|
Obama vs. McCain on taxes
Share
Email
Print
CommentNovember 19th, 2008
November 13th, 2008
November 11th, 2008
October 24th, 2008
October 21st, 2008
The world is changing along the lines of a liberal vision, with conservatives pulling hard to stop it but unable to do so, merely providing a braking action as the coming liberal vision of the world keeps skidding forward.
Denser housing, mass transit, gas prices higher, then gasoline eliminated altogether, the economy being reduced to serve environmental goals, government control expanded to control more and more aspects of our lives, these are all part of a liberal vision, all coming on stronger and stronger.
Denser housing, mass transit, gas prices higher, then gasoline eliminated altogether, the economy being reduced to serve environmental goals, government control expanded to control more and more aspects of our lives, these are all part of a liberal vision, all coming on stronger and stronger.
Obama’s tax plan takes us a quantum leap forward in that direction, while McCain’s maintains a status quo that is breaking the bank.
It is clear that Obama’s plans on the whole shift more and more of the burden of taxes onto the top 50 percent of wage earners, dramatically so on the top 10 percent, and provide more and more benefits and outright cash for those below the 50 percent mark who have children.
It is clear that Obama’s plans on the whole shift more and more of the burden of taxes onto the top 50 percent of wage earners, dramatically so on the top 10 percent, and provide more and more benefits and outright cash for those below the 50 percent mark who have children.
The battle over the competing tax plans is vastly confused by the fact that neither candidate truly has a definitive plan yet. They have one thing on their Web sites, say other things on the stump, then when reporters call the campaigns give yet a third version.
Having said that, one does definitely discern the outlines of a different approach between the two. In my view, there are serious problems with each one.
Having said that, one does definitely discern the outlines of a different approach between the two. In my view, there are serious problems with each one.
McCain will essentially make permanent the Bush tax cuts that are due to expire. His plan overall gives more money to the wealthy, because his plan either maintains or cuts taxes, and since the wealthy are paying almost all the taxes, they are the ones who get the cuts.
The problem with that is that it makes whopping increases in the deficits, national debt, and does not solve social security or any other financial problem. The taxpolicycenter.org, which has a report that many are using to evaluate the proposals, states McCain’s plan will result in $4.2 trillion dollars in reduced tax revenue over 10 years, assuming the Iraq war ends soon. That means continued huge deficits and borrowing which is irresponsible.
Obama, on the other hand, claims his tax plan will actually reduce taxes overall. Whether that is true or not, what he is really doing is taking from the rich and mostly giving to the not so rich, the middle class. How he defines rich is someone making $125,000 a year. Those making more than that will find their income in California taxed more than 50 percent if the states Democrats have their way.
If he just raised the income tax top rate back up from 35 percent to 39.5 percent, on income over $250,000 as it was under Clinton, that would be one thing. But when you add 6.2 percent in payroll tax, and raise capital gains taxes to 25 percent, tax interest as ordinary income, and phase out the personal deduction it really starts to add up. Then here comes California with a new 11.5 percent rate.
It will hurt the economy, no matter how you slice it. And it opens him to the charge of socialist engineering. It is hard not to think that what he is really doing is carrying out the anger of the far left against the wealthy into his tax policies, not doing what is good for the country. All these new taxes, yet they will really not solve many problems, like Medicare or health care. Why bother then?
My point of view: Make taxes go up a bit for everyone, and slash spending big time. I think everyone who works should have to at least pay some taxes, and that it is morally wrong to have half the country paying the way for the other half. That will never work, and it is welfare.
It also contributes to a sense that those not paying in the bottom half of wage earners are entitled, they are owed by others in an unhealthy way. They also don’t have a financial stake in the system; in fact their stake is to get even more without doing anything except demand government largess. Everyone should have to contribute to the shared benefit of government services, so this whole thing about seeing how low you can make middle class taxes is a mistake; it sends people the wrong message.
We all share in the benefits of government, and each should do their part, even if it is a small part. This idea that the rich should subsidize the middle class, a $50,000 annual income and you are getting subsidies from the wealthy to have kids? Wrong.
We have to stop running up debt, how long can we expect China and the rest of the world to pay our way? How long can we avoid the fact that we are continually spending more than we have? Those same children who are the reason that their parents are getting cash back in taxes for their parents are going to have to pay for all that when they grow up. Is that fair?
At least McCain’s plan will stimulate growth. Obama’s will hurt economic growth, and at this point the only thing that looks like it is going to get us out of our quagmire of debt and government handouts is a lot of growth.
