Being Real on Taxes

[TooFarTampa]

Geo,

If Obama is elected, do you want him to spend more money than we currently spend or less?

You didn't ask me, but I'm more than OK with spending on infrastructure that would create jobs in the construction industry -- which is extremely important right now. I know people from the top to the bottom in construction who have been absolutely devastated by the downturn and it would be great to get those people jobs & income while doing something useful.

That would seem to be "temporary" spending -- there would be goals laid out, a beginning and and end, so again, I'm OK with it.

I'm also definitely in favor of an energy Manhattan-type project. More than anything it seems like a great idea to use our government to lead and guide and inspire a big-time investment in alternative energy research. Whether that can be done in the private sector or the public sector, I think it's very important for strong leadership from Washington and yes, funding if necessary. Even if we drill -- it's not going to be enough.

 

[30ashopper]

I get what you are saying, but trying to get it out of the middle class is like squeezing blood from a turnip.

From what I understand -- and I think I have seen your charts before, or at least some very similar -- most of the income from the top 1 percent of earners comes from capital gains, not from earned regular income. That would be taxed at 15 percent (probably 20 percent in an Obama administration). It is hard to feel sorry for those folks!

Here is the latest from cnn.money.com on what to expect, posted today with a breakdown by income:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/29/news/economy/candidates_tax_plans/index.htm?postversion=2008102911

15 to 20 on capital gains really doesn't bother me. But remember, Obama less than a year ago publically stated he thought 28% was 'just fine'. Just because he slid to the center on tax policy during the general election does not mean he actually slid to the center.

From your article TFT -

"If you make under $250,000, you will not see your taxes increase by a single dime - not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, nothing," Obama said Tuesday. "Because the last thing we should do in this economy is raise taxes on the middle class."

I would be willing to put money on him breaking this promise within his first term.

 

[Geo]

I would be willing to put money on him breaking this promise within his first term.

How much? If enough people want in I could be the booky on this...

 

[TooFarTampa]

15 to 20 on capital gains really doesn't bother me. But remember, Obama less than a year ago publically stated he thought 28% was 'just fine'. Just because he slid to the center on tax policy during the general election does not mean he actually slid to the center.

From your article TFT -

"If you make under $250,000, you will not see your taxes increase by a single dime - not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, nothing," Obama said Tuesday. "Because the last thing we should do in this economy is raise taxes on the middle class."

I would be willing to put money on him breaking this promise within his first term.

Did you read Obamanomics in New York Magazine? He's not all that worried about deficits in the near term. I think he will stick to his promises, at least through the first term, and if he's really brave :roll: will try to address the Soc Sec mess in a second term ... then who the heck knows what the tax structure will look like.

I think the majority of the argument against Obama is that people don't believe he says what he means. I think he does. He has placed such an emphasis on being "what you see is what you get" and campaigning on issues with very few tweaks to his overall plan, that anything less than truthfulness will guarantee that he will be booted out in 2012.

 

[traderx]

You didn't ask me, but I'm more than OK with spending on infrastructure that would create jobs in the construction industry -- which is extremely important right now. I know people from the top to the bottom in construction who have been absolutely devastated by the downturn and it would be great to get those people jobs while doing something useful.

That would seem to be "temporary" spending -- there would be goals laid out, a beginning and and end, so again, I'm OK with it.

I'm also definitely in favor of an energy Manhattan-type project. More than anything it seems like a great idea to use our government to lead and guide and inspire a big-time investment in alternative energy research. Whether that can be done in the private sector or the public sector, I think it's very important for strong leadership from Washington and yes, funding if necessary. Even if we drill -- it's not going to be enough.

I figured you were watching the World Series. Sorry, I was pulling for the Rays...

Yes, we undoubtedly will launch a Keynesian-style public works program. It failed in the 1930's to bring us out of the Great Depression and it likely will fail to snap us out of the current mess we are in. Incidentally, Krugman has taken to calling himself a "Neo Keynesian". I am not sure what they means exactly but he is enthused, I mean just enthused, with European infrastructure.

I am all for renewable energy. I am just against the government supplying the money. If it is viable, private money will back it.

 

[TooFarTampa]

I figured you were watching the World Series. Sorry, I was pulling for the Rays...

Yes, we undoubtedly will launch a Keynesian-style public works program. It failed in the 1930's to bring us out of the Great Depression and it likely will fail to snap us out of the current mess we are in. Incidentally, Krugman has taken to calling himself a "Neo Keynesian". I am not sure what they means exactly but he is enthused, I mean just enthused, with European infrastructure.

I am all for renewable energy. I am just against the government supplying the money. If it is viable, private money will back it.

Go Rays! It was a great season ...

Well, after the bailout situation, we are all Keynesians now. Whether we end up making a bit of money, breaking even or losing our shirts, the bailout has expanded government greatly, Obama's plans would just be a natural progression of that momentum.

What I don't understand is why some economists think there is only one way to run an economy. Since the economy does not function in a vaccuum, isn't it true that there are always going to be (and should be) pendulum swings -- "eras" if you will -- as the times change? Even if it makes you break out in hives?

 

[30ashopper]

How much? If enough people want in I could be the booky on this...

Dinner at Caliza, I'll cover up to ten bets at a max of 250.00 a check. (did you get the irony in that? )

"If you make under $250,000, you will not see your taxes increase by a single dime."

- Obama

The bet is clear. 4 years from Jan. 20th 2009, no additional taxes levied on any family of four or more making 250K a year or less. Geo, find me some takers...

 

[TooFarTampa]

Dinner at Caliza, I'll cover up to ten bets at a max of 250.00 a check. (did you get the irony in that? )

"If you make under $250,000, you will not see your taxes increase by a single dime."

- Obama

The bet is clear. 4 years from Jan. 20th 2009, no additional taxes levied on any family of four or more making 250K a year or less. Geo, find me some takers...

And if you win ... ?

 

[butterfly1219]

creative accountant

Hey Geo!
i am looking for that " creative accountant" ? Do you know of one ? Need some help fast! Thanks!

 

[30ashopper]

Dinner at Caliza, I'll cover up to ten bets at a max of 250.00 a check. (did you get the irony in that? )

"If you make under $250,000, you will not see your taxes increase by a single dime."

- Obama

The bet is clear. 4 years from Jan. 20th 2009, no additional taxes levied on any family of four or more making 250K a year or less. Geo, find me some takers...

Somebody owes me dinner.