Capital Gains Tax Rate - Tax Reform
Options
blakfyahking
Members Posts: 15,785 ✭✭✭✭✭
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-30/capital-gains-fault-line-as-obama-romney-tax-plans-differ.html
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/The-Presidents-Framework-for-Business-Tax-Reform-02-22-2012.pdf
It is well known among those who are familiar with the current tax code, that the way to influence how much top earners pay in taxes is to focus on the capital gains tax rates
Currently the tax on long-term capital gains is 15%. Short-term capital gains are taxed as ordinary income. What this means is that people who tend to gain most of their yearly income from dividends or asset sales will generally pay less overall taxes than those who get their income from wages or salaries (money you get from doing work).
In essence capital gains can allow a millionaire to pay a less effective rate of taxes than someone who works from check to check (ie. millionaire receiving income from selling stock will pay a less rate than someone who physically worked all year)
Obama proposes raising the cap gains rate to 23.8% to bring it closer to the ordinary income rate. Romney proposes that the 15% rate be kept for households making $200K+, and that a 0% cap gains rate should be made for households making less than $200K.
Which plan is better in your opinion?????
Keep in mind that the capital gains rates are generally lower with the intent to motivate people to invest in companies that ultimately hire folks...................
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/The-Presidents-Framework-for-Business-Tax-Reform-02-22-2012.pdf
It is well known among those who are familiar with the current tax code, that the way to influence how much top earners pay in taxes is to focus on the capital gains tax rates
Currently the tax on long-term capital gains is 15%. Short-term capital gains are taxed as ordinary income. What this means is that people who tend to gain most of their yearly income from dividends or asset sales will generally pay less overall taxes than those who get their income from wages or salaries (money you get from doing work).
In essence capital gains can allow a millionaire to pay a less effective rate of taxes than someone who works from check to check (ie. millionaire receiving income from selling stock will pay a less rate than someone who physically worked all year)
Obama proposes raising the cap gains rate to 23.8% to bring it closer to the ordinary income rate. Romney proposes that the 15% rate be kept for households making $200K+, and that a 0% cap gains rate should be made for households making less than $200K.
Which plan is better in your opinion?????
Keep in mind that the capital gains rates are generally lower with the intent to motivate people to invest in companies that ultimately hire folks...................
Comments
-
SawedOff-N-SkiMask wrote: »Who's hiring?
LOL well nobody until tax reform is finally set in place
it would appear govt agencies are def hiring more right now
-
Motivation huh?
Obeezys plan and the latter part of Romneys plan(0% cap gains rate should be made for households making less than $200K)
Sounds good to me.
Obviously that ? wouldnt be looking good to employers and rich craccers, so obeezy plan for the win.
When in doubt, ? of the conservatives. -
I think ? off conservatives may ? business in the end tho (which ultimately ? the economy)
keep in mind that raising the capital gains tax makes investment in projects more expensive for firms
people will demand a higher return on their money if they expect to have to pay a higher tax when they finally get their money back
Romney may be right on this one
-
SawedOff-N-SkiMask wrote: »U proved my point.
Plus, Government Agencies have ALWAYS been hiring, they haven't really had a true reduction period up until this year and the last year becuz Obama cut out the fat. BUT even tho he's reduced "workers" that still doesn't mean that they aren't hiring out the ass. They may not be hiring so much in rural Vermont or Desert, Arizona but that doesn't mean that those kinds of Careers And Jobs aren't out there ready to be filled.
You're pretty biased I see
what point were you making?
and how am I biased? -
SawedOff-N-SkiMask wrote: »He's right on the latter half, BUT Bill Clinton raised taxes and it worked.
You're right about not trying to ? off big business but Obama hasn't really bothered big business and it's only an 8.3 raise (10% in reality). So if a company makes $16,000,000 it will only pay something like $1,600,000 in taxes, that's not that much considering all of the ? loop holes they already hop thru which in the end they'll rebound (or atleast some of it).
Economic growth requires more than just proper taxing. Exxon Mobil has many on-land and off-shore Oil sites but u never hear about that ? becuz they don't want u to kno.