The problem with that is that it makes whopping increases in the deficits, national debt, and does not solve social security or any other financial problem. The taxpolicycenter.org, which has a report that many are using to evaluate the proposals, states McCain’s plan will result in $4.2 trillion dollars in reduced tax revenue over 10 years, assuming the Iraq war ends soon. That means continued huge deficits and borrowing which is irresponsible.
Obama, on the other hand, claims his tax plan will actually reduce taxes overall. Whether that is true or not, what he is really doing is taking from the rich and mostly giving to the not so rich, the middle class. How he defines rich is someone making $125,000 a year. Those making more than that will find their income in California taxed more than 50 percent if the states Democrats have their way.
If he just raised the income tax top rate back up from 35 percent to 39.5 percent, on income over $250,000 as it was under Clinton, that would be one thing. But when you add 6.2 percent in payroll tax, and raise capital gains taxes to 25 percent, tax interest as ordinary income, and phase out the personal deduction it really starts to add up. Then here comes California with a new 11.5 percent rate.
It will hurt the economy, no matter how you slice it. And it opens him to the charge of socialist engineering. It is hard not to think that what he is really doing is carrying out the anger of the far left against the wealthy into his tax policies, not doing what is good for the country. All these new taxes, yet they will really not solve many problems, like Medicare or health care. Why bother then?
My point of view: Make taxes go up a bit for everyone, and slash spending big time. I think everyone who works should have to at least pay some taxes, and that it is morally wrong to have half the country paying the way for the other half. That will never work, and it is welfare.
It also contributes to a sense that those not paying in the bottom half of wage earners are entitled, they are owed by others in an unhealthy way. They also don’t have a financial stake in the system; in fact their stake is to get even more without doing anything except demand government largess. Everyone should have to contribute to the shared benefit of government services, so this whole thing about seeing how low you can make middle class taxes is a mistake; it sends people the wrong message.
We all share in the benefits of government, and each should do their part, even if it is a small part. This idea that the rich should subsidize the middle class, a $50,000 annual income and you are getting subsidies from the wealthy to have kids? Wrong.
We have to stop running up debt, how long can we expect China and the rest of the world to pay our way? How long can we avoid the fact that we are continually spending more than we have? Those same children who are the reason that their parents are getting cash back in taxes for their parents are going to have to pay for all that when they grow up. Is that fair?
At least McCain’s plan will stimulate growth. Obama’s will hurt economic growth, and at this point the only thing that looks like it is going to get us out of our quagmire of debt and government handouts is a lot of growth.
Join the conversation
Comment guidelines
All comments will be screened and may take several hours to be posted.
• Keep comments clear, concise and focused on the topic in the story.
• Comments exceeding 300 words will not be posted.
• Refrain from personal attacks, degrading comments or remarks that do not add to a constructive dialogue.
• Comments implying suspects in crime-related stories are guilty before they have been proven so in a court of law will be deleted.
• Do not post e-mail addresses or links except for pages on Napavalleyregister.com or government Web sites.
• Comments will not be edited - they will be approved or declined.
• Comments may be used in the print edition of the newspaper.
• If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact dross@napanews.com or bkennedy@napanews.com
For further information on the comment guidelines, click here.
|
|
misfit wrote on Jul 28, 2008 5:01 PM:
Let's see...
The oil companies have enjoyed much higher profits...while we are paying almost twice as much for gas
Joblessness is high and going higher each month, salaries are declining and we cannot afford to get sick.
The rich are definately richer
Haliburton and KBR are definately richer
But...is the middle class doing any better? NO!
McCain wants this to continue because it stimulates economic growth??? The entire premise is wrong because he assumes that making the wealthy wealthier, will cause a trickle down effect in the form of jobs, not necessarily, well paying jobs. The rich will want to hold tight to every penny so, to think they will be spreading the wealth around is a joke.
The point is simple...money earned through hard work should be taxed accordingly...and money that is made only with money, in the form of speculation that only the wealthy can afford to risk, should be taxed at a higher rate. If I win the lottery, after investing my hard earned dollar, it is taxed at 50%. Why are the returns that the wealthy make on their investments in the stock market, speculating in oil or in real estate taxed the same way? "
napablogger wrote on Jul 28, 2008 7:11 PM:
High capital gains taxes are one of the most proven ways to hurt the economy. Raising the top marginal rate a few percentage is much less likely to cause economic damage.
Also, you talk like only the mega wealthy get capital gains. Anyone who sells a house at a profit gets capital gains. Home ownership is around 65-70%. "
kevin wrote on Jul 28, 2008 7:18 PM:
There are plenty of other countriesmore than willing to take that capital and use it... "
plasticpinkflamingo wrote on Jul 28, 2008 9:27 PM:
napablogger wrote on Jul 29, 2008 12:11 AM:
I also realized that Obama's plan is to raise payroll taxes on those making more than $250,000, by 6.2%. I presume that is individual income, not household like the increase in income taxes he is talking about would be.
