But...But...the world wants the One.

[Hugh R]

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.

[Rick Lee]

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

[Red Baron]

Originally Posted by MichiganMat

How many times do I need to post this:

Thats from the Washington Post BTW

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.

[YTNUKLR]

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.

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...

[artplumber]

Originally Posted by YTNUKLR

I don't want taxes to go 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.

....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.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by YTNUKLR

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.

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.

[YTNUKLR]

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

[BeyGon]

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

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by YTNUKLR

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.

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.

[legion]

Originally Posted by YTNUKLR

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.

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?

[YTNUKLR]

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.

[BeyGon]

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.

[tc-sacto]

Originally Posted by BeyGon

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.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by YTNUKLR

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.

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.

[red-beard]

Obamanomics Is a Recipe for Recession

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



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?

AP

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.)


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

[red-beard]

Obamanomics Clarified

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



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.)


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

[YTNUKLR]

Originally Posted by red-beard

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

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

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.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by YTNUKLR

I'm not an idiot because I don't agree with you. I don't think you guys are idiots because you like McCain.

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.

[island911]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

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

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.

[Tobra]

sort of like cutting off your nose to spite your face

Originally Posted by tc-sacto

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

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.