The 1 thing u keep underminding is your own personal thirst for Change that'll never just happen over night and even more than that, Corporate Greed. And also not all small businesses Bank over 200K so don't get caught up in the hype, not everybody is doing McDonald's and Safeway Food & Drug numbers
well technically Clinton raised taxes...............but he didn't raise the capital gains tax rate
as a matter of fact, in 1997 Clinton lowered the cap gains rate from the former 28% rate
so even though people make the argument that Clinton raised taxes to justify bolstering the economy
really he just taxed the top earning workers more (emphasis on workers)
but the people living off of capital gains (like many high income earners) actually got their taxes lowered under Clinton
these are the details the average voter tends to overlook or not be aware of -
SawedOff-N-SkiMask wrote: »^^^ so you're just going to ignore the fact that he raised taxes just becuz it wasn't specific to this case you're trying to make. Go head big man
But my point is "who's hiring"? I meant that literally. Considering we all have been playing under post-Regan Republican rules for quite some time now, long enough for them to marinate in deep (aswell as "The New Deal").
I'm still waiting
boss man, this thread is about capital gains tax rates
yes Clinton raised taxes.............but he raised it on ordinary income rates
and even he cut the capital gains tax rate in 1997..........3 years later we had the largest surplus when Clinton left office
you don't think it makes sense to focus on the cap gains tax rate when most high income earners get most of their income from capital gains and we are attempting to raise taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers?
why do you think so many corporate leaders take most of their pay in stock/stock options?
and it's kind of hard to talk Post-Reagan when he was a president from the 80s...............if anything the current President looks suspect cause what type of hiring has been going on for the last 3 years?
you are essentially burying your own point by highlighting how there has been a lack of jobs during the current President's time in office LOL
-
y'all keep it going, this is good.
-
SawedOff-N-SkiMask wrote: »No I'm not burying anything becuz Obama is getting us out of a recession with a do-nothing congress.
And raising taxes is raising taxes no matter how u wanna cut it. Loop holes are loop holes no matter how big the hole is. It's not cut-n-dry like they try to play it off in the movies. Corporations (rich people) get a lot of subsidies just becuz they already pay so much in taxes so don't ignore that.
You're ? off the kool-aid becuz you're passionate for Romney. And I've already said before that both Romney and Obama are alike, the difference is Obama actually gives a ? about the people and Romney could care less.
If they really wanted to invest and show kind heartedness they could've been done that but they choose not to, and that doesn't have ? to do with Obama being Black. Business isn't Personal, it's Business
the bolded is debatable
the bolded/underlined is just naive oversimplification..............you would be dumb to believe that raising taxes on ordinary income alone is really "raising taxes on the rich"
the underlined is inaccurate because I'm personally voting for Obama
however, Obama has some flawed policy mistakes
and the same way Obamacare is a version of the same plan Romney tried to push when he was gov of MA
it would be wise for Obama to take the good advice of how to handle the cap gains tax rate since that is what will make the biggest impact in reaching his goal -
as far as corporate tax benefits
what benefits do corporations get besides net operating losses, classification of inventory, depreciation, deferral of foreign income, expensing, deductions, and interest?
most corporations (which are small businesses) don't get to benefit from those
raising corporate taxes while leaving the cap gains tax as is would work well IMO -
what "worked" for Bill Clinton was having an incredibly robust economy. but surely ignoring the economy at large and focusing on some taxes he raised explains it all!SawedOff-N-SkiMask wrote: »He's right on the latter half, BUT Bill Clinton raised taxes and it worked.
except when you start a thread SPECIFICALLY talking about capital gains and then try to claim unrelated tax increases are the same thing.SawedOff-N-SkiMask wrote: »And raising taxes is raising taxes no matter how u wanna cut it.
and perhaps we could make our argument without the racial slurs?
-
Ummm let's not act like Clinton didn't degregulate like a ? . He may of left office with a surplus, but some of the legislation he passed is still ? up your economy. Can't blame Dubya for all of that mess.