So there is a gap between $102,000 a year and $250,000 a year in Obama's plan, income between those two numbers would not get the soc sec tax of 6.2% (plus 6.2% to the employers as well).
Will that save social security or just kick it on down the road for yet a bigger problem in a decade. That is what I would like to know. "
ADark1 wrote on Jul 29, 2008 1:49 AM:
JustMy$.02 wrote on Jul 29, 2008 7:51 AM:
We live in a free market capitolistic country and the liberals are trying to make it a socialistic state. Who do you think all the dependant on government handout people are going to vote for, a conservative or a liberal?
Yes change is needed, but we must embrace (and understand) Capitolism. McCain must address the spending and should even re-consider our military objectives, that cost is hurting us (why isnt Iraq flippin the bill for that?).
But a tax and spend mentality from the most liberal senetor in congress is NOT the direction this country needs to go. "
kevin wrote on Jul 29, 2008 7:57 AM:
napablogger wrote on Jul 29, 2008 10:57 AM:
glad you have seen the character issue light! sort of kidding, but this has been my main contention all along, on every issue, until we start an honest dialogue nothing is going to change.
The liberals have propandized the social security issue, scaring everyone unnecessarily to the point of drastic inaction. They are doing the same thing on this issue that they accuse the Republicans of doing on terror. "
napablogger wrote on Jul 29, 2008 11:04 AM:
From Economist Diane Rogers,who has analyzed Obama's plan:
High-income households, those in the top 20% with incomes above $117,535 (so mixing the sort-of-rich with the ultra-rich), would face an average tax increase of $7,748–a 3.4% decrease in after-tax income.
Really-rich households, those in the top 1% with incomes above $619,561, would face an average tax increase of $133,715–a 9.4% decrease in after-tax income.
Ultra-rich households, those in the top 1/10th of 1% with incomes above $2.8 million, would face an average tax increase of $789,241–a 12.4% decrease in after-tax income.
Those are huge increases for people paying most of the taxes already anyway. There is no way this will not hurt the economy. "
Bill wrote on Jul 29, 2008 11:27 AM:
sickothis wrote on Jul 29, 2008 12:27 PM:
http://www.napavalleyregister.com/articles/2008/07/29/ap/politics/d927ik9o0.txt
Today. "
kevin wrote on Jul 29, 2008 12:55 PM:
In their minds it helps them because their "base" is those people whom they have convinced can't "make it" without the Democrat's help... "
napablogger wrote on Jul 29, 2008 2:18 PM:
2cents, I agree with you. The real reason not to raise taxes any more on the wealthy is that you are taking away people's freedom. Taking their money is stealing their property at some point.
This has been one of America's great strengths, individual freedom, and being able to work and keep what you make is the basis of economic freedom.
When it gets to the point where the government is taking over half of what you make to turn it over to other people who haven't worked for it, that is taking away people's freedom.
Things are more complicted than that, I realize, but this is true to a great extent. 80% of the people who are millionaires made their money themselves, through their own hard work. If we start taking away their money people will stop working, and it is not fair.
It also sends the wrong message to everyone else, that those who get the benefits of society are those who kick back and wait for the government to do it for them.
That creates a dysfunctional, dependent socieity full of people who feel entitled to get money for nothing. We are already too far down that road. "
napablogger wrote on Jul 29, 2008 2:22 PM:
Bill wrote on Jul 29, 2008 2:47 PM:
Bill wrote on Jul 29, 2008 2:56 PM:
NVGal wrote on Jul 29, 2008 7:12 PM:
Part 2 is this, if the capital gains tax is increased, the rate of return an investor requires increases. Down goes the stock market, up goes the riskiness of projects or investments that a company has to assume to meet the higher rate of return an investor requires. So your nifty middle class 401K, just got a little less niftier. And the riskier the projects a business takes on increases it’s chance of failure. Hmmm, think we’ve seen enough of that? Obamanomics promises more.
The wealthy all have access to people and capital that the rest of us middle class (upper and lower) don’t have. First class passengers aren’t going to be giving any cocktails or leg room up in order to support the folks in economy. But how many changes have you seen in coach lately? "
napablogger wrote on Jul 30, 2008 10:04 AM:
Clinton ended the era of easy shelters and they haven't come back. Everyone I know who makes over 250K is paying a lot of income taxes no matter what they do. I sold a house and got a big cap gains tax bill on it. There was nothing I could do about it.
It's a myth that there are easy ways to avoid paying taxes. The only way I know is to break the law, which I suppose some people do.
