(Reality) Who will you pay more taxes with - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Rekna · 08-12-2008, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robot_parade

Is anyone else surprised by how many TFPers make more than $600K/yr? 26% of us, if you match the percentage who say they'll pay more under Obama to the chart in the OP.

(Of course, some of those might be single and make less than $600K/yr)

Actually it is around $111,000 that the turning point is.

aceventura3 · 08-13-2008, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

You might as well ask why the legal system has to be so complicated.

It is complicated because the world is a complicated place. Apparently the people who have glued the tax code together over the years found the virtues of a simple tax code less than compelling.

Sales taxes are not complicated. Property taxes are not complicated. In both cases you can easily plan and it is difficult to "game" those systems.

Quote:

Who is making it more difficult for the poor to accumulate wealth? It's a hallmark of progressive tax systems that people pay more money when they make more money. I am fairly certain that I will pay less taxes under Obama's plan, regardless of whatever trickery you think his plan contains.

In addition to tax policy there are the ramifications of tax policy. So, when Obama talks about windfall profit taxes on oil companies or giving everyone $1,000 from oil company profits perhaps most people don't realize that the cost of those ideas will be reflected at the pump. So what is the point of getting $1,000 and then giving it back when you buy oil and gas? The point is to get Obama elected.

Quote:

There is definitely a threshold over which you start paying more taxes. But, your net gain is still positive with respect to the taxes you owe. I don't know about you, but I've never heard anyone expressing the desire to go back to making $15,000 a year because their tax burden is too much when they make $40-50,000. You can pull this "won't somebody please think of the upwardly mobile members of the lower class" business if you want, but to me it seems a bit too contrived.

I get your point and it would have an impact on me if I did not constantly hear from liberals how they are fighting for the poor, fighting against poverty, fighting for real wage increases, fighting against disproportionate wealth distribution, etc, etc. A middle class or working poor person should not have to face what amounts to a 50% marginal tax rate. That is simply too much in my book.

Quote:

What do you mean "is going to have an advantage over"? Ceteris paribus aside, you have to be pretty far removed from any sort of general notion of how things work to presume that there is much of an advantage to be gained over your fellow man by having a better understanding of tax code than him. Even then, I think you mean to say that the guy who knows a good accountant is going to have an advantage over the guy who doesn't. Just like the guy who knows a good lawyer will have an advantage over the guy who doesn't.

If I were to delegate my finances to an accountant, I would hire the best available accountant not depending on luck. In order to hire the best accountant you have to know what to ask. In order to know what to ask you have to have knowledge. the man with knowledge will make better choices than the man who does not. That is an advantage. Sure people get lucky, but if you are a gambler (which is what you are if you are uninformed) and rely on luck you will not come out ahead if the odds are not in you favor.

Quote:

This is fantasy. You must not be communicating effectively, because it sounds to me like you think that an important difference between rich people and poor people is that rich people have a better understanding of the tax code. I don't know if you've ever seen rich CEO's testify in front of congress, but those folks don't seem to know how to tie their shoes, much less fill out a tax form.

"Rich" people hire CEO's to run their companies. Good CEO's are good at running companies.

I measure wealth based on assets, not income. An "easy" to read person on this subject is Robert Kiyosaki ("Rich Dad, Poor Dad"), in one example he uses he talks about owning real estate and doing cash out refinancing - loans are not considered taxable income. So, a "rich" person could put themselves in a situation to place a mortgage on a income producing property, use the cash and then have the mortgage reduce the taxable income on the property further reducing their tax burden. Oh - and they could hire a CEO to handle it thier operations, while they drink Mojito's on the beach.

Quote:

The people who deserve scorn are the people who are already obscenely wealthy who hide their money from the government because they can't bear to part even a fraction of it.

"Rich" people don't have to hide their money. They don't have to violate the law, they just understand the law and work within it. Just like those who understand the value of an IRA, have an IRA. There is nothing illegal or wrong with understanding the law and using it to your advantage. Everyone should have an IRA. If there are problems within the law, the law should be fixed.

Quote:

Right, because you're going to use your superb understanding of the U.S. tax code to develop of overwhelming advantage over me. Because we're in direct competition and whatever extra money you can glean from your superior knowledge of the U.S. tax code will come directly out of my pocket. Clearly, there are no other factors at play. At all.

No, I don't have a superb understanding, I am putting effort into gaining a superb understanding. I realize what I write will have no impact on anyone, but in some cases it forces me to think some thing through and writing about it helps. I simply think hard work, and the quest for knowledge will make a difference over time. I could be wrong, after all is said and done I doubt I will ever have the money or "assets" of Paris Hilton. So, maybe its all about luck.

dc_dux · 08-13-2008, 08:25 AM

An understanding of the two candidates' tax policies doesnt have to be all that complicated.

If you believe in a supply side, trickle down tax and economic policy, you will support McCain's position.

If you believe the middle class, rather than the top wage earners, should be the primary beneficiaries of tax policy, you will support Obama's.

aceventura3 · 08-13-2008, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

If you believe the middle class, rather than the top wage earners, should be the primary beneficiaries of tax policy, you will support Obama's.

That is the question, I would like to see proof. The middle class benefits from lower marginal tax rates and tax simplification, i.e. perhaps eliminating the ATM. Tax gimmicks, special deductions, hard hard to qualify for tax credits benefit an isolated few and will disproportionately impact those with increased earnings potential.

robot_parade · 08-13-2008, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Actually it is around $111,000 that the turning point is.

Oh, snap! I misread the chart trying to be a smartass. :-)

/me hangs head in shame.

Rekna · 08-13-2008, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robot_parade

Oh, snap! I misread the chart trying to be a smartass. :-)

/me hangs head in shame.

It's ok, actually the $600,000 is an important number because anyone making under that number will not have their taxes raised by either candidate... even though Mc'Cain's adds are claiming that Obama will raise taxes on anyone making over $40,000.

aceventura3 · 08-13-2008, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

It's ok, actually the $600,000 is an important number because anyone making under that number will not have their taxes raised by either candidate... even though Mc'Cain's adds are claiming that Obama will raise taxes on anyone making over $40,000.

Isn't increasing the capital gains tax an increase?
Isn't increasing the cap (currently at $102,000) on payroll taxes a tax increase?
Isn't "Reverse Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy" a tax increase?

I went to his website: Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Fiscal to try and get details, but I could not find any. How does anyone know what the impact of his plan is? If anyone has the details, in his words, please help point me in the right direction.

dc_dux · 08-13-2008, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I went to his website: Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Fiscal to try and get details, but I could not find any. How does anyone know what the impact of his plan is? If anyone has the details, in his words, please help point me in the right direction.

Shouldnt we be asking the same question of McCain as well or do you know the impact of his plan?

Neither candidate provides details on the impact of their respective plan...but by most measures, McCain's plan to make permanent the 2001 and 2003 income-tax cuts that expire at the end of 2010....including the top 1% of wage earners..is significantly more expensive with no explanation of how he would pay for it.

IMO, most voters are not interested in the details of tax policy beyond how much income tax they would pay under either plan.

