Jon Huntsman's Jobs Plan - What's Not To Like?
genferei ·
Sep 3, 2011 at 5:32am
The best thing about it (pdf here) is that it's basically all about getting the Government the *CoC-violation* out of the way. The headline focus has been on tax simplification, but he also proposes:
- reigning in the EPA, NLRB and FDA;
- privatizing Fannie and Freddie;
- repealing Obamacare, Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley;
- drill, baby, drill;
- pursuing genuine free trade.
Some might object that it doesn't go far enough ('reigning in' rather than abolishing), but you have to admit it's not bad.
Sadly, the worst part of the plan is the candidate.
- Comment (20)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jul '11
Re: Jon Huntsman's Jobs Plan - What's Not To Like?
Fortunately good ideas can't be protected by copyright. Nothing prevents other candidates from incorporating the best parts of Huntsman's plan while doing away with the absolute cravenness and boot-licking of the candidate himself.
Re: Jon Huntsman's Jobs Plan - What's Not To Like?
My distaste for him is so comprehensive that I can't even be fair about his good ideas.
Jul '10
Re: Jon Huntsman's Jobs Plan - What's Not To Like?
What about his looks then? He reminds me of a spineless civil servant never happier than when sitting in a committee meeting sucking up to the next highest on the ladder.
Oct '10
Re: Jon Huntsman's Jobs Plan - What's Not To Like?
Words. Just words.
Jul '10
Re: Jon Huntsman's Jobs Plan - What's Not To Like?
Glad to see someone speaking honestly about the whole Huntsman problem. Conservatives may like some of what he says, but they really don't like him personally for other things he's said. I think that can change within the year. Whether Huntsman does what it takes to effect that change or not is anybody's guess.
Sep '10
Re: Jon Huntsman's Jobs Plan - What's Not To Like?
Huntsman's Plan: If I say this I might get elected.
Aug '10
Re: Jon Huntsman's Jobs Plan - What's Not To Like?
Me too.
I think his fundraising is commensurate with his polling numbers. The financial reports indicate he spending a lot of family money now.
I think the strings attached are that it is time to stop pea-cocking about for the media and get some bang for his buck.
He ran aground on the port tack, now he is trying to get her back in the water and tack to starboard.
Edited on Sep 3, 2011 at 7:04amMay '10
Re: Jon Huntsman's Jobs Plan - What's Not To Like?
This illustrates that the solutions to our problems are now obvious. Any one of our candidates (although there are really only two) will try to enact roughly the same agenda -- some version of the Ryan "prosperity plan" with some Debt Commission ornaments thrown in.
Which is why our two main considerations should be 1) Who's most likely to win, and 2) Once he's president, who's most likely to succeed in coaxing a few Dem senators to hop on board (a necessity for getting anything passed).
Romney would seem to be that guy at this point, but that could change.
Mar '11
Re: Jon Huntsman's Jobs Plan - What's Not To Like?
Nice platform. Too bad I don't trust him at all.
Aug '11
Re: Jon Huntsman's Jobs Plan - What's Not To Like?
His plan "simplifies" the tax code by, among other measures, eliminating the mortgage-interest deduction. This, of course, would wreak havoc upon the housing market, as prices would plummet across the board.
This is the sort of proposal that one expects from a candidate whose inherited wealth insulates him from the economic reality faced by most Americans.
Apr '11
Re: Jon Huntsman's Jobs Plan - What's Not To Like?
A lot of nice words, but many verge on being empty words, even if a President Perry or President Bachmann tried to implement them. (I won't even consider Huntsman or Romney, until I'm faced with one of their names opposite "Obama" on a ballot.)
Just a few:
Mar '11
Re: Jon Huntsman's Jobs Plan - What's Not To Like?
The biggest problem with his plan is that it will never pass congress without an overwhelming majority of Republicans in both houses. Still, it is bold and hopefully gets the more serious (in the sense they can actually win) candidates to outline their ideas as boldly.