I think you are wrong about wealthy people being greedy. They are no more greedy than those at the bottom, probably less so. Most of the wealthy are Democrats like Gates and Buffet who think they ought to be paying more taxes.
Sure, there are some greedy wealthy people but I think most follow the law, pay their taxes and are as likely to support Obama as not.
Good analysis on the impact of increasing capital gains taxes, I agree with you on that one. "
sickothis wrote on Jul 30, 2008 10:27 AM:
a teacher wrote on Jul 30, 2008 11:34 AM:
I agree that EVERYONE's taxes should be raised, not just the rich. However, keep in mind that the top 1% of income earners make 16% of the available income. The last 38 years has seen a massive redistribution of wealth in this country, from bottom to the top. It would be nice to see that reverse for a while.
I listened on NPR's Fresh Air last week as Terry Gross interviewed both the economic experts from Obama's and McCain's campaign about their economic and tax plans. Then followed it with an independent (the Urban Institute) assessment. The verdict: both are pandering. McCain will give more to the wealthy, Obama to the middle and poorer. Both plans will cost more than one trillion dollars in deficit spending. Both are leaving the details to our imagination. I wish I could say that we deserve better. "
kevin wrote on Jul 30, 2008 12:56 PM:
Otherwise your first point is correct. I have long theorized that that is the only explanation for their irrational spending spree; to “empty the cookie jar” so to speak. Just like when you’re soon to be ex-wife won’t stop using the credit card and you go out and buy all new tools on credit and deliberately run it up to the credit limit.
Not a very smart plan, but at least it’s a plan.
Of course I TOTALLY disagree with your suggestion to raise taxes. It would depress the economy exactly when it needs stimulating, we already pay too much in taxes and we should concentrate on cutting at least a little spending first.
Where in the Constitution does it say it is the government's responsibility to take money from the rich and give it to the poor? I missed that section... "
a teacher wrote on Jul 30, 2008 1:57 PM:
Professing that your party strives for fiscal restraint (as Republicans do), whilst spending like (I believe this is a McCain quote) "a drunken sailor on leave", certainly fits the definition.
Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the defininition of Denial... "
a teacher wrote on Jul 30, 2008 2:02 PM:
It's probably in the same section that says that laws should be made to enrich the already filthy rich. "
kevin wrote on Jul 30, 2008 2:56 PM:
The Democrat Party BYLAWS... "
a teacher wrote on Jul 30, 2008 4:10 PM:
NVGal wrote on Jul 30, 2008 5:18 PM:
They can make it up in other ways, by raising the rents on an apartment complex they own, by not increasing the wages for a housekeeper, etc. I don’t think it is malicious, and I think that it happens in subtle ways.
There is an equilibrium that will have to take place, and whether or not this gets shifted to the very bottom, so that at the end of the day no one is better or worse off, I don’t know. I think it will get stuck somewhere in the middle. It will eventually get stuck with who ever doesn’t understand the shifting. If someone doesn’t fundamentally understand that an increase in rent is due to a landlord wanting to recoup his lost income due to increased income taxes, that person will be no better off under Obama, Bush, or Mc Cain. "
Todd Adams wrote on Jul 31, 2008 7:24 AM:
sickothis wrote on Jul 31, 2008 2:57 PM:
We are, and we have been in a recession. Bush's economic policy just plain does not work. He has the worst record in modern history of job creation during his two terms. "
napablogger wrote on Jul 31, 2008 7:51 PM:
I have to say that the Democrats are doing the same thing with other issues. They are doing it with global warming, exaggerate it to death and they will be able to strike back at their favorite enemy, oil companies, and force change on us. There is just no way a major scientific theory like that that has barely been researched at all could be proven already. But the point is political manipulation.
The top 1% get 16% of the income, but they paid 40% of all taxes---the highest rate in 40 years. They are being soaked as it is. In California they pay an extra 10.5% on top of that.
We better keep a lot of wealthy people around, otherwise we are going to have to shut down the government. "
napablogger wrote on Jul 31, 2008 7:59 PM:
And that is the problem with it, no one knows why it is happening. It is clear that it is happening, but so far is a fairly small phenomenon. And until we know why, it is hard to take much meaning away from it.
For one thing, prices of goods for lower classes have reduced, and so has their relative pay, but that amounts to just as much and actually more money. If you make an amount that doesn't go up, but your expenses get lower, then you are richer.
That is one explanation, another is that it is not the same people year to year that is in the top 1%, for the most part. Most people get their from one time events, like the sale of a house or cashing in an investment, sale of a business, etc.
My thought is that with the huge influx of foreign workers, they come in at low salaries and are skewing the whole thing down. The liberal economists that are pounding away on this ignore that. I have actually written to several trying to get them to deal with that, so far I have been ignored.