The National Journal provides a good brief and concise overview of both candidates positions on Bush tax cuts, new tax cuts, the budget, etc:

McCain Policy Positions

Obama Policy Positions

Their positions on other issues are summarized for the average voter as well-- health care, energy/environment, trade policy, etc.
-----Added 13/8/2008 at 07 : 02 : 39-----
For those tax policy wonks who want more detail, I would suggest the Tax Policy Center's Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans.

I confess that I dont intend to read the full report.

aceventura3 · 08-14-2008, 07:15 AM

Here is a quote from page two of the report done by the Tax Policy Center:

Quote:

I. How we did our analysis
One challenge facing anyone who wants to estimate the effects of candidates’ tax plans is that no one—not even inside the campaigns—knows exactly what the proposals are. Stump speeches and campaign white papers are often short on the technical details needed to analyze the proposals fully. In addition, the candidates’ plans are often works in progress that change during the campaign.

We do know what current tax policy is (Bush Tax Cuts), we know McCain wants to make them permanent, that is a little more specific than Obama's plan. We also generally know that Obama's plans involve carving out specific groups for tax cuts, deductions or credits. McCain's plans are broader in nature. So, if you are lucky enough to be in one of Obama's targeted categories you may benefit (and I would not assume anyone can make the call if they are in one of his categories), otherwise you would benefit under McCain's plan. Basically, there is no "reality" at this point.

Also found in the report was this quote supporting some points I have been making about "rich" people having options the rest don't have regarding tax planning.

Quote:

Although evidence is mixed on how much high-income taxpayers react to increases in their tax rates, most research has found only relatively small permanent reductions in income, but that taxpayers with the highest incomes respond more to tax changes than those with lower income and they have more ability to shift income to avoid temporarily high tax rates.

In addition the report comments on disincentives to work under some of Obama's tax proposals, again support a point I made about marginal tax rates.

Quote:

Many of Senator Obama’s proposals would reduce taxes or increase refundable credits for low-income households. In general, such provisions make the tax system more progressive by shifting resources toward poorer workers and families. Because most of them would also affect after-tax wage rates or the net cost of working, saving, and attending school, they could have marked effects on work patterns and other behavior, although both the size of any changes and their net effect across the whole population are highly uncertain.

The Making Work Pay credit is intended to offset some of the regressivity of the Social Security payroll tax and encourage low-income people to work, but it does so at a substantial revenue cost—$728 billion over 10 years. Because most workers earn more than $8,100 annually, most of the revenue loss would go to taxpayers who receive no incentive to work more. A credit that was targeted more toward low-income workers would provide a more cost-effective work incentive. And because the phaseout of the credit increases marginal tax rates for those workers in the phaseout range, it might actually give those workers an incentive to work less. On efficiency grounds, the money would probably be better spent reducing marginal tax rates overall or reducing the deficit.

And

Quote:

The proposal to exempt seniors earning under $50,000 from income tax is poorly designed according to its current description and creates inequity between older and younger taxpayers with the same income. As we understand it, the proposal contains a “cliff:” filers with income just below $50,000 would owe no income tax, but those with income just above that level could owe substantial tax. This would create substantial disincentives for seniors near the income threshold to work or otherwise earn income. Phasing out the benefit over a range of income would correct this flaw but would extend the benefit of the exemption to taxpayers at higher income levels and thus raise the revenue costs (assuming no behavioral response to the “cliff”). And phasing out the benefit only reduces work disincentives since the phaseout itself increases effective marginal tax rates on affected taxpayers and could therefore reduce their willingness to earn more income.

Looking at these components of the analysis suggests that "rich" people may avoid increased taxation and that middle class and poor will be given disincentives to work. Thsi sounds like a recipe for economic disaster.

dc_dux · 08-14-2008, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

...we know McCain wants to make them permanent, that is a little more specific than Obama's plan.

Is this the same McCain who voted against Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and characterized them as "irresponsible" at the time?

I wonder why he (or anyone)m thinks its more responsible now.....with our nearly $10 trillion national debt (nearly double what it was before these tax cuts)!

IMO, they are still irresponsible, particularly if the top bracket is not sunsetted and returned to pre-2000 rates as envisioned in both the 01 and 03 bills.. and far more costly, by any measure, than Obama's plan.

At least Obama's approach to the Bush tax cuts....continuing the cuts for 94% of taxpayers (mostly middle class) AND paying for it by letting the cuts on the top 1% expire in 2010...seems a bit more responsible.

aceventura3 · 08-14-2008, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

IMO, they are still irresponsible, particularly if the top bracket is not sunsetted and returned to pre-2000 rates as envisioned in both the 01 and 03 bills.. and far more costly, by any measure, than Obama's plan.

Is the top rate going to make a difference? Taxes collected are going to be 17%-18% of GDP under Bush, McCain or Obama according to the report you cited. This has been the historical range, so how do you conclude Bush's tax cuts are irresponsible? Also according to the report you cited the deficit is going to go up under McCain's plan or under Obama's plan. They (in the report) made some assumptions regarding how Obama is planning on handling health care so under his plan the deficit may be lower or higher depending. Either way, the budget won't be in balance unless there are large cuts, McCain is at least talking about making cuts.

Quote:

At least Obama's approach to the Bush tax cuts....continuing the cuts for 94% of taxpayers (mostly middle class) AND paying for it by letting the cuts on the top 1% expire in 2010...seems a bit more responsible.

Again, when I see proof...otherwise Obama's populist rhetoric is a tactic to get elected.

Lowering one tax and raising another may not lead to a net tax reduction.

Instituting targeted tax deductions and credits, may only affect a select few.

Giving homeowners the option of of using the standard deduction and deducting home interest compared to them using the itemized deduction doesn't mean that there will be a tax reduction.

Raising corporate taxes in many cases will translate to higher costs to consumers (inflationary), and a further eroding of American competitiveness (loss of jobs).

Personally, I think these issues are worthy of discussion and debate and should not be considered off limits.

Iliftrocks · 08-19-2008, 07:04 AM

We got bills to pay, the only way to raise that money is to raise taxes AND decrease spending. I'm sorry but the republican party as a whole is bad at both, dems only better at paying bills.... My first choice on decreasing spending is get rid of Homeland Security, and while we're at it, most of the secret organizations, why do we need so many?

Both parties need to quit throwing around "free" money to stimulate the economy. That works about as well as trickle down economics.....

Once the bills are paid, then for Pete's sake cut taxes AND DON'T increase spending again. Utopia or bust!!!!!

aceventura3 · 08-19-2008, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iliftrocks

We got bills to pay, the only way to raise that money is to raise taxes AND decrease spending.

I think a better way is to grow the economy. Taxes collected as a percent of GDP has been fairly consistent over time, so with a bigger GDP the government will collect more tax dollars. I agree with the "AND decrease spending", I think the federal government has to recognize that there are limits. Obama's promises for "free" government programs, targeted tax cuts, credits and deductions seem to be based on getting votes rather than a consideration for longterm economic strength.

Quote:

I'm sorry but the republican party as a whole is bad at both, dems only better at paying bills.... My first choice on decreasing spending is get rid of Homeland Security, and while we're at it, most of the secret organizations, why do we need so many?

Above, you are only talking about small percentages of the federal budget, if you want real cuts you have to look at entitlement programs. Defense spending may have some areas for cuts, but I would not get too carried away with cutting defense programs in our current environment.

