Yeah, tax the rich. They can take the hit. They won't move their money offshore, no sir. I don't believe either of those charts. McCain can't cut everyone's taxes without cutting spending (oh wait! now that's an idea!). And Obama won't be able to raise taxes on the top 1% only. Not when he's talking about universal healthcare and immigration reform (amnesty), and all the other promises he's made. If that was posted by the Washington Post, they should have also posted these supposed changes in taxes with an accounting of the costs of the promises both candidates have made.

BTW, the Wash. Post never met a tax hike it didn't support.

As many times as you want because every time you do, you look more like a fool than you did the last time you posted it.

I don't want taxes to go up.

John McCain does not understand the modern world. He has limited understanding of computers, the internet, modern economics or globalization. He is old. We simply cannot have a president who does not understand the ****** internet!!! I don't care who the president is, as long as they are aware of what's going on in the world. The most brilliant socialist is better than a retarded libertarian.

O'Reilly is a tool. He is not quote-worthy. He is an inflammatory puppet mouthpiece. I was watching that interview with Barack Obama. He said that government revenues from taxes "went up 20%" under GWB. Yes, that's true. You know why? Because the economy/GDP grew under GWB, even though taxes went proportionally down. When Barack Obama said that was you can make statistics show anything you want (ie., that GWB did not cut taxes), and before O'Reilly seemed to fully think about that, O'Reilly said, "I know, it's bull" before zipping his lips. :rolleyes:

Trouble is, the country is in a horrendous amount of debt, we have a mortgage crisis due to credit that was too easy to obtain, and we're spending $10 B per month on Iraq when we can't even get GWB to pitch half a billion to alternative energy IN A YEAR. The middle class is getting pummeled. The middle class, the ones that reliably get out of bed and go do things--in other words, you guys--are paying for the Iraq war. You guys are paying for expensive gas and food. You guys cover the Fannie/Freddie blow-up.

Average tax change is -0.3% under Obama. Yes, it's income redistribution. Every president has his ideas of income redistribution. I guess I don't understand McCain's plan. Income redistribution is something every president must deal with.

"BAAARAAAK" "BAAAY GONNN" Awesome.

I can understand if you have $250,000+ and you want to vote for McCain. I think it's the wrong choice for the country, but I can completely understand. Your money is your money...

What you meant to say is, "I don't care because I don't think it will affect me" right? McCain doesn't have a plan to make the redistribution any worse - you realize that is a plan, don't you? In contrast is Obama's plan to make the redistribution worse. If you didn't mean your last sentence in green, obviously you believe that someone else's money is really your money by supporting Obama.

No one quoted Bill O'Reilly. It's just that his show is where Obama most recently explained his plans for a tax hike. Check it out. It's Obama's words straight from his mouth. No need to quote O'Reilly at all.

If your opinion of McCain is based on his age and the fact that he doesn't spend his days in front of a computer like we do, then I don't think anything will change your mind. Doesn't matter anyway, since you live in CA.

Well, I am in a position where Obama's tax cut would not negatively affect me right now. I am a middle-class taxpayer, 21 years old. I think rich people should pull more weight. I don't have boatloads of investments to think about.

I did watch O'Reilly's interview. I didn't say anyone quoted O'Reilly, I said simply that he was not quote-worthy. I do understand Obama's plan to increase SS, capital gains, etc. Again I am not in your boat I don't think. SS is not on my mind. I hope it's around in 40 years, but it's not on my mind right now.

I could not care less who the Republican candidate was now. I could not conscionably vote for a Republican after GWB. Thankfully for you, my vote really won't change the outcome, but that's what my conscience tells me. ;)

McCain is old to be taking on the stressful job of president. Not that it's impossible. People live to 80, 90, 100. But lots of people die sooner, and the truth is, a white male averages a lifespan around 72. IF anything happens, our president is Sarah Palin. Seriously...? I can see why she's a V.P.I.L.F. but president of the United States? She just seems like a random choice to get the ex-Hillary supporters. Very smart choice for the Republican party, I think, but I would not want to see her actually becoming the president...that thought scares me

McCain's mother is 96 and looking good. Good genes.

