Bush Impeachment Hearing

[rwh11385]

What do you do for a living, master economist?

Close. One of my co-workers actually just changed jobs to be an economist actually... I analyze markets and economic data to recommend actions to companies, CEOs, that kind of thing. (And they aren't hiding out for brighter days of the economy or anything... they are acting)

So perhaps I am used to studying economics than some uneducated kook in the Souf.

[Lair]

You're fucking 24 years old????

Goddamn. I can't believe I've been arguing about the economy with some douchebag kid.


:rofl:

[rwh11385]

You're fucking 24 years old????

Goddamn. I can't believe I've been arguing about the economy with some douchebag kid.


:rofl:

Actually, no. You do suck at math.

It's okay, I can understand the frustration you must be going through to think the bullshit you read makes sense in your ignorance and then be shown to have a weaker grasp on economics by several people less than half your age.

[Lair]

oops - 23 years old.

That makes it better. :rofl: :rofl:

[atomic]

Come back when you 'have more time' and prove that I'm wrong.

"Reliable sources." I can tell by your Obama tax quote that you love to lie like your republican brethren. Keep catapulting the propaganda. There are at least 59 million idiots out there who will buy it.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/upload/wm_1973.pdf

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm1973.cfm

June 26, 2008
European Levels of Taxation: Barack Obama's Tax Plan
by Rea S. Hederman, Jr. and Patrick Tyrrell
WebMemo #1973

Note: Representatives of the Obama campaign have informed the authors that the campaign is not committed to the full 12.4 hike in the payroll tax. An increase in the payroll tax is merely one of many different tax increases that are being considered for those making over $250,000. The Obama campaign implies that the tax increase on those earning over $250,000 may not be limited to earnings but also cover different types of income. Despite questioning, the campaign has not provided any more details.

Presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama (D–Ill.) has unveiled his economic plan of raising taxes on the successful. His plan would boost the top marginal rate to well over 55 percent—before the inclusion of state and local taxes—resulting in many individuals seeing their marginal tax rate double. The consequences of this policy would be a return to the bad old days of tax avoidance, with taxpayers disguising personal income as business income or capital gains and the migration of capital from the United States to abroad.

Among the more prominent elements of his tax proposal, Senator Obama would end the Bush tax cuts and allow the top two tax rates to return to 36 and 39.6 percent. He also would allow personal exemptions and deductions to be phased out for those with income over $250,000. The real kicker, though, is that Senator Obama would end the Social Security payroll tax cap for those over $250,000 in earnings. (The cap is currently set at $102,000.) These individuals will then face a tax rate of 15.65 percent from payroll taxes and the top income tax rate of 39.6 percent for a combined top rate of over 56 percent on each additional dollar earned.

High-income individuals will be forced to pay even more if they live in cities or states with high taxes such as New York City, California, or Maryland. These unlucky people would pay over two-thirds of each new dollar in earnings to the federal government.

How the Obama Tax Plan Compares to Other Countries

Senator Obama's new tax rate would give the United States one of the highest tax rates among developed countries. Currently only six of the top 30 industrial nations have a tax rate for all levels of government combined of over 55 percent. Under this tax plan, the United States would join this group and have a higher top rate than such high-tax nations as Sweden and Denmark. The top marginal rate would exceed 60 percent with the inclusion of state and local taxes, which means that only Hungary would exceed Senator Obama's new proposed top tax rate.

The costs in economic terms of such high taxes are real. For example, of the six countries with higher tax rates than 55 percent, the average unemployment rate is 7.35 percent (see chart). This figure includes Denmark, which appears to have a very low unemployment rate of 3.9 percent. However, Denmark spends over 5 percent of its GDP on unemployment programs and benefits, thereby increasing its unemployment rate.[1]

A Return to the Bad Old Days

Historically, Senator Obama's tax rate would be the highest individual tax rate since the Jimmy Carter days. Tax shelters and tax avoidance strategies were common when the top marginal rate was 70 percent or higher. This new top tax rate will again encourage these gimmicks, reducing investment and economic growth as resources are squandered in an attempt to avoid punitive taxation.

Many individuals will attempt to transfer their compensation from wages to capital gains, since capital gains would only be taxed at 25 percent, or less than half of the top rate on wages. This would put a great deal of pressure on a company to do anything it could to make its stock quickly increase in value. Other individuals would try to incorporate so they could pay business taxes instead of having to pay taxes on their wages. Again, these resources would be diverted away from more productive uses and slow the economy.