And by the way, this is yet another red herring manipulation by Democrats to force higher taxes on the wealthy. "
napablogger wrote on Jul 31, 2008 8:08 PM:
Also, if your income is below the soc sec cut off point they are paying a higher rate than you are, even on cap gains.
Social security is not a tax. God knows what it is anymore, but it is supposed to not be an entitlement program, it is a pension program sponsored by the government wherein you get paid back a pension based on your own investment. Because the returns are so low, and payment so low, the idea is that you only pay in what you will ultimately get back in benefits. It should have nothing to do with how rich you are.
It is like if you had a private employer and a group pension, with a limit on the ultimate benefit. Once you paid enough to get the top benefit, there is no point paying more. Then, because the plan is so mismanaged and losing money they make all the workers with higher salaries pay more to cover the problems, even though it is not a welfare program. Not fair, huh?
Social security is such a mess and people don't even understand it anymore. You know what, I agree with you, let's call it what it is, welfare, and stop paying it out to anyone who doesn't need it. That would save it. "
a teacher wrote on Jul 31, 2008 10:41 PM:
Years ago I read a Cato Institute report arguing that poor people weren't really poor in America because they could buy color TVs. Your comment reminds me of that. It misses the point of what poverty is.
Poverty isn't whether you can watch TV, it's can you afford to get sick. Can you afford to live in a safe neighborhood with nice schools? Can you afford college? Can you and your kids have a better life?
It's not about buying baubles. That's what our economy is built on, selling cheap goods. "
Todd Adams wrote on Jul 31, 2008 11:17 PM:
Whether you call Social Security a tax or not, it's still money that comes out of out paychecks and goes to the government. The fact that the rich save 6% on income above $76K while I pay 6% on all my income is regressive and unfair in my opinion. You are correct. Social Security was never intended to be a retirement plan. It is a social (welfare) program which is precisely why there should not be a cap on social security taxes. Do you think I should be allowed to withold property taxes because I don't have children that attend public schools? I don't think so.
I don't know why you think Social Security is complicated. I think it's the most simple of all the government programs. That's why the administrative costs are so low relative to education and other government programs.
I wish I knew a rich person (making over a million dollars per year) to ask how much taxes they pay. I have a hunch that if I asked they would tell me it's none of my d*** business. "
napablogger wrote on Jul 31, 2008 11:30 PM:
But I agree, let's make the poor wealthy. We need more wealthy people, and the best way to do that that we know how is with a free market economy with low taxes and a small government.
I think the Cato point is well taken however. America has the richest poor people in the world. "
Todd Adams wrote on Jul 31, 2008 11:55 PM:
The average income of the bottom 90% of wage earners was $27,060 in 1970 and $27,035 in 2000. This is a 0.1% decrease in pretax income. For those in the 90 to 95 percentile, average income rose from $80K to $104K (30% increase), for those in the 95 to 99 percentile it rose from $115K to $178K (54% increase), for those in the 99 to 99.5 percentile it rose from $203K to $384K (90% increase), for those in the 99.5 to 99.9 percentile it rose from $318K to $777K (145% increase), and for those in the 99.9 to 99.99 percentile it rose from $722K to $3 million (322% increase). Finally, for the top 0.01% of households the average annual income grew from $3.6 milion to $24 million (558% increase).
It's not a perception. The rich really are getting richer.
Back to the argument about fairness of taxes, if the super rich make an average of $24 million per year and the government took 50% in taxes, which they don't, the super rich will still take home more money (after taxes) than I will make ($60K) in 200 years (before taxes).
I don't have anything against the rich, but don't expect me to cry for them because they pay most of the taxes. They make most of the money too.
FYI, the above dolalr amounts are adjusted for inflation and are expressed in 2000 dollars. "
Todd Adams wrote on Aug 1, 2008 12:38 AM:
There are plenty of other examples of how the super rich work the system. I found this one interesting. When a CEO takes his family on vacation to Europe in the company jet he/she only pays taxes on the cost of flying first class rather than real cost of a chartered jet. Ken Lay actually flew his daughters bed to Europe in one of Enron's jets and it only cost him a fraction of a first class ticket. That's a nice perk. "
kevin wrote on Aug 1, 2008 5:01 AM:
Bill wrote on Aug 1, 2008 9:48 AM:
He outlines straight and substantiated reasoning without polemical and inciting statements to back up a point of view that suggests that those who benefit the most from society should kick in more than those who benefit the least, But that’s just my envy not Todd’s.
Would it be beyond reasoning to suggest that much wealth escapes the taxman because it is not income (which is the main thrust the facts and figures of what is supposedly “earned or worked for” by the wealthy) assets and the appraisal of their value are many times assessed at far lower rates if at all. This is especially true if you are able to hide those assets as a corporate vehicle, airplane, townhouse or they various “perks” associated with having an income in the multimillions of dollars that is not accounted for by any accounting system.