Quote:

Both parties need to quit throwing around "free" money to stimulate the economy. That works about as well as trickle down economics.....

I am curious. Do you think money in the hands of government is utilized better than money in the hands of citizens? The basis of "trickle down economics" is the simple premise that citizens would be more efficient at spending money to grow the economy than centralized government.

aceventura3 · 08-25-2008, 10:20 AM

In the editorial section of IBD today. I would like to see a fact based defense from the Obama side from some of the facts pointed out in this editorial. I am betting it won't happen, I expect only generalities and accusations of bias and unfair treatment.

And, yes I already know what many of you think about IBD. But they reference fact based information that can be independently checked and verified by looking at the tax code and Obama's plan (the parts of his plan that can be nailed down). So, let's stop the pretense and agree that under Obama and a Democratic Congress taxes are going up for almost all of us including the middle class. And, I think we should expect federal government spending to increase at a rate higher than tax dollars collected, unfortunately the next President is not going to have the benefit of a dot com boom and excessive real estate price increases to bolster taxes collected the way that Bill Clinton experienced. So, perhaps it is time to get over the "times were so good under Clinton" talk because Clinton policies had almost nothing to do with the boom in technology in the 90's or the real estate boom.

Quote:

Election '08: As Barack Obama tries to convince the American people he will cut their taxes, he actually plans to undo the Bush tax cuts — and the Reagan low tax legacy.

When Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992, the centerpiece of his much-touted economic plan was a middle-class tax cut. Once elected, he announced that the deficit was bigger than he thought, so no tax cuts.

This year, Barack Obama also promises cuts in middle-class taxes. The current New York Times magazine contends that "for most people, Obama is the tax cutter in this campaign."

Writing in the Wall Street Journal earlier this month, Obama economic advisers Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee promised: "The Obama plan would cut taxes for 95% of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples" on top of "tax cuts for low- and middle-income seniors, homeowners, the uninsured, and families sending a child to college or looking to save and accumulate wealth."

But what's touted as tax-cutting (even assuming his plan didn't undergo a Clintonesque transformation) hides tax increases for the middle class. According to the American Enterprise Institute's Alex Brill and Alan Viard, "Senator Obama's proposed 'tax cuts for the middle class' are actually marginal rate hikes in disguise."

The reason: Obama's plan rescinds tax breaks as some taxpayers' incomes rise, reducing their incentives to earn more.

Using data from the Brookings Institution's and Urban Institute's joint Tax Policy Center, Brill and Viard considered the Obama plan's effect on a two-earner couple with one child in college and another age 12 or younger. Their marginal tax rates are between 34% and 39% in the $31,000 to $45,000 income range — a 13 percentage point or more increase from current rates.

The increase happens because Obama phases out the child and dependent-care credit for one-child families in the $30,000-to-$58,000 income range. According to Brill and Viard, the effective tax rate increases by 3 percentage points, while making certain credits refundable triggers a tax penalty of up to 15%.

The same family earning $110,000 to $120,000 would suffer "a staggering 45% effective marginal rate . . . 11 percentage points higher than under current law," the AEI scholars say, because of changes planned for Bill Clinton's Hope Scholarship Tax Credit.

An "Economists for Obama" Web site calls the AEI findings "deeply dishonest" because their example of a family is "cherry-picked." Viard immediately responded, noting that Obama's use of refundability and phase-outs means that "any example will show these kinds of disincentive effects."

Undoing the Bush tax cuts, raising income tax rates, adding complexity to the tax code and believing that you can raise taxes on the richest Americans by an average of $800,000 a year, as Obama plans, with minimal negative economic effect — it all adds up to reversing an important part of the Reagan Revolution

Today in Investor's Business Daily stock analysis and business news

Rekna · 08-25-2008, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

In the editorial section of IBD today. I would like to see a fact based defense from the Obama side from some of the facts pointed out in this editorial. I am betting it won't happen, I expect only generalities and accusations of bias and unfair treatment.

And, yes I already know what many of you think about IBD. But they reference fact based information that can be independently checked and verified by looking at the tax code and Obama's plan (the parts of his plan that can be nailed down). So, let's stop the pretense and agree that under Obama and a Democratic Congress taxes are going up for almost all of us including the middle class. And, I think we should expect federal government spending to increase at a rate higher than tax dollars collected, unfortunately the next President is not going to have the benefit of a dot com boom and excessive real estate price increases to bolster taxes collected the way that Bill Clinton experienced. So, perhaps it is time to get over the "times were so good under Clinton" talk because Clinton policies had almost nothing to do with the boom in technology in the 90's or the real estate boom.

Today in Investor's Business Daily stock analysis and business news

That is odd the article says Obama will phase out the child and dependent care credit yet Obama's website says he will expand it:

Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Family

Quote:

Expand the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit: The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit provides too little relief to families that struggle to afford child care expenses. Barack Obama will reform the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit by making it refundable and allowing low-income families to receive up to a 50 percent credit for their child care expenses.

So which is it? Also if this article is factually correct why is it in an editorial?
-----Added 25/8/2008 at 03 : 08 : 30-----
Also looking at marginal tax rate is a bit misleading. The bottom line is do the families pay more or less overall? This article makes no mention of that.

dc_dux · 08-25-2008, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

In the editorial section of IBD today. I would like to see a fact based defense from the Obama side from some of the facts pointed out in this editorial. I am betting it won't happen, I expect only generalities and accusations of bias and unfair treatment.

I would like to see a facts based editorial on IBD...and not a partisan opinion piece that cherry picks information from its cited sources while omitting other relevant information....or manipulates data to support an absurd argument: Obama's plan rescinds tax breaks as some taxpayers' incomes rise, reducing their incentives to earn more(from the editorial).

Reducing their incentive to earn more? In my 25 year working career, I have never met a person, working at any job or salary level, who does not want to make a higher salary, even if it might, in some small number of cases, mean marginally higher taxes.

But I dont expect to see a facts based editorial in IBD any time soon!

aceventura3 · 08-25-2008, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I would like to see a facts based editorial on IBD...and not a partisan opinion piece that cherry picks information from its cited sources while omitting other relevant information....or manipulates data to support an absurd argument: Obama's plan rescinds tax breaks as some taxpayers' incomes rise, reducing their incentives to earn more(from the editorial).

Reducing their incentive to earn more? In my 25 year working career, I have never met a person, working at any job or salary level, who does not want to make a higher salary, even if it might, in some small number of cases, mean marginally higher taxes.

But I dont expect to see a facts based editorial in IBD any time soon!

Please read the the editorial and, if you are inclined, check the sources they cite. You can also run some examples yourself and see results like I did. Our tax code is more than just the tax rates. Sure Obama can say he is reducing tax "rates" for the middle class and raising tax "rates" on the rich, but until a person actually runs through some real examples, one won't know the real truth.

Attacking IBD is too easy, they even mention the reflexive argument of "cherry picking" in the article - the respondent suggests the same thing I suggest.

Rekna · 08-25-2008, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Please read the the editorial and, if you are inclined, check the sources they cite. You can also run some examples yourself and see results like I did. Our tax code is more than just the tax rates. Sure Obama can say he is reducing tax "rates" for the middle class and raising tax "rates" on the rich, but until a person actually runs through some real examples, one won't know the real truth.