Jul '10
Re: Jon Huntsman's Jobs Plan - What's Not To Like?
Amen.
Amen.
Amen.
Mar '11
Re: Jon Huntsman's Jobs Plan - What's Not To Like?
Tom Paine: His plan "simplifies" the tax code by, among other measures, eliminating the mortgage-interest deduction. This, of course, would wreak havoc upon the housing market, as prices would plummet across the board.
This is the sort of proposal that one expects from a candidate whose inherited wealth insulates him from the economic reality faced by most Americans. · Sep 3 at 10:18am
Regardless, it's exactly the kind of thing we need to do. If home prices drop more, so be it. If homes prices are being artificially inflated by government policies, then those policies are part of the problem.
Eliminate ALL deductions and go to a flat tax system.
Jun '11
Re: Jon Huntsman's Jobs Plan - What's Not To Like?
There's at least one error in this. Taxation of capital gains is not double taxation. You pay tax on the gain, not the initial already-taxed investment dollar. You can sell elimination of capital gain tax with honest arguments. Selling it with falsehoods makes me mistrust everything else in this proposal.
Still, I generally would get behind eliminating credits and deductions including mortgage interest. And reining in /eliminating/ privatizing everywhere possible. Interesting article on who benefits from the mortgage interest deduction:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/11/who_does_the_mortgage-interest.html
Feb '11
Re: Jon Huntsman's Jobs Plan - What's Not To Like?
My preference is for some sort of flat tax that has nothing like a mortgage interest deduction anywhere near it.
But surely I can't be the only person who sees a giant political minefield looming in a plan that not only does away with the mortgage interest deduction but also dumps the child tax credit- and then goes on to eliminate capital gains taxes and taxes on dividends? And as an added bonus is also proposed by a rather wealthy man who presumably would save quite a bit on his taxes if his plan was adopted?
I'm not, right? Surely I'm not.
Because this looks like it was thought up by the tinniest of political tin ears who has no clue how those bits would play with the public.
Poorly, is my guess. Like the GOP version of Obamacare.
Aug '11
Re: Jon Huntsman's Jobs Plan - What's Not To Like?
Douglas
Tom Paine: His plan "simplifies" the tax code by, among other measures, eliminating the mortgage-interest deduction. This, of course, would wreak havoc upon the housing market, as prices would plummet across the board.
This is the sort of proposal that one expects from a candidate whose inherited wealth insulates him from the economic reality faced by most Americans. · Sep 3 at 10:18am
Regardless, it's exactly the kind of thing we need to do. If home prices drop more, so be it. If homes prices are being artificially inflated by government policies, then those policies are part of the problem.
Eliminate ALL deductions and go to a flat tax system. · Sep 3 at 1:38pm
Just for the record, I don't happen to have a mortgage. And I would prefer a flat tax. But, for the time being, a measure that would destroy trillions of dollars of homeowner equity is a lousy prescription for economic growth.
Nov '10
Re: Jon Huntsman's Jobs Plan - What's Not To Like?
The problem is not, nor has it ever been, that squishy 'centrist' Republicans don't know what we want to hear. They do. They say exactly this kind of thing just before every election.
Aug '10
Re: Jon Huntsman's Jobs Plan - What's Not To Like?
Any candidate who boasts that, unlike troglodytes like Rick Perry, he "trusts science" on Global Warming isn't likely to rein in the EPA on the really big things.
Aug '10
Re: Jon Huntsman's Jobs Plan - What's Not To Like?
If you earn some extra money that you'd like to invest, you pay 36% in federal taxes on it (assuming you're in the top tax bracket) before you get a chance to invest it. This means that what you can earn on the investment has already been reduced by 36%. The government is just taking the present value of that investment. Taxing the return as well is double taxation because they're taking 36% of the present value, plus whatever percentage of the future value.
The proper approach is to tax consumption, not income, in which case the only thing that would be taxed is the returns on the investment, and then only if you spend it on yourself rather than re-investing it.