But I digress...on the subject of capital gains, while lowering the tax rate may get some companies investing back in the American economy and hiring American workers, the pull of super cheap foreign labour is still strong. I know I'm stating the obvious, but you need more reforms across the board to make any subsantial change.
the bolded is debatable.............cause there are a lot of factors that also played into deregulation as well that may have contributed to the decline of the US economy today
I think people easily forget that even ten years ago international competition was not as strong as it is today
the US is struggling to compete globally for labor resources on both the supply and demand side
and even still with the pull of cheap labor elsewhere, that isn't really a trend that will be helped by higher tax rates............so actually the threat of cheap labor just makes even more sense to lower cap gains tax rates
cause think about it, when investors demand a return managers can only make more money for investors by only two ways: either raising revenue or lowering costs...................adding a higher tax (higher cost) would only drive mofos to use even more cheap labor overseas
meanwhile the effective tax rates in America are making US companies less and less competitive globally -
blakfyahking wrote: »Ummm let's not act like Clinton didn't degregulate like a ? . He may of left office with a surplus, but some of the legislation he passed is still ? up your economy. Can't blame Dubya for all of that mess.
But I digress...on the subject of capital gains, while lowering the tax rate may get some companies investing back in the American economy and hiring American workers, the pull of super cheap foreign labour is still strong. I know I'm stating the obvious, but you need more reforms across the board to make any subsantial change.
the bolded is debatable.............cause there are a lot of factors that also played into deregulation as well that may have contributed to the decline of the US economy today
I think people easily forget that even ten years ago international competition was not as strong as it is today
the US is struggling to compete globally for labor resources on both the supply and demand side
and even still with the pull of cheap labor elsewhere, that isn't really a trend that will be helped by higher tax rates............so actually the threat of cheap labor just makes even more sense to lower cap gains tax rates
cause think about it, when investors demand a return managers can only make more money for investors by only two ways: either raising revenue or lowering costs...................adding a higher tax (higher cost) would only drive mofos to use even more cheap labor overseas
meanwhile the effective tax rates in America are making US companies less and less competitive globally
I don't think it's debatable. The operative work in my statement was "some". I did not say Clinton was the main cause or the only cause, I said some of his legislation helped with ? up the economy. You cannot deny that the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act he signed into law, had somewhat of a negative impact, and that wasn't the only bill either.
I also never said that higher tax rates were the answer. I said, and I am currently saying, lowering the capital gains tax rate is not enough to get American companies investing back in America on a long term, stable basis. That's why I said you need reform across the board. If the rate was lowered, then conditions need to be attached because big business will do what they always do; exploit. They might higher just enough America workers to get the tax break but still keep the majority of workers abroad. That will not help the US economy in the long run.
At the end of the day, multinational companies like Nike and Apple take advantage of cheap labour, and the countries their workers are in give said companies better incentives to keep their business there. Who knows, lowing the CGT might be the answer but not without stipulations. Over here in the UK, the bank bailout is a prime example of what happens when you give companies the incentive to do something but attach no conditions.
actually my thought still stands because there isn't overwhelming evidence that GLB was a significant source of the problem................it could be argued had other sufficient legislation been put in place as extra safeguards GLB really wouldn't be a factor to discuss
the main problem in the crisis was that legislation wasn't caught up to financial engineering (particularly CDOs)
one of the biggest problems in the US is the organizations responsible for keeping financial institutions in check are toothless and ineffective
at the time GLB made sense when looking at the competitive landscape for fed system banks...........but I digress haha
but getting back to the CGT, yeah I def think keeping it low is a good move...................especially at a time when we are trying to keep the economy going
of course tax reform is only one piece that is necessary to get the economy back on track -
obama for the win....
most making 200k or less do own stocks or bonds, but tend to stash them in retirement accounts which are tax-sheltered, so the capital gains rate doesn't really apply to them
and really low tax rate on capital gains is sucking a lot of money out our ability to pay for our schools, military, infrastructure, etc, which is part of why we are borrowing so much...and stats have shown lower capital gains taxes moreso increase income inequality and not investment. the top tax rate on investment income has bounced up and down over the past 80 years. from as high as 39.9 percent in '77 to a new low today, yet investment just appears to grow w/ the cycle, unaffected...
and there is already a really good incentive to invest: to flip and make more money. piling a special "incentive" on top of mofos making million creates market distortions by moving investors away from deciding where to put their money based on the value and merits of the investment and toward tax reduction schemes....
? what romney saying. no one is going to shy away from a sensible investment because of taxes. real reason why capital gains are taxed at a lower rate and why romney wants to keep the current rate for households making 200K+ and up is because most of the income of the 1% is from capital gains, and most of the income of the 1% is from capital gains because the tax rate is lower....