Attacking IBD is too easy, they even mention the reflexive argument of "cherry picking" in the article - the respondent suggests the same thing I suggest.

Except the article doesn't cite hardly anything. It sights one study vaguely and makes claims without citing the references for those claims. This article is an opinion piece and nothing more. There is not a single citation in that article for a person to fact check them.

aceventura3 · 08-25-2008, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

That is odd the article says Obama will phase out the child and dependent care credit yet Obama's website says he will expand it:

Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Family

So which is it? Also if this article is factually correct why is it in an editorial?
-----Added 25/8/2008 at 03 : 08 : 30-----
Also looking at marginal tax rate is a bit misleading. The bottom line is do the families pay more or less overall? This article makes no mention of that.

The "devil is in the details". His website states that he will make the credit refundable - meaning that for people who owe no tax would still benefit from the credit - sort of like ending up in a negative tax bracket. At some point in the income range that credit will go away. The family going from poverty to a livable wage will face not only the loss of the credit but will also potentially owe taxes on the additional income. Hence the marginal tax rate goes up at the threshold or cutoff point.

People who get the credit win. People who are getting the credit today but start making more money in the future are in for a marginal tax hit that is going to be pretty hard for working families. So, under Obama people will have an incentive to stay poor.

Like I wrote earlier in this thread, adding in state, local, and FICA taxes, a poor person trying to get ahead should not have to face what could easily be a 50% marginal tax hit. In many cases the "rich" wont face marginal tax rates that high. Just ask Warren Buffet or people like him. I think they actually secretly laugh as they support Democrats and their ideas about hitting the "rich" with more taxes.
-----Added 25/8/2008 at 05 : 29 : 11-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Except the article doesn't cite hardly anything. It sights one study vaguely and makes claims without citing the references for those claims. This article is an opinion piece and nothing more. There is not a single citation in that article for a person to fact check them.

Here is a link to the Tax Policy Center (Brookings Institute):

Tax Facts | Tax Facts home

Here is a link to American enterprise Institute:

Welcome to AEI

I am betting some will say these organizations are biased, but like I suggest, they should give some information that counters the information they offer on tax policy.

And here is a link to the IRS Publication 17 for 2007:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/newrepl...eply&p=2512884

{added}Here is a link to the Tax Policy Center's report on their analysis of both candidates tax proposals. The good and the bad on both candidate's proposals.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/Uploa...es_summary.pdf

Rekna · 08-25-2008, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The "devil is in the details". His website states that he will make the credit refundable - meaning that for people who owe no tax would still benefit from the credit - sort of like ending up in a negative tax bracket. At some point in the income range that credit will go away. The family going from poverty to a livable wage will face not only the loss of the credit but will also potentially owe taxes on the additional income. Hence the marginal tax rate goes up at the threshold or cutoff point.

People who get the credit win. People who are getting the credit today but start making more money in the future are in for a marginal tax hit that is going to be pretty hard for working families. So, under Obama people will have an incentive to stay poor.

Like I wrote earlier in this thread, adding in state, local, and FICA taxes, a poor person trying to get ahead should not have to face what could easily be a 50% marginal tax hit. In many cases the "rich" wont face marginal tax rates that high. Just ask Warren Buffet or people like him. I think they actually secretly laugh as they support Democrats and their ideas about hitting the "rich" with more taxes.

This makes no sense to me....

Assume we have a tax credit of $1000 and a tax rate of 10%. (the numbers are chosen to be small and simple on purpose and not representative of real numbers)

Family A) makes $900 and they get the tax credit for $100 for a total net income of $1000.

Fmaily B) makes $1100 they get no tax credit and pay taxes on $100 for a total tax liability of $10 for a total net income of $1090.

According to your argument a couple of things are true:

1) Family B would rather be Family A because they pay less taxes even though they have less income.

2) Family A would rather not make more than $1000 because it means less tax liability. Thus if Family A were offered a $200 raise they would say "thanks, but no thanks".

3) The world is flat.
-----Added 25/8/2008 at 05 : 52 : 10-----
look at the graph at the bottom of the link you posted:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/Uploa...es_summary.pdf

it says that 4/5ths of Americans will have more after tax income with Obama than with McCain. Are you claiming these people would rather pay more taxes as long as their marginal rate was lower?
-----Added 25/8/2008 at 05 : 54 : 36-----
Let's take a quick straw poll. Everyone reading this please tell me if you which of these you would prefer:

A) To pay more total taxes or B) to have a higher marginal tax rate?

Derwood · 08-25-2008, 03:30 PM

I'd pay more under McCain. SHOCKING

hunnychile · 08-25-2008, 03:38 PM

[QUOTE=filtherton;2504430]I didn't even look before I voted, because I knew I'd pay more under McCain.

Ahem, he's a Republican and I'm middleclass. Pretty clear answer. Eh?

aceventura3 · 08-26-2008, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

This makes no sense to me....

Assume we have a tax credit of $1000 and a tax rate of 10%. (the numbers are chosen to be small and simple on purpose and not representative of real numbers)

Family A) makes $900 and they get the tax credit for $100 for a total net income of $1000.

Fmaily B) makes $1100 they get no tax credit and pay taxes on $100 for a total tax liability of $10 for a total net income of $1090.

According to your argument a couple of things are true:

1) Family B would rather be Family A because they pay less taxes even though they have less income.

2) Family A would rather not make more than $1000 because it means less tax liability. Thus if Family A were offered a $200 raise they would say "thanks, but no thanks".

3) The world is flat.
-----Added 25/8/2008 at 05 : 52 : 10-----
look at the graph at the bottom of the link you posted:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/Uploa...es_summary.pdf

it says that 4/5ths of Americans will have more after tax income with Obama than with McCain. Are you claiming these people would rather pay more taxes as long as their marginal rate was lower?
-----Added 25/8/2008 at 05 : 54 : 36-----
Let's take a quick straw poll. Everyone reading this please tell me if you which of these you would prefer:

A) To pay more total taxes or B) to have a higher marginal tax rate?

There are two different issues on the table.

1) People who will receive a net tax cut will be better off. However, Obama's plans for tax rate cuts are targeted. His plans for tax credits and special deductions are targeted. If you are in a situation to benefit from his targeted tax cuts you benefit. So, for example, if you are a senior citizen and you are actually paying taxes, and you make less than $50,000 you will win, assuming the increase in capital gains tax rates don't offset your savings (of course this depends on the details). And, Obama is going to be raising some taxes or tax rates for example the middle class family ( let's say a teacher and a fire fighter perhaps making a combined $100K+) they may not benefit from Obama's targeted tax cuts and may pay more in payroll taxes and capital gains taxes. This is the primary question, and we need details. right now all we can do is make assumptions.

2) Tax rates are supposed to be progressive. The higher the income the higher the marginal tax bracket. Obama's plan is to raise the top tax rate to about 37%. So for each additional dollar made after a certain point a "rich" person will pay $.37 in taxes. Fair or not the story is to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the "rich". However, what we find is that marginal tax rates on the poor may be as high as the marginal tax rate on the "rich". So, in some cases our tax system may not be progressive, but may end up being regressive. This is an unintended consequence of convoluted tax policy.