This statement because it is obviously polemical and not well substantiated gives both Kevin and NB a greater opportunity to avoid the logic presented by Todd.
And bullcorn, to borrow a phrase from Ruff, “Cons” do care what other people make. "
a teacher wrote on Aug 1, 2008 9:55 AM:
The number and rate of uninsured (health care) increases every year. Housing prices are increasing and the it is harder to borrow to buy a house (that part is probably a good thing in some ways). The cost of college education is skyrocketing. The purchasing power of salaries has decreased.
But, we can all buy a big screen TV on "easy credit"...
"let's make the poor wealthy. We need more wealthy people, and the best way to do that that we know how is with a free market economy with low taxes and a small government."
Voodoo economics...
Except that the system isn't set up to make people on the bottom wealthy, it's set up to make the people on the top wealthy. Wealth moves from the bottom to the top. The rich get wealthier and we get what falls off the table.
The system is rigged to protect the rich. Profit is privatized, loss is socialized. The gov't will bail out the losers in risky ventures, and those "risk takers" count on it. However, poor people looking for help are "people who feel entitled to get money for nothing".
This is actually making me angry...
"I think the Cato point is well taken however. America has the richest poor people"
The crumbs that fall off the tables of the rich are certainly better than the crumbs that fall off the tables of the poor. I'm sure the mice are fatter in the houses of the wealthy. "
a teacher wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:08 AM:
It's called class warfare and as Warren Buffet once noted, his side is winning.
Conservatives of Kevin's ilk always try to stifle the debate by giving it a dirty name, "class envy". But, they deny the obvious, that America has classes and those at the top hold the power and don't want to let go. "
kevin wrote on Aug 1, 2008 12:52 PM:
what part of Napa DO you live in?? "
a teacher wrote on Aug 1, 2008 1:37 PM:
cab e-girl wrote on Aug 1, 2008 6:41 PM:
JFK believed tax cuts wold stimulate the economy, he was right. Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan also knew that lower taxes would grow the economy. They were both successful in putting through tax cuts, both very successful presidents.
Why is this even an argument? We know that tax revenues will fall when tax rates are raised. It happens every time!
Conservatives are not hypocrites, just because we say democrats tax and spend. Conservatives are angry that republicans are taking lessons from the dems and spending like drunken sailors. Time to vote the dems and the spending republicans out of office. "
russ wrote on Aug 1, 2008 7:27 PM:
Typical liberal failure to understand the greatness of America. Just ask anyone who has or wants to immigrate to America. They come to improve their opportunities.
I look at it as, "Wow, look at what is possible in our great country, look at the opportunity Americans have." "
Todd Adams wrote on Aug 1, 2008 11:11 PM:
I don't have a problem with the rich per se, but I have a problem with those who avoid paying their fair share because the rest of us end up paying for it one way or another. The hedge fund managers that make millions or even billions of dollars each year are ripping the rest of us off by calling their income capital gains and only paying at a rate of 15%. The same with the CEOs using corporate jets and basing this income on first class air fare. This not only rips off the taxpayers, but the shareholders of the company as well. There are countless examples of how the super rich legally avoid paying taxes. A few have even been able to avoid taxes altogether while making millions of dollars.
If you pay your taxes like most people I can't understand why this would not disturb you in the least bit. Go out and get rich, but don't fangle the system to avoid paying your fair share of taxes. "
Todd Adams wrote on Aug 1, 2008 11:44 PM:
With respect to the economy, taxes were lowered substantially in the 1980's and the deficit shot up and the economy turned toward recession. Taxes went back up in the 1990s and the deficit disappeared for the first time in decades and we experienced tremendous economic growth.
There are many factors that contribute to the economy, but my understanding is that the the federal deficit is one of the primary drivers because the more money the government borrows the less that is available to the private sector for investments. One could argue that cutting taxes in the 1980s helped to drive up the federal deficit which was a drag on the economy. You could also argue that the tax increases in the 1990s helped to balance the budget which stimulated the economy. Note that I used the word "helped" to acknowedge that there were other factors involved. "
Ruff Limblog wrote on Aug 2, 2008 5:41 AM:
Ruff Limblog wrote on Aug 2, 2008 11:54 AM:
kevin wrote on Aug 2, 2008 1:40 PM:
It's scary to see the Dem's talking about the exact same type of measures today: raise taxes and limit trade. What's especially sad it the fact that they KNOW the history and the economic facts, but would rather gain political power through the misery of the American people, than do what is best for the country. They want to re-create the time of FDR, what they consider the apex of Progressive government... "
russ wrote on Aug 2, 2008 4:20 PM:
According to Encarta. "The lingering effects of World War I (1914-1918) caused economic problems in many countries, as Europe struggled to pay war debts and reparations. These problems contributed to the crisis that began the Great Depression: the disastrous U.S. stock market crash of 1929, which ruined thousands of investors and destroyed confidence in the economy.