Just wow. I didn't think we'd ever get such a perfect example of what's wrong with America posted here on PPOT.

Let's see, as long as it doesn't affect my tax bill, then it's ok to steal from someone else. The rich already pay the overwhelming majority of federal taxes, but there's nothing wrong with taxing them more....as long as it doesn't affect me. I don't have boatloads of investments, so there's nothing wrong with raising the capital gains tax on others, even though the government will lose more money in doing so. Yup, I think you live in the perfect place for your way of thinking, Beserkely, CA.

Someday you will probably work for someone who very much is afftected by this tax structure. Consider yourself lucky if you never get laid off for it. It's happened to me and everyone in my family more than once. Employers don't decide to just pay more to the feds and take home less. They cut costs.

Did you get good grades in college?

I'm sure there were some kids who didn't get good grades who could have used yours. Why were you so selfish? Why didn't you offer to give them your grades? I'm sure your liberal Berkeley professors would appreciate

The thing you fail to realize is that when you put more load on a fewer number of backs, eventually those people will refuse to bear all the weight--it's to their benefit to move somewhere else or to give up and go on the dole themselves. Why do you think California is losing its tax base (high-income individuals) and gaining illegal immigrants? It's because taxes are high and welfare is generous.

That kind of environment poisons innovation. Why take risk when the government will just confiscate any reward? Why even bother to work when you get more money when you don't?

Your opinion.

Originally Posted by Rick Lee
Just wow. I didn't think we'd ever get such a perfect example of what's wrong with America posted here on PPOT.

Your opinion.

OK, mine to.

Mine also.....
Guys, He's 21 and lives in Berkeley...'nuf said. Give him twenty years after he's had to work.

What is your definition of rich? $1,000,000/yr? or 250K/yr? or $100K/yr or $50K/yr?

Obama plans to raise Corporate income taxes. If you buy anything made by a Corporation, you will be paying more.

Obama will raise the taxes on dividends and capital gains. If you own or ever plan to own any investment (like, so you can retire) then the Gov't will take more of your gain, leaving you less.

But, we cannot educate you, since you live in Berkley.

Obamanomics Is a Recipe for Recession

By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN
July 29, 2008; Page A17

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/im...2003164521.gif

What if I told you that a prominent global political figure in recent months has proposed: abrogating key features of his government's contracts with energy companies; unilaterally renegotiating his country's international economic treaties; dramatically raising marginal tax rates on the "rich" to levels not seen in his country in three decades (which would make them among the highest in the world); and changing his country's social insurance system into explicit welfare by severing the link between taxes and benefits?
<TABLE class=imglftbdy cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=200 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/im...0728193542.jpg</TD></TR><TR><TD class=medcrd>AP </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
The first name that came to mind would probably not be Barack Obama, possibly our nation's next president. Yet despite his obvious general intelligence, and uplifting and motivational eloquence, Sen. Obama reveals this startling economic illiteracy in his policy proposals and economic pronouncements. From the property rights and rule of (contract) law foundations of a successful market economy to the specifics of tax, spending, energy, regulatory and trade policy, if the proposals espoused by candidate Obama ever became law, the American economy would suffer a serious setback.
To be sure, Mr. Obama has been clouding these positions as he heads into the general election and, once elected, presidents sometimes see the world differently than when they are running. Some cite Bill Clinton's move to the economic policy center following his Hillary health-care and 1994 Congressional election debacles as a possible Obama model. But candidate Obama starts much further left on spending, taxes, trade and regulation than candidate Clinton. A move as large as Mr. Clinton's toward the center would still leave Mr. Obama on the economic left.
Also, by 1995 the country had a Republican Congress to limit President Clinton's big government agenda, whereas most political pundits predict strengthened Democratic majorities in both Houses in 2009. Because newly elected presidents usually try to implement the policies they campaigned on, Mr. Obama's proposals are worth exploring in some depth. I'll discuss taxes and trade, although the story on his other proposals is similar.
First, taxes. The table nearby demonstrates what could happen to marginal tax rates in an Obama administration. Mr. Obama would raise the top marginal rates on earnings, dividends and capital gains passed in 2001 and 2003, and phase out itemized deductions for high income taxpayers. He would uncap Social Security taxes, which currently are levied on the first $102,000 of earnings. The result is a remarkable reduction in work incentives for our most economically productive citizens.
(Continued below.)
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/im...0805210427.gif