So we end up with a poor family with an opportunity to do better financially. What happens? They pay 34% to 39% of each additional dollar earned to the federal government in income taxes. The pay about 7.5% in in payroll tax. They may pay a state income tax, let's say 5%. Then let's say they no longer qualify for free school lunch ( 2 kids x $2/lunch x 30 weeks = $600). Let's say they no longer qualify for free day care ( 1 kid X $300/week X 50 weeks = $15,000). Let's say they drive to work ( 20 miles per work day @ 30 mpg @ $3.50 per gallon = $583). Let's say they are forced to belong to a union and have to pay dues ($10 per week x 52 weeks = $520), etc.
Assuming, and I do, that most people can do basic math, at what point does it make sense to choose work, given the marginal costs? Especially when the majority of the additional costs are additional taxes and the loss of tax credits and special deductions.

Obama and the democrats have tax policies designed to have a perpetual class of poor earning sub-livable wages. They pretend to be against poverty, but they are in the poverty making business. I think the ones who understand - lie. I think those who have not thought it through - just don't know the implications of what they support.

dc_dux · 08-26-2008, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Obama and the democrats have tax policies designed to have a perpetual class of poor earning sub-livable wages. They pretend to be against poverty, but they are in the poverty making business. I think the ones who understand - lie. I think those who have not thought it through - just don't know the implications of what they support.

nice, ace!

How very condescending of you to suggest or imply that "the democrats" - half the country (or more) - are either liars or ignorant because they dont agree with your analysis of tax policy.
-----Added 26/8/2008 at 12 : 42 : 44-----
If I could suggest, you might try learning how to just agree to disagree without insulting the character, integrity and intelligence of those who hold opposing views.

Rekna · 08-26-2008, 08:53 AM

Please ace show me by the numbers where a poor person will pay more under Obama's plan than McCains. Then also show me a case where the middle class will (say 100K joint income). I fail to see how Obama giving more money back to the poorer Americans is going to cause them to pay more....

There is a great saying. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. The article you are doing is playing with statistics to mislead people. That is why it is important to chose a metric that everyone understands when dealing with numbers. In this case, it is my opinion, that the best metric is after tax income because it is easy to understand and compare.

aceventura3 · 08-26-2008, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

nice, ace!

How very condescending of you to suggest or imply that "the democrats" - half the country (or more) - are either liars or ignorant because they dont agree with your analysis of tax policy.
-----Added 26/8/2008 at 12 : 42 : 44-----
If I could suggest, you might try learning how to just agree to disagree without insulting the character, integrity and intelligence of those who hold opposing views.

Or, perhaps someone can show me how I am wrong. I give example after example illustrating the basis of my view. The rhetoric from Democrats on the class warfare issue is dishonest or uninformed.

Let me ask you a question (to go unanswered) if the Democratic Party logic holds that raising the minimum wage is a good thing to fight poverty and minimize the numbers of people earning non-livable wages and if $7.25 is good, why not $8.25, why not $9.25, why not $20.25?

I will answer the question, assuming their logic. The goal is to do just enough to get votes. But the reality is and many know this, raising the minimum wage is an illusion. Raising the minimum wage is inflationary and has a negative impact on employment, in particular employment of unskilled labor.

I call them like I see them, if the truth is offensive - so be it. If what I write is not true, I am open to being challenged in my view.
-----Added 26/8/2008 at 02 : 10 : 14-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Please ace show me by the numbers where a poor person will pay more under Obama's plan than McCains. Then also show me a case where the middle class will (say 100K joint income). I fail to see how Obama giving more money back to the poorer Americans is going to cause them to pay more....

I can't do everything for you. I can't connect all of the dots because I don't know what you know. But, I will say this. Generally, the people who are "poor" today will not be the same people who are "poor" tomorrow. Certainly there are a group of people who will be born in poverty and stay in poverty their entire life, but this is not the norm in this country. People making low income today, will have higher incomes in the future. If they face high marginal tax rates, that is punitive. That means that the "rich" (those who made it) stay in the top percentiles and those that have not made it (being in a position to save, invest, accumulate assets) will never make it. If that's the country you want, continue to support Democratic economic policy.

McCain's tax policy is only marginally better than Obama's. I would scrap our current tax code and start over. I would not tax a person's labor, savings and investments - I would tax consumption.

If you think taxes are going down under Obama, perhaps you can show me. There are already examples on the table suggesting that a simple cut in the commonly know tax brackets does not paint a full picture.

Quote:

There is a great saying. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. The article you are doing is playing with statistics to mislead people. That is why it is important to chose a metric that everyone understands when dealing with numbers. In this case, it is my opinion, that the best metric is after tax income because it is easy to understand and compare.

When Bush proposed tax cuts, everyone with a calculator could figure out what the impact would be. We have scholarly people desperately trying to figure out what the impact of Obama's tax plan is going to be and they can not do it without making assumptions on details they can not get from Obama. Do you know what your tax obligation is going to be under Obama's plan? Whose plan makes it easier, Obama's or McCain's?

dc_dux · 08-26-2008, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Let me ask you a question (to go unanswered) if the Democratic Party logic holds that raising the minimum wage is a good thing to fight poverty and minimize the numbers of people earning non-livable wages and if $7.25 is good, why not $8.25, why not $9.25, why not $20.25?

I will answer the question, assuming their logic. The goal is to do just enough to get votes. But the reality is and many know this, raising the minimum wage is an illusion. Raising the minimum wage is inflationary and has a negative impact on employment, in particular employment of unskilled labor.

ace....this is the kind of generalization you make with no basis of fact.

You present no compelling evidence that the minimum wage is inflationary or has a negative impact on employment, particularly on unskilled labor.

Quite the contrary, according to many economists:

My post from a recent thread on minimum wage:

For years after minimum wages were first legislated at both the state and federal level, economists were divided on the impact.

In the last 10-15 years, more and more studies suggest that that the impact is positive.

There is little question that the overall impact of a minimum wage is positive, as the following facts make clear:

If the minimum wage were increased nationally to $7.25:

* 14.9 million workers would receive a raise,

- 80% of those affected are adults age 20 or over, and
- 7.3 million children would see their parents income rise.

* Families with affected workers rely on those workers for over half of their earnings.

* 46% of all families with affected workers rely solely on the earnings from those workers.

* The best recent research on the economic impact of the minimum wage shows positive effects without job loss.

* Even the research that suggests a negative labor market effect shows only a minimal impact that is more than offset by the higher wage levels.

* The states that have adopted higher-than-federal minimum wages have seen low-wage workers’ incomes rise with no negative side-effects.

* Over 650 economists, including five Nobel Prize winners and six past presidents of the American Economics Association, recently signed a statement stating that federal and state minimum wage increases “can significantly improve the lives of low-income workers and their families, without the adverse effects that critics have claimed”
...

The belief that raising the minimum wage causes job loss was more commonly accepted by economists decades ago, but high-quality research by leading academic economists has forced the economic community to re-evaluate these arguments. This consensus view rapidly eroded following evidence from the 1990s. Even Benjamin Bernanke, President Bush’s appointee as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, has noted that “economists disagree about …whether increases in the minimum wage reduce employment of low-wage workers”(Bernanke 2006). In lieu of negative employment effects, economists are frequently citing higher productivity, decreased turnover, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale as ways in which employers may be able to offset some of the costs of a wage increase .