Continuing throughout the 1930s, the depression ended in the United States only when massive spending for World War II began."
Nothing short of Socialism will stop the whining, even though the top 5% of earners pay 50% of income taxes. "
Todd Adams wrote on Aug 3, 2008 7:27 AM:
do you really believe it is unfair that the top 5% pay 50% of the taxes when they make 42% of all the income? If you think they should pay less, then who do you think should pay more? "
kevin wrote on Aug 3, 2008 11:56 AM:
DinoSilver wrote on Aug 3, 2008 1:49 PM:
If Obama catagorizes the rich as household's making $117k a year or more - wake up Napa that means you and me. A dual income household would easily meet that threshold. And I am not talking upper class here. A high school math teacher here in Napa makes over 50k a year. If both spouses are teachers, and tutor over the summer - Obama says you are rich and need a tax increase of $7700+ a year.
That amount of increase could spawn a whole new wave of housing foreclosures.
McCain may have a lot of negatives, but at least his proposals won't have us fall off the economic cliff. "
Raven wrote on Aug 3, 2008 6:30 PM:
what happened to Republicans being for fiscal responsibility? "
Hear Ye wrote on Aug 3, 2008 6:43 PM:
It's 250k not 117k. You won't be affected. "
Todd Adams wrote on Aug 3, 2008 8:25 PM:
The fist place I would start is the interest on the debt which accounts for 9% of the 2008 federal budget (including social security and medicare, but not Iraq and Afghanistan). The total cost for 2008 is $261 billion. In comparison, we spend more on interest on the debt than we spend on the Departments of Labor, Transportation, Interior, Treasury, NASA, Agriculture, Justice, Energy, Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, and Education combined. Think of all the capital tied up by our government that could be free for investments.
The next place I would start is the Dept of Defense which accounts for 16.6% of the total federal budget, excluding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our total military expenditures in 2007 was $547 billion which is almost half (45%) the world’s combined military spending. China and the UK come in second at about $60 billion each. Russia’s military expenditures in 2007 were estimated to be $35 billion. I would agree that it’s a good idea to have an advantage over our adversaries, but these numbers make me ask the question: “Are we preparing for a world-wide attack on the U.S.?” "
DinoSilver wrote on Aug 3, 2008 9:00 PM:
NB posted the analysis by Diane Rogers that showed the 117k income with a $7700 annual tax increase.
The $250k mark was for social security. Which, I think is a complete disregard for what social security is suppose to be. Why should someone who makes 250K a year pay for the retirement of someone who made less and did not save? Those above 250k in Obama's economic world will get no additional social security benefits, yet have to pay the additional tax.
The actuaries with the social security administration have come out and stated that social security will be saved for the next 75 years if we either all pay an additional 1.5% or reduce benefits. I say we do both. Increase the full retirement age to 70 for those ages 25 and under now, and increase FICA by .75%. "
Todd Adams wrote on Aug 4, 2008 7:03 AM:
Hear Ye wrote on Aug 4, 2008 10:05 AM:
The more I look the more it still looks like 250K. From Obama himself to the all the articles about the candidates tax plans I've read. "
russ wrote on Aug 4, 2008 5:19 PM:
5% of taxpayers pay 50% of income taxes. 50% of taxpayers pay almost 0%. What is unfair about that? "
Todd Adams wrote on Aug 5, 2008 6:38 AM:
I don't know how much you make, but what do you think of the hedge fund managers who make over a Billion dollars in a year, call their income capital gains, and are taxed at a rate of 15%? "
Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Aug 5, 2008 8:42 AM:
russ wrote on Aug 5, 2008 9:02 AM:
Good, we agree that the "rich" pay more than their proportionate taxes. So why raise their taxes even more.?
It has been shown that lower capital gains rates produce more taxes. The same with income taxes. Raising tax rates strangles growth of the economy.
Why get so wound up over a few hedge fund managers or CEO's. Go out and make yourself rich. Rich folks aren't stopping you. Maybe the government is by removing incentives to work harder and smarter. "
Bill wrote on Aug 5, 2008 10:01 AM:
That close to 50% do not make enough to pay income taxes says more about the unfairness of our society than how much the wealthy pay. There are a lot of hard working patriotic Americans that the wealthy are dependent upon in that 50% and they are being marginalized by wealthy cry babies many of whom never worked for the wealth they inherited and never exerted any intellectual effort to create anything other than defend their inheritance of privilege.