High tax rates also encourage capital and income flight to lower-taxed areas. There is ample evidence in the United States of individuals and businesses moving to states such as Florida or Delaware to take advantage of their tax-friendly laws. A higher federal tax rate would encourage individuals to move assets abroad to take advantage of lower tax rates in countries such as Canada, France, and Great Britain.

These high tax rates could also have a large impact on the labor force. Many workers could choose to reduce their hours or simply retire in the face of such high taxation. Economists usually argue a great deal about what effect minor changes in the tax code will have on incentives to work. However, the Obama plan calls for a tax increase so large that economists will be focusing on the harm to the overall economy rather than just the isolated effects on labor and on capital.

A Finite Source of Revenue

Perhaps a larger worry than the damage to the economy is the long-run budget problem of the United States. While Senator Obama raises taxes a great deal on upper income individuals, the overall tax plan increases the national deficit. As a result, the country will be even less prepared to pay for current and future Social Security and Medicare obligations. When money is needed to pay for those programs, it will be hard to tax the rich even more, given that the top rate will already be so high. Instead, in order to pay the government's spending and entitlement shortfalls, taxes would fall most heavily on middle-income Americans. After all, even successful taxpayers are not an infinite source of revenue.

Rea S. Hederman, Jr., is a Senior Policy Analyst and the Assistant Director, and Patrick Tyrrell is a Research Assistant, in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.

[Lair]

How about a non-partisan analysis?

I promse that the truth won't hurt you.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publi....cfm?ID=411741

[rwh11385]

I promse that the truth won't hurt you.

The truth is that if Obama gets elected, it will hurt all of the nation, especially those in lower class (rational is if push comes to shove, everyone else will get by but those without options will get fucked) and piss off the higher income segments.

The two candidates’ tax plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain’s tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those tax cuts would be small as a share of after-tax income. In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise significantly.

The majority of tax revenue are already paid by the highest 5% of incomes, so why put more pressure on them? (and drive AWAY business more and discourage business here).



and even if the tax RATE was cut... the rich still paid for a higher % of the tax revenues... which is what Obama would want right? And with business growing because of the encouragement of Bush tax rates, everyone benefits.

[Lair]

The truth is that if Obama gets elected, it will hurt all of the nation

How did you come to this conclusion?

Crystal ball?

[rwh11385]

How did you come to this conclusion?

Crystal ball?

Economics. If the government takes more money from the important and harder to replace high-income workers, they would need to be paid more for same disposable income, so higher management costs... along with that moronic minimum wage increase for the lower end. Businesses have much less incentive to be located here, and more to go somewhere else. With higher tax rate, there would be more incentive for the bright and talented people to become ex-pats and work in Europe or otherwise. There's a lot of opportunity in Asia as well because they need managers.

Low income people don't re-invest their money wisely either. A lot of people with money invest in the market, or better yet invest in businesses. If they keep the same tax rate, they'll keep helping to drive up business investment. If they get that removed, they will reduce. Poor people would just spend more at Walmart and help China, not us.

Not to mention higher medical costs because those doctors would be affected... so the poor without health insurance hurt. And the government would have to pay more for medical care for those who they foot the bill for...

If Obama does get elected, I'm buying Church's Chicken stock.

[Lair]

Sounds good on paper - which is the extent of your experience.

[gwb72tii]

You're fucking 24 years old????

Goddamn. I can't believe I've been arguing about the economy with some douchebag kid.


:rofl:

ignorance has no claim on age

[rwh11385]

Sounds good on paper - which is the extent of your experience.

you know the plumber at work has a lot of experience in his job... but no one goes to him for financial advice...

[Lair]

ignorance has no claim on age

Obviously. There are at least half a dozen ignorant kids in this thread.*






*Other than the genius kids who have a "certificate" and one year in the work force.



:rofl:

[Lair]

you know the plumber at work has a lot of experience in his job... but no one goes to him for financial advice...

Nobody goes to a plumber with one year of practical experience when their pipes leak, either.

[rwh11385]

Did you even go to college? Or graduate high school?

You're clearly not familiar with the industries involved with analysts...