Some distinguished economists have acknowledged their change of opinion on the issue. Former Federal Reserve Vice Chairman and current Princeton economist Alan Blinder commented, “My thinking on this has changed dramatically. The evidence appears to be against the simple-minded theory that a modest increase in the minimum wage causes substantial job loss”
...

Following the 1997 federal minimum wage increase, Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University observed, “We saw no ripple effect at all in the unemployment rate. Unemployment just continued to go down.” The minimum wage increase, he said, “was totally swamped by other factors going on in the economy” (Chipman 2006). Accordingly, the 1999 Economic Report of the President stated: “Many studies have examined this issue, and the weight of the evidence suggests that modest increases in the minimum wage have had very little or no effect on employment.”

...

In response to dire predictions made by minimum wage opponents prior to the enactment of Florida’s minimum wage, Bruce Nissen of Florida International University and Luke Shaefer of the University of Chicago followed up with a comprehensive study of Florida’s economy one year after the minimum wage increase. Their conclusion:

No empirical evidence shows that Florida’s minimum wage has caused businesses to lay off workers. Instead, state employment has shown strong growth since the new wage took effect, better than in previous years and better than the U.S. as a whole.

Similarly, an examination of the Wisconsin labor market one year following the implementation of an increase by the Center on Wisconsin Strategy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison found that the most-affected industry, eating and drinking establishments, grew three times more rapidly than the overall Wisconsin job growth rate.

Washington has the highest minimum wage in the country and was the first state to annually adjust its state minimum wage for cost-of-living increases. The Washington-based Economic Opportunity Institute has found that Washington has out-performed the rest of the country in jobs since the end of the recession in November 2001, and that industries most-heavily affected by the minimum wage have not seen adverse employment impacts.

Studies by the Oregon Center for Public Policy have found that Oregon has had faster job growth than 41 other states since its minimum wage and indexing went into effect in 2002. Furthermore, low-wage employers have been adding jobs at a faster rate than Oregon employers overall since the higher minimum wage and annual cost-of-living adjustments were implemented

A recent Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimum wages found no evidence of negative employment effects on small businesses or in the retail industry. Examining government data, FPI found that none of the many states that have raised their minimum wages above the federal level have seen labor market or other economic problems arising from their higher rates.

Minimum wage trends: Understanding past and contemporary research

/end threadjack...feel free to go back to your tax policy arguments if Rekna or anyone is interested in discussing it with you further.

aceventura3 · 08-26-2008, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....this is the kind of generalization you make with no basis of fact.

You present no compelling evidence that the minimum wage is inflationary or has a negative impact on employment, particularly on unskilled labor.

Quite the contrary, according to many economists:

My post from a recent thread on minimum wage:

For years after minimum wages were first legislated at both the state and federal level, economists were divided on the impact.

In the last 10-15 years, more and more studies suggest that that the impact is positive.

There is little question that the overall impact of a minimum wage is positive, as the following facts make clear:

If the minimum wage were increased nationally to $7.25:

* 14.9 million workers would receive a raise,

- 80% of those affected are adults age 20 or over, and
- 7.3 million children would see their parents income rise.

* Families with affected workers rely on those workers for over half of their earnings.

* 46% of all families with affected workers rely solely on the earnings from those workers.

* The best recent research on the economic impact of the minimum wage shows positive effects without job loss.

* Even the research that suggests a negative labor market effect shows only a minimal impact that is more than offset by the higher wage levels.

* The states that have adopted higher-than-federal minimum wages have seen low-wage workers’ incomes rise with no negative side-effects.

* Over 650 economists, including five Nobel Prize winners and six past presidents of the American Economics Association, recently signed a statement stating that federal and state minimum wage increases “can significantly improve the lives of low-income workers and their families, without the adverse effects that critics have claimed”
...

The belief that raising the minimum wage causes job loss was more commonly accepted by economists decades ago, but high-quality research by leading academic economists has forced the economic community to re-evaluate these arguments. This consensus view rapidly eroded following evidence from the 1990s. Even Benjamin Bernanke, President Bush’s appointee as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, has noted that “economists disagree about …whether increases in the minimum wage reduce employment of low-wage workers”(Bernanke 2006). In lieu of negative employment effects, economists are frequently citing higher productivity, decreased turnover, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale as ways in which employers may be able to offset some of the costs of a wage increase .

Some distinguished economists have acknowledged their change of opinion on the issue. Former Federal Reserve Vice Chairman and current Princeton economist Alan Blinder commented, “My thinking on this has changed dramatically. The evidence appears to be against the simple-minded theory that a modest increase in the minimum wage causes substantial job loss”
...

Following the 1997 federal minimum wage increase, Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University observed, “We saw no ripple effect at all in the unemployment rate. Unemployment just continued to go down.” The minimum wage increase, he said, “was totally swamped by other factors going on in the economy” (Chipman 2006). Accordingly, the 1999 Economic Report of the President stated: “Many studies have examined this issue, and the weight of the evidence suggests that modest increases in the minimum wage have had very little or no effect on employment.”

...

In response to dire predictions made by minimum wage opponents prior to the enactment of Florida’s minimum wage, Bruce Nissen of Florida International University and Luke Shaefer of the University of Chicago followed up with a comprehensive study of Florida’s economy one year after the minimum wage increase. Their conclusion:

No empirical evidence shows that Florida’s minimum wage has caused businesses to lay off workers. Instead, state employment has shown strong growth since the new wage took effect, better than in previous years and better than the U.S. as a whole.

Similarly, an examination of the Wisconsin labor market one year following the implementation of an increase by the Center on Wisconsin Strategy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison found that the most-affected industry, eating and drinking establishments, grew three times more rapidly than the overall Wisconsin job growth rate.

Washington has the highest minimum wage in the country and was the first state to annually adjust its state minimum wage for cost-of-living increases. The Washington-based Economic Opportunity Institute has found that Washington has out-performed the rest of the country in jobs since the end of the recession in November 2001, and that industries most-heavily affected by the minimum wage have not seen adverse employment impacts.

Studies by the Oregon Center for Public Policy have found that Oregon has had faster job growth than 41 other states since its minimum wage and indexing went into effect in 2002. Furthermore, low-wage employers have been adding jobs at a faster rate than Oregon employers overall since the higher minimum wage and annual cost-of-living adjustments were implemented

A recent Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimum wages found no evidence of negative employment effects on small businesses or in the retail industry. Examining government data, FPI found that none of the many states that have raised their minimum wages above the federal level have seen labor market or other economic problems arising from their higher rates.

Minimum wage trends: Understanding past and contemporary research

/end threadjack...feel free to go back to your tax policy arguments if Rekna or anyone is interested in discussing it with you further.

Smoke and mirrors. Why not address the fundamental question.

If increases in the minimum wage are good, why not do more?

Like most economic issues there is a point of diminishing returns. If the prevailing entry level wage in an area is $10/hr. and the minimum wage is $5.25, the minimum wage has no impact. If it is raised to $7.25 it still has no impact. Raise it to $12/hour it has an impact and the impact is inflationary. If the value of the job is $10/hour an employer won't hire a person at $12/hour. If a person enters the work force and gains marketable skills they will get the prevailing wage commiserate with their skill. Legislation has no magical impact on real wages. I would love to talk to the economist who argues otherwise.