That 50% pays proportionately more in all taxes, when measured against personal worth, than any of the upper income groups. $10 to $20 per hour as a measure against some one at up wards of $100 per hour of actual income means the lower end pays a greater proportion in all taxes.
It also means that the upper end has a significantly greater opportunity to hide their wealth. So much for the supporters of justice, fairness and the American way it is also that 50% that make up a majority of the armed forces while the wealthy avoid such service yet the defenders of the upper crust would deny opportunity even to those who blindly defend their privilege. "
Ruff Limblog wrote on Aug 5, 2008 1:02 PM:
jersey guy wrote on Aug 5, 2008 1:23 PM:
Ruff Limblog wrote on Aug 5, 2008 4:38 PM:
russ wrote on Aug 5, 2008 7:46 PM:
Charity is better use of The Buffett/Gates fortunes than paying for the government's wasteful bureaucracy. "
kevin wrote on Aug 5, 2008 7:54 PM:
But spending went up faster... "
Raven wrote on Aug 5, 2008 11:13 PM:
jersey guy wrote on Aug 6, 2008 8:22 AM:
Bill wrote on Aug 6, 2008 8:29 AM:
It is never about cutting taxes and always about what I want to spend your money on. Democracy is messy so don't expect efficiency especially one that is married to an economic system that will always be volatile. If you want government efficiency buy stocks in the red star rising of mainland China. "
Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Aug 8, 2008 8:53 AM:
Bill wrote on Aug 8, 2008 11:54 AM:
You appear to have a studious bent try protectionism as an economic policy. It is a failed one. "
kevin wrote on Aug 11, 2008 12:34 PM:
...To be sure, the poor and middle-class are being hurt more, but upper crust thriftiness could reverberate across the rest of the economy.
The 10 percent of households with the highest incomes account for nearly a quarter of all spending, according to data compiled by research firm Moody's Economy.com from a 2006 federal survey.
"That does suggest those folks are important for the spending outlook, and the overall economic outlook," said Scott Hoyt, Moody's director of consumer economics.
Other government data show households in the top one-fifth of the U.S. population ranked by income earn about half of all total personal income before taxes — an imbalance that gives the wealthy immense economic clout, said Sara Johnson, an economist at the research firm Global Insight.
"Consumer spending makes up 70 percent of gross domestic product, and when one group accounts for a very substantial share of consumer spending, they also account for a large share of the economic activity that creates jobs," Johnson said.
So my question is: If the wealthy spending less is harmfull to job creation, isn't increasing taxes on the wealthy also going to produce the same results? "
Raven wrote on Aug 11, 2008 8:52 PM:
Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Aug 12, 2008 9:59 AM:
bill wrote on Aug 14, 2008 1:21 PM:
I would suggest that the 75% are really much more responsible for driving consumption and spending than the top 25%.
What did Kevin’s favorite president say? “That dog won’t hunt.” "
kevin wrote on Aug 14, 2008 3:24 PM:
All through the 80's the press bashed President Reagan for his "trickle down" theory. Now here it comes up in the mainstream press like as if it's common knowledge (which it IS to us Conservatives.
BTW Bill, one economic theory suggests that the poor and lower economic classes spend all their income ANYWAY on living expenses. They don't have a CHOICE as to whether to spend or not to spend. The wealthy have more disposable income with which they can make such choices and THAT is what drives the economy... "
Bill wrote on Aug 14, 2008 5:01 PM:
It’s not the rich buying Rolls Royce or submarines or space trips that drive the economy but Joe Shmoe buying Fords, Chevys or Toyotas that drive the economy. Its Mr. And Mrs. Shmoe buying the family home not el great and worshiped ones in their grand estates.
It is the working and middle class men and women of America that drive the economy not the oligarchs or the corporate pirates several people are so fond of. "
Ruff Limblog wrote on Aug 17, 2008 8:56 PM:
However, in the case of Napa wingnuttia's finest the folks who are always supposed to be 'waiting' and doing without are regular working stiffs who are supposed to wait for the "trickle down" to come.
I don't know why, but it seems that local "conservatives" want to cut on things like police, fire, water, sanitation, highways, sidewalks while their benefactors keep raking it in.
I don't hate the rich, or corporate moguls, etc... I want them to make lots of money AND pay their fair share of taxes again. Most of us know that the rich and ultra rich can survive paying their fair share. If they have enough money to have Mr. Bush helo in and vacuum up a few million, then they can afford to pay the same percentage of their money in taxes as the REST OF US.
It's long past time for the rich to come to the table and ante up.
~Ruff "