-
no, i'm just pointing out that there's no reason to use racial slurs aside from being ignorant, which is not an excuse. oh, and that you're wrong about the topical stuff as well.SawedOff-N-SkiMask wrote: »U mad?
-
desertrain10 wrote: »obama for the win....
most making 200k or less do own stocks or bonds, but tend to stash them in retirement accounts which are tax-sheltered, so the capital gains rate doesn't really apply to them
and really low tax rate on capital gains is sucking a lot of money out our ability to pay for our schools, military, infrastructure, etc, which is part of why we are borrowing so much...and stats have shown lower capital gains taxes moreso increase income inequality and not investment. the top tax rate on investment income has bounced up and down over the past 80 years. from as high as 39.9 percent in '77 to a new low today, yet investment just appears to grow w/ the cycle, unaffected...
and there is already a really good incentive to invest: to flip and make more money. piling a special "incentive" on top of mofos making million creates market distortions by moving investors away from deciding where to put their money based on the value and merits of the investment and toward tax reduction schemes....
? what romney saying. no one is going to shy away from a sensible investment because of taxes. real reason why capital gains are taxed at a lower rate and why romney wants to keep the current rate for households making 200K+ and up is because most of the income of the 1% is from capital gains, and most of the income of the 1% is from capital gains because the tax rate is lower....
haha I was waiting for a post like this...................
as far as people owning investments in retirement accounts such as 401(k)s and IRAs, your argument is flawed considering Roth IRAs and Roth 401(k)s are available...............plus you have to consider that the CGT rate is supposed to benefit investors and the overall economy
the argument is that raising the CGT rate only makes it harder for companies that drive the economy to raise capital..............which ultimately affects all investors (and workers) negatively if the economy is struggling
making people pay more taxes just encourages people to require companies to pay more return, which creates higher costs for companies, which puts further pressure on workers......................and yes, people do actually shy away from investments because of higher associated taxes, which is why economic thought is constantly used in analysis of tax policy..................govts use taxes as a way to influence markets because people avoid purchases/investments with higher taxes if they can
-
and also encouraging people to hold investments in 401(k) plans actually distorts the market, because the difference between long term CGT and short-term CGT keeps companies in check if they want to continue to attract investors........................just imagine if the CGT rate for long term capital gains was extended for sales after 5 years..................you would basically be giving companies an extra four years to give returns back to investors which allows way more time for companies to ? with investor money......................that basically creates more moral hazard because the 1 yr "long term" definition encourages companies to constantly step up to retain investors money
the stock prices you see are nothing but an average investor's "score card" on the value of a company..............companies who perform well have higher stock prices and attract more investors which in turn encourages the company's sustainability, which theoretically translates into more future success for that company
-
and since Roth IRAs and 401(k)s are available, it makes sense to pay taxes now and receive tax-free distributions later with the possible benefit of capital gains from investing
raising the CGT rate as Obama suggested further closes the gap between ordinary income and CGT tax rates...................and since all income from a retirement plan is taxed at the ordinary rate anyways, what incentive does a small investor making less than $200K have to invest if the CGT rate and the ordinary rate are closer to each other?
and for people in lower tax brackets anyway, raising to CGT to 23% is too close or exceeds the ordinary rate of 25% anyways(in effective rate terms).............what incentive does someone at that salary have to invest if there is a possibility that they could lose money or pay more taxes at the new CGT rate?
http://www.ehow.com/info_7775021_should-capital-gains-taxes-paid.html
-
people can say the CGT rate doesn't influence investment, but ask yourself:
if you had the choice of being paid a salary of $50K and just paying say 17% in taxes
or receiving $45K now plus $5,500 a year later while paying 17% in taxes from using a Roth plan
which one would you pick?
yeah the second option sounds better and you even save yourself an extra $55 in taxes
but the problem is that the market has to give a return of 10% and you miss out on your spending your extra $5K for an entire year just to make $500 and to save yourself $55 in taxes.....................
now how many people are willing to take that risk with $5K of their own money they worked hard for when the market looks the way it does right now?
sure there are some willing to take the risk, but how many more people at that salary could you convince to take that risk if they could save $445 in taxes instead of $55?
the numbers in this case favor Romney's policy over Obama's unfortunately..............and I'd rather see an extra $390 in individuals' pockets to spend vs giving it to the govt to spend :shrugs -
ok i'm would down for a lower rate for those making less than 200K i guess. but 23% for everyone else.