The top 35% marginal income tax rate rises to 39.6%; adding the state income tax, the Medicare tax, the effect of the deduction phase-out and Mr. Obama's new Social Security tax (of up to 12.4%) increases the total combined marginal tax rate on additional labor earnings (or small business income) from 44.6% to a whopping 62.8%. People respond to what they get to keep after tax, which the Obama plan reduces from 55.4 cents on the dollar to 37.2 cents -- a reduction of one-third in the after-tax wage!
Despite the rhetoric, that's not just on "rich" individuals. It's also on a lot of small businesses and two-earner middle-aged middle-class couples in their peak earnings years in high cost-of-living areas. (His large increase in energy taxes, not documented here, would disproportionately harm low-income Americans. And, while he says he will not raise taxes on the middle class, he'll need many more tax hikes to pay for his big increase in spending.)
On dividends the story is about as bad, with rates rising from 50.4% to 65.6%, and after-tax returns falling over 30%. Even a small response of work and investment to these lower returns means such tax rates, sooner or later, would seriously damage the economy.
On economic policy, the president proposes and Congress disposes, so presidents often wind up getting the favorite policy of powerful senators or congressmen. Thus, while Mr. Obama also proposes an alternative minimum tax (AMT) patch, he could instead wind up with the permanent abolition plan for the AMT proposed by the Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D., N.Y.) -- a 4.6% additional hike in the marginal rate with no deductibility of state income taxes. Marginal tax rates would then approach 70%, levels not seen since the 1970s and among the highest in the world. The after-tax return to work -- the take-home wage for more time or effort -- would be cut by more than 40%.
Now trade. In the primaries, Sen. Obama was famously protectionist, claiming he would rip up and renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta). Since its passage (for which former President Bill Clinton ran a brave anchor leg, given opposition to trade liberalization in his party), Nafta has risen to almost mythological proportions as a metaphor for the alleged harm done by trade, globalization and the pace of technological change.
Yet since Nafta was passed (relative to the comparable period before passage), U.S. manufacturing output grew more rapidly and reached an all-time high last year; the average unemployment rate declined as employment grew 24%; real hourly compensation in the business sector grew twice as fast as before; agricultural exports destined for Canada and Mexico have grown substantially and trade among the three nations has tripled; Mexican wages have risen each year since the peso crisis of 1994; and the two binational Nafta environmental institutions have provided nearly $1 billion for 135 environmental infrastructure projects along the U.S.-Mexico border.
In short, it would be hard, on balance, for any objective person to argue that Nafta has injured the U.S. economy, reduced U.S. wages, destroyed American manufacturing, harmed our agriculture, damaged Mexican labor, failed to expand trade, or worsened the border environment. But perhaps I am not objective, since Nafta originated in meetings James Baker and I had early in the Bush 41 administration with Pepe Cordoba, chief of staff to Mexico's President Carlos Salinas.
Mr. Obama has also opposed other important free-trade agreements, including those with Colombia, South Korea and Central America. He has spoken eloquently about America's responsibility to help alleviate global poverty -- even to the point of saying it would help defeat terrorism -- but he has yet to endorse, let alone forcefully advocate, the single most potent policy for doing so: a successful completion of the Doha round of global trade liberalization. Worse yet, he wants to put restrictions into trade treaties that would damage the ability of poor countries to compete. And he seems to see no inconsistency in his desire to improve America's standing in the eyes of the rest of the world and turning his back on more than six decades of bipartisan American presidential leadership on global trade expansion. When trade rules are not being improved, nontariff barriers develop to offset the liberalization from the current rules. So no trade liberalization means creeping protectionism.
History teaches us that high taxes and protectionism are not conducive to a thriving economy, the extreme case being the higher taxes and tariffs that deepened the Great Depression. While such a policy mix would be a real change, as philosophers remind us, change is not always progress.
Mr. Boskin, professor of economics at Stanford University and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution

Obamanomics Clarified

By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN
August 4, 2008; Page A13

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/im...2003164521.gif

In my July 29 op-ed ("Obamanomics Is a Recipe for Recession"), I was among the many who took Barack Obama's statements that he would "end the Bush tax cuts for the top incomes" too literally. I interpreted this to mean a return to the pre-Bush tax rates of 39.6% on ordinary income and 20% on capital gains.
The Obama campaign has now clarified that he proposes to do this for labor earnings, but not for capital gains and dividends. I am told that Mr. Obama declared last year that he would raise these rates to "no more than the Reagan rate," by which he apparently means to 28%, from the current 15%. Mr. Obama would thus raise the tax rate on capital gains by about three times as much as President Bush cut it, but he'd preserve at least some of the Bush reduction in the double-taxation of dividends.
(Continued below.)
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/im...0805210427.gif

The 28% rate on capital gains was the price President Ronald Reagan paid to pass the 1986 Tax Reform Act that lowered the top marginal tax rate on ordinary income (including dividends) to 28%. The capital gains rate was cut to 20% in 1997 under President Bill Clinton, and again to 15% in 2003.
However, Mr. Obama is proposing to raise the top marginal rate on wages (also interest, rent and royalties, etc.) more than 40% above the corresponding Reagan rate of 28%. Mr. Obama would thus give us the worst of both worlds: tax rates on ordinary income 40% higher than Reagan and on capital gains 40% higher than Clinton.
Raising the rate on capital gains to 28% would greatly reduce the ability of firms to minimize double taxation by returning cash to their shareholders through repurchases. As for dividends, the Obama plan would nearly double the tax to 28% from 15%.
I have revised the table that accompanied my op-ed showing the negative effects on the after-tax returns on investments to reflect the clarification. It is also available at http://www.stanford.edu/~boskin/. Please use the new table for reference purposes.
I'm glad to hear that Mr. Obama is willing to retain at least a portion of the Bush tax cuts on dividends. But nearly doubling the tax rates on capital gains and dividends to 28% is a terrible idea that would damage fragile financial markets and the economy.
Mr. Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution

The thing about an argument is there may be more than one way of looking at something.

Apparently about 50% of the country agrees with McCain, and about 50% of people agree with Obama.

I have read all about McCain, I have honestly thought about voting for him. I considered it for about a week. The conclusion I have come to is that I should vote for Obama, but then again, I am 21 and I live in Berkeley. For my time and place that's the right decision for me. Like I said, fortunately for McCain, my vote doesn't really change much, because I'm in CA.

I will say Obama's stance on trade agreements scares me a little; I think McCain is right on this point. The problem, in my view, is that McCain says he doesn't understand economics. I think Obama's advisers of hardcore academics is more desirable than McCain's closet full of CEO's.

It's not about where I think someone is rich. I don't hate rich people. I want to be a rich person one day. However, my *opinion* regarding the marginal utility of one's dollar is that taxes should increase progressively from roughly a $250K/yr salary. That's not flush with money, but you are doing all right. Maybe you can't buy a new car right now, it will have to wait until next year. I opine that's a fair level to increase taxes. Not everyone that's poor is a meth-head or an illegal immigrant, and a huge majority of the working and middle class is below that line, including my family.

Yes, I am aware now of exactly what Obama tends to do with the capital gains, SS and corporate taxes. The corporate taxes don't even compare to some other countries'. And I'm not anti-corporate. I don't think corporations are evil like some people around Berkeley.

I like Churchill's quote that goes something like this: "If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart; if you're not a conservative by 40, you have no head."

Guys, avoid getting personal with this. I'm not an idiot because I don't agree with you. I don't think you guys are idiots because you like McCain. Sometimes people are faced with the exact same information you have, and come to a different conclusion. I respect your right to disagree with me, but don't tell me I can't be educated because I live in Berkeley. That's ridiculous, you know it. That's like everyone who thinks the red states are full of ultra-Christian, gun-slinging hicks...oh, wait. :D

Just about no one here likes McCain. Most of us dislike him less than we dislike Obama.