In order to make sense of economic data and statistics we have to look at the methodology used and understand the assumptions employed. We have to give the questions some thought.

The minimum wage issue is an method to get votes. People sincere about livable wages understand that livable wages come from people having marketable skills in the labor market. As a nation if we invest in education and training the minimum wage is a non-issue. Every so often Democrats trot out the minimum wage issue, get an increase and use it as a major accomplishment. However, unemployment in some of our urban areas for young adults is locked down in double digits, have been and it will continue. Now, you want me to believe that those who use this issue decade after decade actually want to make a difference?

{added} Here is one of my favorite economists, Milton Friedman on the minimum wage - he is more diplomatic than I am.
Link to Youtube video.

Quote:

YouTube - Milton Friedman on Minimum Wage

Rekna · 08-26-2008, 02:02 PM

Ever consider that maybe the effect of minimum wage is non-linear? Like most optimization problems there is a sweet spot for the minimum wage where it balances the needs of the people with the needs of the businesses. The argument is where is that sweet spot. Obviously the dems feel it is higher than we currently are and the republicans feel it is lower than we currently are.

Where the minimum wage should be is a very complex problem that no one understands completely because there are too many variables to measure and predict. The minimum wage may hurt one aspect of the economy while helping another. In this case the question comes down to is the tradeoff worth it. When you say why not just raise it to $20 an hour you are over simplifying the problem and incorrectly representing the democratic position on minimum wage.

aceventura3 · 08-27-2008, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Ever consider that maybe the effect of minimum wage is non-linear? Like most optimization problems there is a sweet spot for the minimum wage where it balances the needs of the people with the needs of the businesses. The argument is where is that sweet spot. Obviously the dems feel it is higher than we currently are and the republicans feel it is lower than we currently are.

I think minimum wage legislation is a lose/lose proposition. If the minimum wage is set below market wages, no one will benefit because people are making more than the minimum. If the minimum wage is set above market wages, something in the market has to change - either prices go up or the demand for labor goes down. If there is another possibility, I am open to looking into it. In some of the data DC posted we have to look at the tail. I agree that if we raise the minimum wage today, that today some workers benefit and it will take some time for the market to respond to the newly mandated wage. But the market will respond.

Quote:

Where the minimum wage should be is a very complex problem that no one understands completely because there are too many variables to measure and predict. The minimum wage may hurt one aspect of the economy while helping another. In this case the question comes down to is the tradeoff worth it. When you say why not just raise it to $20 an hour you are over simplifying the problem and incorrectly representing the democratic position on minimum wage.

This is one reason why we should spend at least a small amount of time and go outside the beltway and talk to business owners.

Let's say you own a fast food service restaurant grossing $1 million per year. Let's say your employee costs (most at minimum wage) is $600,000, and after the other costs your net profit is $50,000 (5% net profit margin). Then they raise the minimum wage 10% and that increases your employee cost to $660,000 an increase of $60,000.

What are you going to do?

Your $50,000 net profit is now a $10,000 net loss, do you go out of business and fire your employees?

Do you try to raise prices?

Do you ask fewer employees to do more work to keep your costs at $600,000?

Do you automate activities so you need fewer employees?

Do you cut back services to you customer risking the loss of sales?

No matter how you answer these questions there are going to be two results - inflation or job loss.

Poppinjay · 08-27-2008, 07:43 AM

I've never understood the conservative minimum wage/market philosophy.

Privatize everything, let the market determine the best provider of X.

Don't raise the minimum wage, the provider will just fire workers to maintain profitability.

So we should trust the market to provide, but be wary that if they have to pay the janitor another 75 cents, they will fire him instead of reducing the CEO's salary from $20,000,000 to $19,999,925. That's business ethics for you.

aceventura3 · 08-27-2008, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

I've never understood the conservative minimum wage/market philosophy.

Privatize everything, let the market determine the best provider of X.

Don't raise the minimum wage, the provider will just fire workers to maintain profitability.

So we should trust the market to provide, but be wary that if they have to pay the janitor another 75 cents, they will fire him instead of reducing the CEO's salary from $20,000,000 to $19,999,925. That's business ethics for you.

You won't find many people making minimum wage in companies where the CEO is making $20 million or wages in that range. In large corporations where a person starts at minimum wage it is unusual that they would stay at minimum wage for very long. Where you find minimum wage employees are in small businesses. So, why not answer the questions I presented, what would you do?

Also, why do you assume that people are not smart enough to realize that if they have marketable job skills and experience that they can change employers if their current employer is not paying them a fair market wage? Gee, when I insult people I know when I am doing it. But, I guess it is the assumption that people are too dumb to get a fair wage that causes some to think that big government has to come to the rescue.

Poppinjay · 08-27-2008, 08:22 AM

What are your questions based on, an actual operation?

The reason we have the minimum wage law, as well as several other employment laws and labor day, is because we found out what big business would do if left unchecked. They would prefer to make people work 16 hours a day and employ 8 year olds.

Quote:

You won't find many people making minimum wage in companies where the CEO is making $20 million or wages in that range.

Jim Skinner makes $13.4M, and received a $4M bonus for valiantly sitting in a chair for six months.

Cynthetiq · 08-27-2008, 08:30 AM

c'mon guys... taxes under McCain or Obama.... want to talk about taxes on the salary side of the minimum wagers fine, but we've got threads about CEO compensation, and another about minimum wage.

dc_dux · 08-27-2008, 09:18 AM

According to the Tax Policy Center, McCain's tax plan could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion (plus interest) and Obama's by as much as $3.3 trillion (plus interest).

The debt increase of nearly $5 trillion over the last 7 years is due in large part to Bush's tax cuts. Do we really want to increase the national debt by another $3-4 trillion over the next 10 years?

Comparing the two plans, their is no doubt in my mind that the middle class and working poor would benefit more under Obamal's plan, (and that doesnt make me ignorant or a liar as has been suggested earlier in this discussion) and I also know which plan costs more.

But at some point the America people need to be told that a little more personal sacrifice may be required. That would particularly apply to the wealthiest.

So, IMO, the best scenario, assuming serious reform and overhaul of the tax code is unlikely, would be to return to the pre-2000 rates.

Poppinjay · 08-27-2008, 09:26 AM

Quote:

c'mon guys... taxes under McCain or Obama.... want to talk about taxes on the salary side of the minimum wagers fine, but we've got threads about CEO compensation, and another about minimum wage.

Yes sir, sorry sir. (whacks back of hand with ruler)

I will pay more taxes under Obama, like $43 more. If there's even a chance that McCain will pursue the same economic policies that ten trillion dollar Bush has, I consider it money well spent.

aceventura3 · 08-27-2008, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

According to the Tax Policy Center, McCain's tax plan could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion (plus interest) and Obama's by as much as $3.3 trillion (plus interest).