you or anyone has yet to show any evidence that the economy was in any way less productive or efficient when the capital gains tax was at 28% than it is now that it's at 15%, which is lower than in many other countries.
and half the time capital gains are not investments in companies. the money that is paid to buy stocks and other investments generally does not go to the company in who's name the investment is in.... it's like a used car lot, where you buy a used stock or bond from its prior owner, not the auto company... 90%+ of the money is not getting invested in anything...plus in the U.S. there's no requirement that capital gains even be earned here. so why do we need a low tax rate to artificially pump up the stock prices on the exchanges and encourage investment overseas? its an inefficient use of tax money.
keeping it a bit lower than normal income tax is ok though...there needs to be somewhat a balance.. -
desertrain10 wrote: »ok i'm would down for a lower rate for those making less than 200K i guess. but 23% for everyone else.
you or anyone has yet to show any evidence that the economy was in any way less productive or efficient when the capital gains tax was at 28% than it is now that it's at 15%, which is lower than in many other countries.
and half the time capital gains are not investments in companies. the money that is paid to buy stocks and other investments generally does not go to the company in who's name the investment is in.... it's like a used car lot, where you buy a used stock or bond from its prior owner, not the auto company... 90%+ of the money is not getting invested in anything...plus in the U.S. there's no requirement that capital gains even be earned here. so why do we need a low tax rate to artificially pump up the stock prices on the exchanges and encourage investment overseas? its an inefficient use of tax money.
keeping it a bit lower than normal income tax is ok though...there needs to be somewhat a balance..
to the bolded:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/CapitalGainsTaxes.html#lfHendersonCEE2-019_table_007
technically it would be fair to argue that capital gains taxes shouldn't even exist
as far as your argument about capital gains are not investments in companies: yes and no
no in the sense that if you purchase a stock that the money does not go directly to the company............instead the money goes to a trader as part of an exchange...........but you have an ownership rights in that specific company
yes in the sense that money does go to companies eventually through intermediaries...................if no one wants to purchase the companies stock, then the company will have a hard time raising money in the future (either thru secondary offerings of stock or debt)
and if people are using retirement plans like 401(k)s, those are usually part of pension funds that directly invest in companies..........so if you are already invested in a company through a retirement plan, you def want others to be just as motivated to invest in the same companies
your analogy on the used car market is accurate, think of purchasing stock like going to a dealer to get service.................. car dealerships make a lot of money on repair service on used cars
-
and as far as encouraging investment overseas.............that's not as important as worrying about spending by consumers at home
it still benefits our economy here if people make capital gains overseas but choose to spend their money here.........higher taxes would discourage that obviously
plus other nations with higher tax rates can do so because their labor rates are higher which makes the prospect of higher taxes more acceptable
nobody is going to complain about an increase if everybody gets a $25K raise haha -
blakfyahking wrote: »SawedOff-N-SkiMask wrote: »No I'm not burying anything becuz Obama is getting us out of a recession with a do-nothing congress.
And raising taxes is raising taxes no matter how u wanna cut it. Loop holes are loop holes no matter how big the hole is. It's not cut-n-dry like they try to play it off in the movies. Corporations (rich people) get a lot of subsidies just becuz they already pay so much in taxes so don't ignore that.
You're ? off the kool-aid becuz you're passionate for Romney. And I've already said before that both Romney and Obama are alike, the difference is Obama actually gives a ? about the people and Romney could care less.
If they really wanted to invest and show kind heartedness they could've been done that but they choose not to, and that doesn't have ? to do with Obama being Black. Business isn't Personal, it's Business
the bolded is debatable
the bolded/underlined is just naive oversimplification..............you would be dumb to believe that raising taxes on ordinary income alone is really "raising taxes on the rich"
the underlined is inaccurate because I'm personally voting for Obama
however, Obama has some flawed policy mistakes
and the same way Obamacare is a version of the same plan Romney tried to push when he was gov of MA
it would be wise for Obama to take the good advice of how to handle the cap gains tax rate since that is what will make the biggest impact in reaching his goal
Homie i'd leave that vote in my pocket, good drop though -
I want to add on but I dont want to be redundant. So I will just say keep the capital gains tax where it is. Encourage the CEOs and boards to eat off the stocks they have so much control on. Make them reinvest in the companies.