BTW, I never understood why they call it progressive taxation. Taxing the rich more is abotu as stupid as it gets. It discourages success and risk taking, rewards mediocrity and promotes class envy.

Oh, and the U.S. has the second highest corp. tax rate in the world. Why wouldn't American companies relocate offshore? I would.

Yep.

Obama is sooooo dangerously wrong on so many issues.

I get that some see a vote for Obama as a big pointy stick shoved toward GW Bush's policies, but sheesh, talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water. The 'bathwater' will be changed, Bush will be out. There is no sane reason to vote in such an inexperienced, Senator ...other than he has tons more life and political experience than Obama.

sort of like cutting off your nose to spite your face
and this in a nutshell explains the young man's opinion. He has been indoctrinated at UCB(Go Bears)

Mr Obama would be tested early and often on his Commander in Chief role if elected, leaving aside his catastrophic economic plans.

Well, on those grounds, I'm not exactly trying to have Obama's baby. I'm not in love with Obama. I just think he's more right than McCain. It comes down to the fact that I am more scared of an old-fashioned 72-year-old man that has limited awareness of modern things like computers dying and leaving the country to Sarah Palin, who is content to answer many things with religious reasons, than I am of a very intelligent and accomplished man with convictions, that happens to be a little more hell-bent on income redistribution.

My problem is not religion, by the way. I consider myself religious. However, "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." (Richard Dawkins) Therefore, I think it is generally a poor trait to have if you are a leader, to attribute something with a known scientific reason a religious reason. I don't have a problem with you if you think the Earth is 6,000 years old. That's fine--think that if you wish. But, don't make any decisions that concern me if you think the Earth is 6,000 years old.

I just finished Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. So did my friend Alex. He is about the most libertarian guy I know; low-taxes, leave-me-alone, reduce government spending, cut services. He is the most "Objectivist" person I've ever met. He agrees that taxing the most brilliant, hardest-working people is ultimately poisonous and destructive to society. When Ron Paul was gearing up, Alex went crazy; he had "Ron Paul REVOLUTION" posters all over his room. He is also one of the smartest guys I know, a 4.0 double-major in History and Political Science that pretty much doesn't stop reading, except to eat, sleep and exercise. He has accompanied me on all of my trips abroad. Guess who he is voting for now? Barack Obama.

I understand that it's better to have lower taxes, that we don't want to stifle that creative, innovative and hardworking spirit. But I think you'll still be doing OK if all you have is a Mercedes SL55 instead of a Lamborghini at twice the price.

{EDIT} On foreign policy: again, I am more scared of an old-fashioned hard-talking man that might croak at any minute (My Grandma, who was a healthy 84, walking around doing all kinds of things, had a stroke and died within 9 days.), who will leave the country to Sarah Palin, than I am of a very smart guy from Harvard Law trying to figure out what to do. If Obama's bad on foreign policy, let's give Sarah Palin the reigns. That should be the real question: how is Palin on foreign policy?

Why? --Because that would be the MOST inconsistent move; unless he is seeing that Obama, with his over-reaching obamanation government(and filibuster proof Dem congress), would likely plunge this nation in to a deep depression (and thus the seed for for the pendulum to swing violently to the libertarian wet-dream) ...btw, stupid thinking.

That's not what he had in mind. I think he thinks McCain is an idiot. But, you'll have to ask him. He's also 21 and lives in Berkeley.

So this 'smart guy' thinks that an "idiot McCain" (w/ a Dem congress) will do more harm to Libertarian ideals than a 'smart' Socialist Obama and a Pelosi run Socialist lead congress, eh?

This guy doesn't sound so smart. ...even for a 21 y/o.

Gridlock is the Libertarians friend. (fewer new laws and taxes)

You present an interesting question. I'll ask him tonight (lives in same building) and report back.

O.K. Here's some of the discussion I had with him (what he said).

