27 replies [Last post]
cowgal's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 03/10/2002
Posts: 1787
Obamanomics

Civetcat, if the information on the links you provided is accurate, then I still prefer McCain's plan to Obama's. Even though, I'm not totally thrilled with either one. The part that is most disturbing is the increase in the deficit. Government spending needs to be curbed very sharply and I don't see the democrats doing that.

Offline
Location: Eatonville, Wa
Joined: 08/26/2007
Posts: 610
Obamanomics

I seriously believe that if a news outlet puts out anything that could be taken as criticism of the great one must be a conservative publication. The Wall Street Journal is a financial publication and is going to publish articles that have to do with money. Obama will impact the economy, flash back to all the great things carter did with the economy. And I checked out the tax policy center, while I cant prove it, reading a number of articles it does seem to skew heavily to the left.

Offline
Joined: 07/29/2008
Posts: 723
Obamanomics

I totally agree Ms. Cowgal. About both plans being irresponsible that is. They are giving us tax breaks on borrowed money. Buying us off if you will. You, and I, and Soco, and our children will be the ones paying this debt off.

Bush's dad, and then Bill Clinton both raised taxes to pay off the debt. Bush the senior lost an election for his troubles, he was paying for the fiscal irresponsibility of Reagan, and Clinton lost control of congress for his troubles. I believe it did have a lot to do with the long run of prosperity in the 90s, and I credit both of them. (Bush the senior and Ford probably the two most underated recent repub presidents in my opinion)

Tax laws change, and how they change affects who pays and who doesn't. Current tax law taxes business and investment at a very low rate. I pay at a much smaller percentage of my income than my employees. Remember we are talking about the full gamut of taxes. gasoline, real estate, capital gains, social security / medicare, sales tax, estate tax, income, and all the rest.

I listened to Paul Gigot on the news hour, his job before being the opinion page editor at the Journal. A lot of people left when Murdoch bought the Journal feeling he would do the same thing he has done to every other paper he has bought. There are still some great writers and journalists at the journal, but a lot of writing that should be spiked makes it through.

The source I quoted should be good. The congretional budget office also but watch out, they often give best, worst, and in the middle scenario, and people quote the one they like. Notice the separate graph far right on the bottom for the top 1% and the top point O one percent. I think we're talking high eight figures.

PS. Obamas plan grows the deficit the least. If you scroll down to the very bottom you can see how well you would do depending on which quintile you are in. Obama is willing to bribe you more while running up the deficit less, assuming you are in the second, third or fourth quintile. Obama would increase debt 3.5 trillion, and McCain 5 trillion. A trillion here and a trillion there, pretty soon we're talking real money.

Time to put the kids to bed.

Offline
Joined: 07/29/2008
Posts: 723
Obamanomics

Wikipedia Tax Policy Center
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Policy_Center

Offline
Joined: 07/29/2008
Posts: 723
Obamanomics

Wiki on op ed page of journal.

Quote:
Since the 1990s, the editorial page of the Journal has been criticised repeatedly for inaccuracy and dishonesty, including a summary in 1995 by FAIR[1], and in 1996 by the Columbia Journalism Review[2].

To be fair Gigot took over in 2000 but he fit right in. I read the paper, but with my eyes wide open.

Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1566
Obamanomics
SoCoKHntr wrote:
cowgal wrote:
SoCoKHntr wrote:
How have you been doing the last four years in regard to taxes? You said you are already taxed enough, were you taxed quite a bit under a republican controlled congress?

You're missing the point. I don't want to be taxed EVEN MORE! I'm doing fine, my family is doing fine. We pay plenty in taxes already.

Have you read Obama's economic plan? You still haven't told me where the money is coming from for his tax breaks and supposed tax relief? Admit it, its a redistribution of weath that he's after.

I understand the point and just wanted a comparison as to the scenario you believe would befall you if Obama is elected. The money is coming from ending tax breaks for people who are pulling in more then 250,000 per year and I guess you and your family run a business where you are making that kind of dough and thus would be harmed in regard to taxes if Obama is elected.

Me and my wife have a combined income of about 80,000 annually give or take and thus we will benefit from the tax breaks he proposes. I can understand if you fall in the income area I guessed your position, I hope you can understand mine.

This is the mentality that I can not understand.
How is it that someone can justify, in their minds, that someones efforts and sacrifices are somehow not as important as yours' are?
Are you saying that if cowgal or anyone else that makes $250,000 a year some how made that much on efforts that are not enough to be rewarded for whereas you and your wifes $80,000 efforts are enough to be rewarded $80,000 but even more so, so that you deserve a portion of cowgals efforts?
Does this mean that your neighbor should be able to garner a portion of your possessions until they are "closer" to the lifestyle that you live, even if they decided to buy beer, get drunk and hung over and missed work and got fired for it rather than get up and work their tail off as you did?
If this is what you believe then I'll get my accountant to contact yours and see if there is a portion of that $80.000 that I can get as I really need a new boat and I dont think that your efforts match mine.

bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
Obamanomics

Ok, I took some time to read Mr. Civetcat's links and I have a few comments.