At the same time, raising taxes only mean they will find a loophole get around it like they all do. Romney was in charge of that type of stuff at his first gig. -
@blakfyahking
again it sounds good but there’s pretty much no correlation at all....investment increases over time at a steady rate regardless of what the capital gains tax rate is bruh. i know we are talking about CGTs but u have to factor in other ? as well...
i'm repeating myself but instead of more investment, what we’re getting is distorted investment not investing in ways that lead to any kind of trickling down of wealth formation to the masses. wallstreet ? the ones benefiting from low rates ain't creating jobs, again half the time the money is paid to buy stocks... whatever wealth formation we’re seeing from investment is either being sucked up in productivity, sucked up into the pockets of the wealthy, or outsourced....really i believe it’s leading to more acute globalization than our economy can handle
think, historically we have some of the lowest CGT rates yet jobs are nowhere to be found. and mainly that's because industry in the US is gone and there isn’t anything new to invest in other than technology, pharmaceuticals, and pretty much little else that would create jobs for low skilled or even reasonably skilled labor.
we could even also raise the short-term capital gains taxes to maybe 30% or more, to discourage speculation in the stock market, bond markets, commodities, property and others. years of low rates has caused bubbles and in turn busts, much higher and distorted prices for consumers, far less affordable housing, the small investor unable to really compete and means no long-term investment to keep jobs in the USA.
to me a higher short-term capital gains rate would moderate the levels of the economy, hold down real consumer prices, discourage excessive investments where not enough consumers for as well as redistribute some income to badly needed revenue to our government.... -
desertrain10 wrote: »@blakfyahking
again it sounds good but there’s pretty much no correlation at all....investment increases over time at a steady rate regardless of what the capital gains tax rate is bruh. i know we are talking about CGTs but u have to factor in other ? as well...
i'm repeating myself but instead of more investment, what we’re getting is distorted investment not investing in ways that lead to any kind of trickling down of wealth formation to the masses. wallstreet ? the ones benefiting from low rates ain't creating jobs, again half the time the money is paid to buy stocks... whatever wealth formation we’re seeing from investment is either being sucked up in productivity, sucked up into the pockets of the wealthy, or outsourced....really i believe it’s leading to more acute globalization than our economy can handle
think, historically we have some of the lowest CGT rates yet jobs are nowhere to be found. and mainly that's because industry in the US is gone and there isn’t anything new to invest in other than technology, pharmaceuticals, and pretty much little else that would create jobs for low skilled or even reasonably skilled labor.
we could even also raise the short-term capital gains taxes to maybe 30% or more, to discourage speculation in the stock market, bond markets, commodities, property and others. years of low rates has caused bubbles and in turn busts, much higher and distorted prices for consumers, far less affordable housing, the small investor unable to really compete and means no long-term investment to keep jobs in the USA.
to me a higher short-term capital gains rate would moderate the levels of the economy, hold down real consumer prices, discourage excessive investments where not enough consumers for as well as redistribute some income to badly needed revenue to our government....
the bolded is debatable unless you saying you don't believe in basic economic theory that people are rational and expect to be compensated for risk
as far as economic bubbles, low tax rates have no impact on that at all so I don't see your argument...............interest rates are what instigate bubbles and you can blame the Fed Reserve and govt subsidies for that
I'm not saying that CGT rates should be low forever.............what I'm saying is right now in a ? economy the last thing you want to do is discourage investment...............which is essentially what you are doing by encouraging only wealthy people to invest and making it more expensive for lower income workers
I've already posted the math to show why it's a bad idea to raise the CGT at a time when you are trying to stimulate the economy.............it makes sense to increase the tax base 1st, THEN you increase the tax rate; not the other way around
what you are advocating is to basically discourage low income workers from investing and buying property, and motivating high earners to invest elsewhere outside the US
jobs are not being created because current govt programs are distorting the job market...........we basically killed our manufacturing sector, and the federal govt is subsidizing college to the detriment of the average worker
plus immigration reform is sorely needed, and our govt would rather increase welfare vs. investing in infrastructure
whether people want to believe it or not, private companies drive the economy not govt.......................more revenue for the govt may not be good for a govt that has already shown that it isn't that good at managing the money it was already receiving
