartisan issue that effects everyone. Typical voters don't pay attention to this issue because it doesn't have a direct impact. Think of it this way, "The 400 richest tax payers in 2008 counted 60 percent of their income in the form of capital gains and 8 percent from salary and wages. The rest of the country reported 5 percent in capital gains and 72 percent in salary". Are the current tax rates fair and advantageous?
The beginning of the article discusses the different viewpoints of the benefits of capital gains tax rates. "The rates on capital gains...should be a key point over negotiations over how to shrink the budget deficit, some lawmakers say". Republicans, looking to keep the rate low, are interested in protecting the "preferential treatment of money earned through investment over money earned through labor". While democrat Chris Van Hollen of the congressional super-committee, argues that "there is no strong economic rationale for the huge gap that exists now between the rate for wages and the rate for capital gains".
Proponents of the low capital gains tax believe that it will encourage business and build capital. Alan Greenspan's view on the subject is that the effect of the tax "as best I can judge, is to impede entrepreneurial activity and capital formation". Republicans agree that the appropriate tax rate is zero and believe the capital gains tax to be a tax on job creation. On the other hand, the article goes on to say how tax experts contest the idea that lower rates are beneficial saying "lower capital gains taxes are a mixed bag", and "it is not clear that an absence of risk-taking is what's ailing the economy".
Though the issue of the capital gains tax leans towards the Republican ideology, it tends to be a bipartisan issue. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi believes that "raising taxes on capital gains and dividends could discourage individuals and businesses from saving and investing". It is agreed that the tax could hinder job creation and innovation.
Lastly, the article goes into detail about how the tax issue is mostly political, being controlled by political contributors and lobbyists. The author says that in spite of the economic arguments "the steady cutting of the capital gains tax rate reflects the political power of the rich, who are more likely to contribute to politicians and benefit from the work of lobbyists".
I think this is an important read because it is a bipartisan issue that effects everyone. Typical voters don't pay attention to this issue because it doesn't have a direct impact. Think of it this way, "The 400 richest tax payers in 2008 counted 60 percent of their income in the form of capital gains and 8 percent from salary and wages. The rest of the country reported 5 percent in capital gains and 72 percent in salary". Are the current tax rates fair and advantageous?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)