What the Republicans have asked for FIRST is a reform of the tax codes to stop the loopholes which the Democrats have fiercely fought against.
Sounds like common-sense to me... though saying that, accountancy of a country is never just simple.
Not sure if your point about Hollywood really has any relevancy, as I have seen Hollywood types supporting both candidates, thus means both have IOU's to such supporters to favour their best interests.
Which brings us back to the foundation of the real issue of US accountancy. Capitalism controls the election, thus IOU's are owed upon election, which equals actions that are not necessarily in the best interest of the people, and instead of specific rich and corporate entities. How do you think loopholes got entered in the first place? Do you really think the Republican party is going to be allowed to touch such loopholes that are based on IOU's? I doubt the Democrats would be allowed either... and you have two parties with IOU's due. One party is in, the other has blocking power in the House. People giving them millions of dollars to put them there aren't going to support them if they don't come through with prior promises to obtain such funds in the first place... which so happens to have contributed to putting them in power.
That is the fundamental loophole in US Government. Again... let capitalism go hard for the economy, but it must be removed from US Government at all levels, and instead politicians are given a set fund from the Government to advertise and market themselves. It removes nearly all corruption in one foul swoop... and that isn't being naive, that is factual based on how such principles work effectively in the majority of countries around the world already. Yes, there are some corrupt countries... but a majority who use that principle in Government have the least corruption. Politicians then use the slightest sniff of corruption against their counters to climb the ladder... thus keeping things as squeaky clean as one could keep politics.
Honestly, IMHO, it is the US political system that needs reform for budgeting to work. You can't say it has worked, because the only thing that has worked is the US has been allowed to keep growing and keep borrowing to its maximum potential, never decreasing its debt to asset ratio. Instead, power to be simply kept increasing the debt ceiling to put the issue off.
Sometime when you are bored, read through a current tax book.
I'll leave that one to the accountants. Maybe they should be grabbing 100 of the best accountants and putting them in a room to nut out the countries finances and come up with a majority workable solution!
The Republicans have been asking for tax reform for four years bc the tax hike will hit the middle class and small businesses to a far worse detriment than tax loophole cuts.
My understanding from watching US economics over the last decade, is that the Republicans also put the US in the position its in to a good degree. Both parties have blame in it, though Republicans were the ones who cut most of the red tape to create said loopholes to begin with. Please correct me if wrong... though that is my understanding from the past decade plus of economic data from the US.
I'm a fan of neither of the US parties.
If you think that Obama is ok, just look at the stock market yesterday. It was off more than 300 points.
I am unsure why this is relevant, as this has nothing to do with Obama of the US election. This has to do with figures from Germany and how the EU bailouts they've been propping up all these years is now catching up with Germany. They've now gone into slow-down and economic downturn as a result, by spending all their surplus trying to rescue Greece and others.
Also, I am perplexed at WHY the perception is that WE have any control over the world economics?
You don't have control over world economics. The US is a major player within the world economy, thus what occurs in the US has a ripple effect. Just as China is now larger than the US, when China's economy is impacted the ripple spreads around the world.
We are no longer unique economies with investment. Please read my above prior post on how this works if you don't fully grasp the basics of that issue.
@Anthony-Regarding tax rates and global economies, I found this an interesting link.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/global-evidence-taxes-and-economic-growth-payroll-taxes-have-no-effect
Specifically the correlation between GDP and the business tax rate. The corporate tax rate affects all business, both small and large. Thoughts?
I honestly don't believe that piece has a great deal of weight to be perfectly honest, as the figures are firstly an average over a decade, and countries growth and decline over the past decade have been sharp at the best of times for durations longer than a year or more, thus tainting average data to use in the manner they have IMHO.
I agree that taxation doesn't grow an economy, however; what that article fails to identify is that lowering taxes to increase output and wealth, also doesn't reduce debt. It does exactly what the US fell for, being to continuously grow whilst also continuously growing foreign debt in proportion. When a problem does hit, as the GFC did... the problem is compounded by a thousand and made into such an enormous task, that some say it could simply be impossible to recover.
If you have to have five or ten years of increased taxes to slow the economy, slow growth, but obtain more funds so that the country can reduce its debt... then so be it. Hard decisions have to be made. A country cannot continue to grow year after year, which is what such documents are based upon and emphasise their theories upon. It is an illusion to believe a country can grow year after year without taking a step back every now and then to just earn some money and rid itself of debt.
It is the same at the individual level. You can't spend more than you make year after year, even though you keep getting a pay rise each year. At some point, that difference in debt is going to catch-up with you and you need to have a year or two of savings to reduce the debt... if you want to get back to spending more than you earn.
The biggest cost to the US is its military. They need to scrap a good half of it, sell the equipment to foreign countries or scrap metal... either way, for some years there are now no more maintenance costs or man hours to pay for the equipment, or being in foreign countries. Countries have to be left to fend for themselves and the US dismantle half its military, leaving what it needs for self-protection without invasion into other countries. Again... a huge saving period for the US in which such money they don't have is no longer borrowed, and the surplus is reducing foreign debt. Pump money wisely into espionage and special forces, but the rest is minimal in self-defence only, not attack. That is a huge sum of money the US would be able to use against their debt and stimulate their economy.
There is more than just loopholes and tax cuts at play... which US citizens also need to accept and come to terms with in backing whoever is in power to make those hard decisions.
I still like the idea of throwing a hundred of the best accountancy minds in a room to nut out the best possible solutions. Even they would say the defence budget is just too high. 25% of a countries income should not be spent on defence. More like around 2 - 5% maximum... that is defence versus attack.