You have to be very careful about what you call a tax cut. For instance the opening paragraphs mention that both candidates would decrease revenue (Obama by $2.9 trillion and McCain by $4.2 trillion). However just a short while later it mentions the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts (AKA "The Bush Tax Cuts") and compares against this current baseline. They compare the "tax cut" against a baseline where the Bush Tax Cuts do expire in 2010.

If you do not let the Bush Tax Cuts expire you have a new baseline and Obama's plan actually increases taxes by 600 billion over the decade while McCain's decreases by 600 billion. This is an important point.

This information means that McCain would decrease taxes further beyond the current status quo. Obama on the other hand would increase tax revenue against the status quo, but not to the full extent if Bush Tax Cuts were allowed to expire in their entirety.

In other words you get the choice of four curves:

#1) Let the Bush Tax cuts expire and put no new tax cuts in place. Increases revenue (and taxes) the most. This would increases the most peoples taxes the most. Government gets more money.

#2) Let the Bush Tax cuts expire and put some tax cuts in place. Increases revenue (and taxes) some, but not as much as curve #1. This is Obama's plan. So its raise taxes (expires Bush Tax Cuts) then cuts them back some and calls it a tax cut. Government gets more money.

#3) Leave the Bush Tax cuts in place unadjusted. This would maintain the status quo. Neither candidate proposes this. No net change in money to the Government.

#4) Remove the Bush Tax cuts and put new tax cuts in place that do the same thing and then cut taxes some more. This is McCain's plan. It results in the least revenue for government and the most tax cuts, although not all benefit from this new tax spread. Government gets less money.

------ Moving on to another point ------

Obama likes to talk about what is fair in taxes. In his mind top income brackets should pay more, lower income brackets less. To him this is fair. I leave it open to the reader to decide; however this table should help in the decision.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22652.html

What this table shows is basically that the top 1% of income earners (those having an adjusted gross income (AGI) above $364k) pay ~40% of all Federal Income Taxes. Those in the top 10% (above ~$104k) of AGI pay 70% of all Federal Income Taxes. Indeed half of all earners (those above $31k) pay nearly all, 97%, of all Federal Income Taxes.

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1776
Obamanomics
JTapia wrote:
SoCoKHntr wrote:
cowgal wrote:
SoCoKHntr wrote:
How have you been doing the last four years in regard to taxes? You said you are already taxed enough, were you taxed quite a bit under a republican controlled congress?

You're missing the point. I don't want to be taxed EVEN MORE! I'm doing fine, my family is doing fine. We pay plenty in taxes already.

Have you read Obama's economic plan? You still haven't told me where the money is coming from for his tax breaks and supposed tax relief? Admit it, its a redistribution of weath that he's after.

I understand the point and just wanted a comparison as to the scenario you believe would befall you if Obama is elected. The money is coming from ending tax breaks for people who are pulling in more then 250,000 per year and I guess you and your family run a business where you are making that kind of dough and thus would be harmed in regard to taxes if Obama is elected.

Me and my wife have a combined income of about 80,000 annually give or take and thus we will benefit from the tax breaks he proposes. I can understand if you fall in the income area I guessed your position, I hope you can understand mine.

This is the mentality that I can not understand.
How is it that someone can justify, in their minds, that someones efforts and sacrifices are somehow not as important as yours' are?
Are you saying that if cowgal or anyone else that makes $250,000 a year some how made that much on efforts that are not enough to be rewarded for whereas you and your wifes $80,000 efforts are enough to be rewarded $80,000 but even more so, so that you deserve a portion of cowgals efforts?
Does this mean that your neighbor should be able to garner a portion of your possessions until they are "closer" to the lifestyle that you live, even if they decided to buy beer, get drunk and hung over and missed work and got fired for it rather than get up and work their tail off as you did?
If this is what you believe then I'll get my accountant to contact yours and see if there is a portion of that $80.000 that I can get as I really need a new boat and I dont think that your efforts match mine.

I'll get back to you on this as I am heading out. But, needless to say I don't think it's as simple as that.

Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1566
Obamanomics

Can't wait for this one. I'll be sitting on my hands !! Yes

Offline
Joined: 07/29/2008
Posts: 723
Obamanomics

Kudos to Bitmaster for carefull reading.

Yes, both candidates use the same baseline of not allowing tax cuts to expire, yet both would allow at least some of them to expire. McCain only the Estate tax.

Being a deficit hawk I don't consider a slight revenue increase to be bad. I don't think of it as more money to the government but as less to Chinese investors to pay our debt.

I would disagree about whose plan means more taxes, one plan means less taxes to 4 our of 5 people, the other plan means less taxes for 1 out of 5. For the vast majority of people the Obama plan means less taxes.

I'd hardly characterise taxes as wealth redistribution. Social Security is an intergenerational social contract. I help to support my 85 year old widowed neighbor, and proudly so. I pay way too little for veterans benefits, we need to give veterans who don't have a home a place to sleep other than under a bridge. The war in Iraq costs money.