He says Republicans in their current form are just fiscally out of control. If the Republicans are about fiscal responsibility, we must question the past 8 years. The expansion of federal discretionary spending is the largest since under FDR or LBJ, he's heard both on good authority. These were the times of all the public works projects, this is the Great Society time of Medicare and Medicaid. The last 8 eight years is the largest expansion of federal discretionary spending since these times, and also taxes were cut. Right now, he says the Democrats are the more fiscally responsible ones, trying to get Iraq, and the $40 Trillion of unfunded future Social Security promises under control. George Bush signed into law Medicare Part D, Prescription Drug Bill that increased federal spending by $8 Trillion.

He points out the Obama's "tax hikes" are not more than they have been at times in the past, notably under Bill Clinton, because that's exactly the tax rates that Obama wants to put back into effect. He says that even though America has the second highest corporate tax rate, the number of extra incentives and possible deductions still makes America an extremely attractive place to do business. Government understands business, because business is inherently innovative like America is inherently innovative. And people did not stop working under Bill Clinton; the 1990s had at times a fantastic economy, a surplus, and many fortunes were made. So it is not unreasonable to think that the economy cannot function again in a similar fashion as under Bill Clinton.

Not to mention, McCain initially said Bush's tax cuts would be onerous in 2004, yet now has flip-flopped wants to take the tax cuts further. McCain has become a tool of a Republican party that is fiscally out of control, and McCain can't/won't do anything about it. I guess if McCain wins and gridlocks Congress, you might hope to keep Bush's tax cuts, but McCain's are going even further, in a time of still massively increasing spending.

Inequality is the largest it has been since 1929. The middle class is getting killed. Rich people have, relatively, a lot of money compared to what they have had in the past. Now is not the time to think about enacting further tax cuts for the rich, with a $10 Trillion national debt, $40 Trillion of Social Security liabilities, and the Iraq War, which has cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and will cost over $1 Trillion projected to 2017.

On Foreign Policy, Barack Obama is pragmatic and reasonable, if inexperienced. McCain is from an era of Cold War, good-and-evil policies, where foreign policy was rooted in ideology. Barack Obama is not concerned so much with ideology. The world is increasingly interdependent and globalized, we must have a more nuanced understanding of people than simply good and evil. Barack Obama, as he walks around with books by people like Fareed Zakaria, The Post-American World, illustrates that he "gets it". He thinks Obama, even though he lacks extensive experience, is simply smart and well-read, well-informed and someone who surrounds himself with intelligent, educated and experienced people.

Also, Obama is 46 and his V.P. is knowledgable; Biden a good choice on balance. Biden, out of almost every other congressmen, has one of the best plans for Iraq, and actually has a plan for Iraq. This is probably something like Obama will do, not a massive "cut and run" that will leave Iraq fragile: Biden's plan calls for maintaining a unified Iraq "by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis their own regions... The plan is not partition-in fact it may be the only way to prevent violent partition and preserve a unified Iraq... This plan is the only idea on the table for dealing with the militia, which are likely to retreat to their respective regions... I believe it is the best way to bring our troops home, protect our fundamental security interests, and preserve Iraq as a unified country. The question I have for those who reject this plan is simple: what is your alternative?"

Hope I didn't put any words in Alex's mouth when I wrote this, but I talk with him often and usually gain a fresh understanding of history and politics work.

Cheers.

So answer me this, and I ask this in all serious, not rhetorically: who's going to pay for the debt? Or the Iraq war? As much as we try to teach our kids how to pay for their own indiscretions, I really can't see the gov't going out and getting a paper route to pay for all their expenditures.

You can talk about reducing gov't spending till you're blue in the face, but everyone, Dems and Reps, agree that you can't just pull out of Iraq wholesale immediately, so that spending isn't going to just disappear. You can slash the size of gov't but that's only a small portion of overall spending. There's only so much fat you can trim.

It doesn't matter. The federal government doesn't take in a dime more when it raises taxes, in fact receipts tend to go down as people hide income, move assets offshore, or cheat on their taxes. Conversely, cutting taxes tends to raise tax receipts. The Reps and Dems both know this, but the Dems like to use tax policy to "punish" those that they feel are too successful.

Any evidence of this?

Do a search on any news website for the term "windfall profits tax".

If you are feeling really adventurous, search for "gross receipts tax".

Did a quick search on these (sorry, but I can't really spare more than a few minutes to read up on this) and I didn't find anything to support your claims. The windfall profits tax introduced under Carter was repealed by Reagan because it fell short of expected revenues of $230 some odd million, but still generated $80 some odd million, so the federal gov't did indeed make money on it. A quick search under gross receipts tax only yielded a definition. In the wikipedia criticism, there were the usual complaints that it hindered competitiveness, etc. but no mention of it backfiring and actually lowering revenues.

YTNUKLR, you seem like a very intelligent, articulate young man. But in all honesty, you should suspend your opinions on taxes and society until you have worked in the real world. Student loan debt, long hours of hard work, years later you've made it. Then you can embrace the tax increases on the "rich" that Obama supports. When you've spent a good deal of time and money to get where you are, who am I to say that someone else deserves it?

Being on the other side of the fence, it's easy to say "tax the rich". Funny, I fit into Obama's "middle class" box. I'd benefit from his policies. But I firmly believe that America would not.

I don't think that's really fair. You're basically saying "your opinion is invalid because you lack experience". Well, he's legally old enough to die for his country in a war, drive a car, and vote, so obviously the powers that be believe his opinion is as valid as the next guy's, and I agree. True, our beliefs tend to change as we grow older and wiser, but that doesn't invalidate a 21-year-old's opinions and beliefs. Welcome to democracy.

The Dems have used the threat of a "windfall profits tax" on the oil companies to rile up their base. Apparently they believe that these companies are "too successful" and that some of their profits should be confiscated.

As far as tax rate vs. tax reciepts, someone posted a graph a while back here on Pelican. On a smaller scale, just take a look at the state of Michigan. Over the past four decades it has steadily raised corporate taxes and companies have steadily moved out-of-state or overseas.

MI is a bad example - the least of Michigan's worries are corporate taxes. While I don't know the facts to agree or disagree with your statement, if it's true I'm sure taxes are only a small part of the reason companies are moving out of the state.

In the end, I still can't find any evidence to support your claim that raising taxes lowers federal revenue, and vice-versa.

I know it's only Charlie Gibson claiming it here, but I'll find you a few articles a little later. Gotta do some work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUfo-RxkXA8&feature=related

Scott,

Ordinarily I wouldn't interrupt a fun discussion on the OT board (and I commend you for restraining from ad hominem like so many here) but I would point out that Medicare Part D will in my opinion prove to be the single greatest contribution of the Bush Administration. Without going into the whole pharmacoeconomic analysis, if we give Medicare beneficiaries access to prescription drugs, they are MUCH less likely to require expensive hospitalizations down the line. This is a well-recognized impact of drugs like Statins, which reduce serum cholesterol and corresponding risk of cardiovascular problems. Even if the cost of therapy for a 65+ person's remaining actuarial life is $100K, that's still many times cheaper than the cost of a hospitalization. To say nothing of the social cost.

Also, I don't think there is any comparability between Clinton's tax rates (hemmed in by a Republican Congress) during the single largest bull market in American History. The dramatic increase in workplace productivity wrought by the internet and the corresponding dot-com boom were the driver of rising personal income along with low interest rates and the benefits of free trade-- NOT the tax increase. The data are all sitting there.

Anyway, you may want to bring that point to the attention of your colleague. And remind him, "Nobody gets through the door of the powerhouse unless he can repeat, and mean, the words, "I swear by my life and by my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man nor permit another to live for mine."

You may now return to your regularly scheduled OT discussion. . . :)

Again, it's someone claiming something is true, with no evidence (not that in a televised debate the moderator or questioner is going to whip out gov't economic reports, etc.).

The reason I ask for evidence is because it's ludicrously easy to spin stats and figures to anyone's advantage. I like to see the data for myself because, believe it or not, I like to form my own opinions, rather than be spoonfed rhetoric, spin and partisan politics from the media and politicians.

I did an (admittedly) cursory search for said evidence, and turned up the opposite of what was claimed.

I don't argue that he's just as entitled to vote as I am. But I would argue that his beliefs regarding taxes are poorly developed, because I assume he's never really had to support himself in the real world. Watching your hard earned money dissapear to the govt is a great way to forge conservatives.