The numbers are based on the assumption that the Bush tax cuts expire which McCain would then make permanent and Obama wouldn't (only selected portions of the Bush tax cuts). However, McCain talks about dramatic spending cuts, I have heard him say up to 20% in the discretionary budget, this is not reflected in the debt numbers stated. The Center believes Obama's health plan would have the federal government insure or subsidize about 17 million more people by 2009 and 29 million by 2018 as compared to McCain's plan. No one knows what these numbers would do to the debt.

The Executive Summary of the Tax Policy Center report makes most of the above pretty clear, along with the fact that the lack of specifics from the campaigns made making their estimates difficult. Details, details...

Does anyone really believe that a Democrat controlled Congress and White House will actually show spending restraint? The Republicans could not do it. Our best hope is gridlock, perhaps a Republican Congress, and a Democratic President.

Rekna · 08-27-2008, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The numbers are based on the assumption that the Bush tax cuts expire which McCain would then make permanent and Obama wouldn't (only selected portions of the Bush tax cuts). However, McCain talks about dramatic spending cuts, I have heard him say up to 20% in the discretionary budget, this is not reflected in the debt numbers stated. The Center believes Obama's health plan would have the federal government insure or subsidize about 17 million more people by 2009 and 29 million by 2018 as compared to McCain's plan. No one knows what these numbers would do to the debt.

The Executive Summary of the Tax Policy Center report makes most of the above pretty clear, along with the fact that the lack of specifics from the campaigns made making their estimates difficult. Details, details...

Does anyone really believe that a Democrat controlled Congress and White House will actually show spending restraint? The Republicans could not do it. Our best hope is gridlock, perhaps a Republican Congress, and a Democratic President.

Well it wasn't long ago that we had a balanced budget and it was done under a democrat....

aceventura3 · 08-27-2008, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Well it wasn't long ago that we had a balanced budget and it was done under a democrat....

...with a Republican Congress. Oh, and an unrealistic stock market boom during the 90's, and wild real estate speculation. Details, details...

dc_dux · 08-27-2008, 10:49 AM

Budget proposals start at the White House.

Clinton's last three budget proposals were balanced budgets (with surpluses) and negotiated with a Republican Congress.

His first five budget proposals paid down the Reagan/Bush debt with lower annual deficits each year and those were negotiated with a Democratic Congress.

I dont recall either Reagan or GHW Bush ever proposing a balanced budget. Certainly, GW Bush never did.

The national debt increased significantly under Reagan/Bush, decreased under Clinton, and zoomed to record levels under GW Bush.

The myth is that the Republicans are the fiscally responsible party.

08-13-2008, 08:25 AM	#43 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	An understanding of the two candidates' tax policies doesnt have to be all that complicated. If you believe in a supply side, trickle down tax and economic policy, you will support McCain's position. If you believe the middle class, rather than the top wage earners, should be the primary beneficiaries of tax policy, you will support Obama's. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

08-19-2008, 07:04 AM	#52 (permalink)
Iliftrocks Junkie Location: Near Raleigh, NC	We got bills to pay, the only way to raise that money is to raise taxes AND decrease spending. I'm sorry but the republican party as a whole is bad at both, dems only better at paying bills.... My first choice on decreasing spending is get rid of Homeland Security, and while we're at it, most of the secret organizations, why do we need so many? Both parties need to quit throwing around "free" money to stimulate the economy. That works about as well as trickle down economics..... Once the bills are paid, then for Pete's sake cut taxes AND DON'T increase spending again. Utopia or bust!!!!! __________________ bill hicks - "I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out."

08-25-2008, 03:38 PM	#62 (permalink)
hunnychile Alien Anthropologist Location: Between Boredom and Nirvana	[QUOTE=filtherton;2504430]I didn't even look before I voted, because I knew I'd pay more under McCain. Ahem, he's a Republican and I'm middleclass. Pretty clear answer. Eh? __________________ "I need compassion, understanding and chocolate." - NJB

08-27-2008, 07:43 AM	#71 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	I've never understood the conservative minimum wage/market philosophy. Privatize everything, let the market determine the best provider of X. Don't raise the minimum wage, the provider will just fire workers to maintain profitability. So we should trust the market to provide, but be wary that if they have to pay the janitor another 75 cents, they will fire him instead of reducing the CEO's salary from $20,000,000 to $19,999,925. That's business ethics for you. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

08-27-2008, 08:30 AM	#74 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	c'mon guys... taxes under McCain or Obama.... want to talk about taxes on the salary side of the minimum wagers fine, but we've got threads about CEO compensation, and another about minimum wage. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

View Poll Results: Who will you pay more taxes with?
Obama	20	37.74%
Mc'Cain	29	54.72%
Neither	4	7.55%
Voters: 53. You may not vote on this poll

08-25-2008, 03:30 PM	#61 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	I'd pay more under McCain. SHOCKING

08-26-2008, 08:53 AM	#65 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Please ace show me by the numbers where a poor person will pay more under Obama's plan than McCains. Then also show me a case where the middle class will (say 100K joint income). I fail to see how Obama giving more money back to the poorer Americans is going to cause them to pay more.... There is a great saying. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. The article you are doing is playing with statistics to mislead people. That is why it is important to chose a metric that everyone understands when dealing with numbers. In this case, it is my opinion, that the best metric is after tax income because it is easy to understand and compare.

08-26-2008, 02:02 PM	#69 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Ever consider that maybe the effect of minimum wage is non-linear? Like most optimization problems there is a sweet spot for the minimum wage where it balances the needs of the people with the needs of the businesses. The argument is where is that sweet spot. Obviously the dems feel it is higher than we currently are and the republicans feel it is lower than we currently are. Where the minimum wage should be is a very complex problem that no one understands completely because there are too many variables to measure and predict. The minimum wage may hurt one aspect of the economy while helping another. In this case the question comes down to is the tradeoff worth it. When you say why not just raise it to $20 an hour you are over simplifying the problem and incorrectly representing the democratic position on minimum wage.

08-27-2008, 09:18 AM	#75 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	According to the Tax Policy Center, McCain's tax plan could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion (plus interest) and Obama's by as much as $3.3 trillion (plus interest). The debt increase of nearly $5 trillion over the last 7 years is due in large part to Bush's tax cuts. Do we really want to increase the national debt by another $3-4 trillion over the next 10 years? Comparing the two plans, their is no doubt in my mind that the middle class and working poor would benefit more under Obamal's plan, (and that doesnt make me ignorant or a liar as has been suggested earlier in this discussion) and I also know which plan costs more. But at some point the America people need to be told that a little more personal sacrifice may be required. That would particularly apply to the wealthiest. So, IMO, the best scenario, assuming serious reform and overhaul of the tax code is unlikely, would be to return to the pre-2000 rates. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 08-27-2008 at 09:36 AM..

08-27-2008, 10:49 AM	#80 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Budget proposals start at the White House. Clinton's last three budget proposals were balanced budgets (with surpluses) and negotiated with a Republican Congress. His first five budget proposals paid down the Reagan/Bush debt with lower annual deficits each year and those were negotiated with a Democratic Congress. I dont recall either Reagan or GHW Bush ever proposing a balanced budget. Certainly, GW Bush never did. The national debt increased significantly under Reagan/Bush, decreased under Clinton, and zoomed to record levels under GW Bush. The myth is that the Republicans are the fiscally responsible party. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire