Quote :

"Obama has pledged to keep the tax cuts in place for everyone except those making roughly $250,000 and up. He has also made proposals to cut taxes further for the middle class, some of which he reiterated in his speech: exempt seniors making less than $50,000 from having to pay income tax; give a tax credit worth up to $500 per working person ($1,000 per family) to offset the Social Security tax on the first $8,100 of earnings; and expand the earned income tax credit. To boost retirement savings, he has also proposed a 50% federal match on the first $1,000 of savings for families that earn under $75,000."

I was interested on points of view from the left and right on this issue.

Also, this sheds some light on the "give everyone a savings account" policy that i think HUR was talking about at one time. While I don't entirely agree on Obama's position on this and can't really judge too negatively on it as I can see its purpose. I'd have to hear more precise information on its mode of execution.

Other than that I'm really happy that the bulk of tax cuts will be kept in place, as this was one of my issues with Obama's fiscal policy. I think its making this switch as to appeal to a wider base of moderates that might choose McCain for fiscal policy alone

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/09/news/economy/obama_economy_changetour/index.htm?cnn=yes

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 10:02 PM. Reason : link.]

6/9/2008 10:01:59 PM

sounds good as long as he keeps his word

Read my lips...

6/9/2008 10:07:08 PM

so hows he paying for universal healthcare again?

6/9/2008 10:08:03 PM

PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED PLEDGED

6/9/2008 10:09:08 PM

^^tax increases on the rich, capital gains, and businesses.

I expected this. He's said all along that he would cut taxes on the middle class and poor.

The problem is that when the government shifts the tax burden overwhelmingly on business and the rich, the economy suffers and revenues drop considerably.

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 10:11 PM. Reason : 2]

6/9/2008 10:10:44 PM

This is horseshit. We all know that those bush tax cuts didnt help out those people anyway. hahaha

6/9/2008 10:12:16 PM

6/9/2008 10:28:56 PM

I liked my 600 bucks.

bring it on

6/9/2008 10:35:24 PM

encourage people to strive to work hard and get wealthy, by giving them incentives like higher taxes on them once they get wealthy...brilliant

6/9/2008 10:57:54 PM

i'd much rather be rich and pay more taxes than be poor and hardly pay any taxes

6/9/2008 10:58:48 PM

living on welfare .. the american dream according to obama

6/9/2008 11:01:20 PM

I thought the american dream was making little and getting it taxed to fuck.

6/9/2008 11:03:26 PM

^^^i too would...rather have more money...but how can you honestly think its fair that someone gets punished for succeeding? thats some crabs in a bucket jealousy type shit

6/9/2008 11:04:32 PM

i think its fair cause being rich is da bomb

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 11:05 PM. Reason : i'd smoke weed all the time]

6/9/2008 11:05:13 PM

how else you going to pay for those living the american dream on the other side of the railroad track?

6/9/2008 11:05:37 PM

^^you're right...i'd rather stay middle class or below and get govt handouts...thats more of a sure thing than working hard and trying to succeed at a job...hooray for no productivity

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 11:07 PM. Reason : 2 carats upwards]

6/9/2008 11:07:11 PM

that doesnt make any sense in my opinion

6/9/2008 11:08:24 PM

no one is being punished for anything.

if you want no taxes move to the Congo and fight off rebels in your sweet ass castle.

6/9/2008 11:08:54 PM

i dont want "no taxes" but i dont see why someone should be taxed a higher percentage just because they might put in more work than someone else

that doesnt seem like doing a good job of rewarding people for hard work

6/9/2008 11:10:27 PM

what i dont get is why rich people would even care...seems like if i were rich i wouldnt complain about anything

6/9/2008 11:11:49 PM

maybe they care because with unfair tax brackets and "steal from the rich, give to the poor" socialist programs, their hard work will amount to jack shit as they're reduced to a legally-binding equal instead of being rewarded for working hard and exerting some effort in life

6/9/2008 11:15:51 PM

Hmmm... income transfer -- soak the rich....the Messiah sounds a lot like your basic liberal, class warrior.

6/9/2008 11:22:40 PM

without a doubt...you cant become the presidential nominee if you're not a full blown left winger liberal...if you're a decent candidate and even approach the center you'll essentially be ostracized from the party a la lieberman

6/9/2008 11:27:03 PM

Just what remnants of "lefthood" does Lieberman subscribe to exactly?

I wonder what impact these policies would have on the dollar.

Quote :

"exempt seniors making less than $50,000 from having to pay income tax"

Uh. What?

No...really...WHAT!?

How long does His Obamaness plan for this policy to be in effect?

Considering the size of the retiring baby boomer population--most of whom will be living on taxable withdrawals from IRAs and 401(k) plans--how does he plan to offset the missed tax revenue especially in light of the spending increases?

Quote :

"To boost retirement savings, he has also proposed a 50% federal match on the first $1,000 of savings for families that earn under $75,000.""

Not a bad idea. Given the data, anything that incents Americans to save for their own retirement should be a top priority. Expanded tax credits, federal match, compulsion at gunpoint...anything.

Still, I wonder what these figures would work out to in the Federal outlays. Does his site have estimates? Has Krugman distilled this, yet?

6/10/2008 1:46:16 AM

so heavy taxation of the rich deters people from trying to be rich?

thats the dumbest fucking thing I have ever heard.

6/10/2008 8:33:47 AM

liberals are all about robbing people that are successful in life to give to the lazy people who don't give a fcuk


don't believe me? just wait a few months

6/10/2008 8:40:12 AM

I generally also hate these types of policies and entitlements across the board ... SO then I got to thinking...

If I KNEW that I would be taken care of if I made no money, then I actually might be more likely to take risks as an entrepreneur in order to attempt to become very rich. For example, I dont want to leave my current job to start a few business Ideas I have, because I would then have no secure stream of income, and with a wife and 2 kids, that would worry me.

But, if I knew the government would take care of me during rough times, then I might not be so scared of dropping the corporate job in favor of making it on my own.

Just my 2 cents.

[Edited on June 10, 2008 at 8:41 AM. Reason : .]

6/10/2008 8:41:09 AM

Quote :

"If I KNEW that I would be taken care of if I made no money, then I actually might be more likely to take risks as an entrepreneur in order to attempt to become very rich."

One of the many reasons why a economic safety net is essential.

6/10/2008 8:42:42 AM

Quote :

"exempt seniors making less than $50,000 from having to pay income tax"

I'm sorry but aren't we handing out enough to the seniors?

6/10/2008 8:43:16 AM

Rat you will never make enough money to contributed a good amount of taxes to the government.

also you didnt answer the question of...

so heavy taxation of the rich deters people from trying to be rich?

because if this was the case the USA and Western Europe would be some poor useless fuckin countries.

[Edited on June 10, 2008 at 8:44 AM. Reason : ^^^^^^^^^^^^]

6/10/2008 8:43:50 AM

A higher tax on anyone is a higher tax on everyone.

6/10/2008 8:55:56 AM

Uh oh, he's appealing to me.

6/10/2008 9:21:48 AM

Quote :

"If I KNEW that I would be taken care of if I made no money, then I actually might be more likely to take risks as an entrepreneur in order to attempt to become very rich"

Might as well throw caution in the wind and say fuck it! After all I won't be the one paying for it, I'll just get the government to help me out! Even though by the government, I mean the taxpayers...hooray! We can all make bad decisions and fuck up, and get bailed out by taxpayers!

I honestly feel sorry for anyone who agrees with this quote. You are a sad lazy person.

6/10/2008 9:22:33 AM

Quote :

"so hows he paying for universal healthcare again?"

He has no plans for universal health care so I guess this isn't something that he'll have to worry about.

Quote :

"living on welfare .. the american dream according to obama"

Comments like this are as pointless as they are intelligent and effective. i like how people suggest that living on welfare is a luxury, yet they themselves have no desire to live on it. mostly because they know that having that little amount of money would make for a far more less comfortable life regardless of what taxes and 'hard work' are associated with making a higher income.

Quote :

"^^^i too would...rather have more money...but how can you honestly think its fair that someone gets punished for succeeding?"

how are you punished for succeeding? is there a cap on the amount of money you're allowed to make, no.

Quote :

"i dont want "no taxes" but i dont see why someone should be taxed a higher percentage just because they might put in more work than someone else "

more money does not always equate more work.

Quote :

" especially in light of the spending increases? "

smaller scale war, less government funding into some of the large bureaucracy that the bush administration has crated will all result in more funds and a spending decrease.

Quote :

"Considering the size of the retiring baby boomer population--most of whom will be living on taxable withdrawals from IRAs and 401(k) plans"

they are excluded from the making less 50K, clearly.

Quote :

"If I KNEW that I would be taken care of if I made no money, then I actually might be more likely to take risks as an entrepreneur in order to attempt to become very rich. For example, I dont want to leave my current job to start a few business Ideas I have, because I would then have no secure stream of income, and with a wife and 2 kids, that would worry me."

signed

Quote :

"I'm sorry but aren't we handing out enough to the seniors?"

please list what it is you think that we're "handing out" to seniors. Particularly excluding social security or anything else that they've paid into directly over the course of their working lives which would eliminate any such proposition from being a "hand out"

6/10/2008 9:22:39 AM

some of you socialists make me sick

its like you think even though this has been tried and failed everywhere else, it will somehow work here in the US

and the sad thing is that you dont see anything wrong with taking from someone just because they have more than you...thats somehow fair to you? unbelievable

6/10/2008 9:24:35 AM

I'm actually a conservative, which is why i can't ever take you, eyedrb, or rat seriously, b.

your points of view are often times too extremely one-sided. you're expression shows a clear lack of consideration for any varying opinions which has seemingly only arrived through bias rather than genuine evaluation. A lack of understanding which has arrived merely from an attempt to do anything but. Perhaps if you were able to concede occasionally and compose any argument that was anything other than the same tried and not necessarily true talking points used to immediately rationalize a disregard for the other sides policies then I would be able to take you seriously from time to time. seeing as how this has never been proved to be the case I can only assume you're a satirical representation of the "typical republican" or that your ignorance is the only thing that surpasses your bias although its a direct derivative of it.

[Edited on June 10, 2008 at 9:42 AM. Reason : .]

6/10/2008 9:41:48 AM

you care to disagree with anything i say, or just write a paragraph attacking me personally?

also its ironic that you claim that you're a conservative, yet all your responses in your previous post scream otherwise...like this copout, for example

Quote :

"more money does not always equate more work."

6/10/2008 9:53:47 AM

:::double take:::

So when John McCain says he will extend the Bush Tax Cuts, he's accused of being Bush-Number-Two and fiscally irresponible.

When Obama says he will likewise extend much of the Bush Tax Cuts, it barely gets a rumble in the crowd??

He really is magic.

6/10/2008 10:02:11 AM

please explain to me how that quote suggests that i'm anything other than conservative. i'm not so blind as to believe that more money is always derived from more work. i have a friend who makes ~250k a year, and most of his time is spent playing games online while at work. What you get paid isn't indicative of how much effort is utilized. I have friends who get paid around 10K or so less than me and friends who make around 20k more than me and we all note the ease of our positions despite our varying wages.

stating something doesn't make it a fact, perhaps you should focus on details and examples if you'd like to add some credibility to your statements.

Quote :

" its like you think even though this has been tried and failed everywhere else, it will somehow work here in the US "

please extrapolate on this. where all are you suggesting that it has failed, and what is your definition of failure. you stated "everywhere". point out how candada, the uk, and norway are failed.

Quote :

" and the sad thing is that you dont see anything wrong with taking from someone just because they have more than you...thats somehow fair to you? unbelievable "

Progressive taxes aren't my favorite but i do see them as a necessary evil. I would enjoy a flat tax or something of the sort, but in our current socio-political landscape its implementation would not be the right thing to do. i believe in a greater good that we should strive to achieve as a nation. i practice being a nationalist, although i don't immediately subject myself to nationalism. being a nationalist i believe the benefit of the nation is the right thing to do and currently more good arises from our current tax scheme. While i cringe at the amount of money i lose every month, and desire it to be lower, i focus on government fiscal responsibility as the source rather than my own independent needs being my driving factor.

Quote :

"When Obama says he will likewise extend much of the Bush Tax Cuts, "

any rational person can see the reason there is no rumble from the crowds about being bush number two is because he is keeping a portion of the tax cuts, and adjusting those on the people who are in less likelihood of being in economic trouble, as opposed to increasing the tax break on that group. since obama's adjustment paints him as more of a man of the people rather than a puppet to the affluent the people don't complain. its a policy relevant to their interests.

[Edited on June 10, 2008 at 10:12 AM. Reason : socks]

[Edited on June 10, 2008 at 10:14 AM. Reason : .]

6/10/2008 10:09:30 AM

Quote :

""If I KNEW that I would be taken care of if I made no money, then I actually might be more likely to take risks as an entrepreneur in order to attempt to become very rich. For example, I dont want to leave my current job to start a few business Ideas I have, because I would then have no secure stream of income, and with a wife and 2 kids, that would worry me.""

That has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

What's to prevent everyone from quitting their jobs in the hopes of striking it rich on their own? And what happens when the majority are unsuccessful in their entreprenurial endeavors? If the government is taking care of them, what incentive do they have to go back to work, as it would seem they were dissatisfied enough to try to go in on their own in the first place?

And I'm assuming you were mainly referring to corporate execs or mid-level managers with good grasps on their company's operations. Even still, these won't be the only people quitting their jobs to start their own business. As the liberal members of this board love to point out, the American people by and large aren't very intelligent. What's to keep the hotel maid from quitting her job and trying to strike it rich with her own cosmetic line? Or what about a convenient store cashier who suddenly gets it in his head that he wants to run a car dealership? These people more than likely aren't qualified to run their own household, much less their own business.

If what you propose were to take hold, it would only widen the gap between the rich and poor. There would be the select few who would be successful and strike it rich, and the rest of them would have their businesses go under (assuming they were able to get the funding in the first place), and they would have already quit their jobs and be living off of the government making less than they did when they were earning an honest wage.

Of course then you would probably propose redistributing the successful entrepreneurs' wealth back to the poor to close the gap. Which would bring us full circle to the question of, what incentive is there for someone to start their own business, if the excess money they make is just going to be taken from them?

6/10/2008 10:16:29 AM

Quote :

"i'm not so blind as to believe that more money is always derived from more work."

me neither, but you seemed to find it necessary to point out that not everyone who is wealthy has worked hard, which really downplays the majority of wealthy people who HAVE worked hard

and i still don't know how anyone could claim they were a conservative, and then sign onto this

Quote :

"If I KNEW that I would be taken care of if I made no money, then I actually might be more likely to take risks as an entrepreneur in order to attempt to become very rich. For example, I dont want to leave my current job to start a few business Ideas I have, because I would then have no secure stream of income, and with a wife and 2 kids, that would worry me."

thats like saying "well i know if i fuck everything up it will be ok, someone else will bail me out"...thats not conservatism...its retarded and unbelievably irresponsible

Quote :

"what incentive is there for someone to start their own business, if the excess money they make is just going to be taken from them?"

amen

[Edited on June 10, 2008 at 10:23 AM. Reason : ^]

6/10/2008 10:21:51 AM

Quote :

"If I KNEW that I would be taken care of if I made no money, then I actually might be more likely to take risks as an entrepreneur in order to attempt to become very rich. For example, I dont want to leave my current job to start a few business Ideas I have, because I would then have no secure stream of income, and with a wife and 2 kids, that would worry me. "

A lot of folks have business ideas that they'd like to risk everything on.

Like betting on horse races using their unbeatable system
betting it all on black
etc.

6/10/2008 10:28:52 AM

Quote :

"me neither, but you seemed to find it necessary to point out that not everyone who is wealthy has worked hard, which really downplays the majority of wealthy people who HAVE worked hard "

Either you're grasping for straws or you arrive at your conclusions through a series of non-sequiturs. I neither explicitly nor implicitly implied that the majority of those with large incomes have not worked hard. I did, however, point out that the statement of yours to which i was responding is not necessarily applicable nor an entirely accurate argument to make. I would never down play the wealthy who have arrived there from hard work because i'm a firm supporter of small business entrepreneurs. For this reason i support the comment that i signed. This country was established as a land of opportunity and I believe that increasing the willingness of people be be their own boss and entrepreneurially achieve their own financial security would be a great tribute to that principle. Personally, i feel a larger small business sector would lead to a better economy as well as a populace that is greater content with their work lives. these benefits should not be viewed lightly.

Quote :

""what incentive is there for someone to start their own business, if the excess money they make is just going to be taken from them?""

in many cases they would still be better off than they were prior to, as well as enjoying the liberation that comes with directly working for and affecting your own goals. for me, that would be incentive enough.

Quote :

" thats like saying "well i know if i fuck everything up it will be ok, someone else will bail me out"...thats not conservatism...its retarded and unbelievably irresponsible"

not exactly. its more like saying " i can reasonably put forth all of my effort and resources into this and give a 100% earnest try at this. should i fail, despite putting forth all my effort, my kids won't starve as i look for employment again.

Quote :

"What's to prevent everyone from quitting their jobs in the hopes of striking it rich on their own? And what happens when the majority are unsuccessful in their entreprenurial endeavors? If the government is taking care of them, what incentive do they have to go back to work, as it would seem they were dissatisfied enough to try to go in on their own in the first place? "

I'd say a solid business plan would keep most people from quitting their jobs in order to strike it rich on whatever flimsy idea they may have. It would still require money to jump start a company. without a reliable business plan you're not going to receive funding from investors or a bank, thus eliminating the initial quitting your job step. assuming one did get as far as to quit their job and attempt an endeavor that failed then most would still go back to work, given that you're dealing with the type of people who would solidly attempt to start their own organization in the first place. these people aren't your run of the mill bums on the street or disenfranchised worker with no motivation. these are people with dreams and goals and who are willing to do what they can in order to achieve them, providing that they don't have to risk the wellbeing of their families to do so. in that case, these people would be likely to go back to work and would have better character traits and skill sets once they did. thus, allowing them to contribute even more in the workplace than they would have prior to their endeavor.

Quote :

"A lot of folks have business ideas that they'd like to risk everything on. Like betting on horse races using their unbeatable system betting it all on black etc. "

the type of person who would do that would already do it under our current system. not much would change in numbers in that category.


fiscal responsibility and social responsibility are not mutually exclusive. one can possess both, and i do. I view myself as a conservative because i believe in a smart fiscal policy and a government that is minutely restrictive in the lives of its citizens. there are many areas in which we could cut spending and be fiscally responsible and provide actual good social programs as apposed to the list of what we have now. i'm sorry if your concept of a conservative is a blind party affiliate that agrees with the current mantra of the time.

[Edited on June 10, 2008 at 10:53 AM. Reason : .]

6/10/2008 10:39:39 AM

Quote :

"in many cases they would still be better off than they were prior to, as well as enjoying the liberation that comes with directly working for and affecting your own goals. for me, that would be incentive enough."

They'll be better off because they worked their butts off for it. Successful businesses aren't flukes. My uncle started his own business 7 or 8 years ago and now he makes bank. Why? Because he's smart, and he works 60+ hours a week on average.

As for your "directly working for and affecting your own goals...and that would be incentive enough for me" bullshit, what happens if you run your business so well, the government decides it should take it over for the good of the people, so they pay you for your business and send you on your merry way? Not only will you have lost your ability to make excess income, but you'll also have lost your particular incentive for running your own business in the first place.

Just because you don't consider excess monies to be as much of incentive to run your own business, doesn't mean other people feel the same way.

And who's to determine if the small business owner is better off than when they started? Maybe they had a family member get sick, or maybe somebody's scholarship fell through and they need the extra money. A person's income and their disposable income are two different things and I really don't think the government should be making the decisions as to whether somebody is better off than when they started.

6/10/2008 10:56:23 AM

Quote :

" me neither, but you seemed to find it necessary to point out that not everyone who is wealthy has worked hard, which really downplays the majority of wealthy people who HAVE worked hard and i still don't know how anyone could claim they were a conservative, and then sign onto this"

An issue that no one likes to talk about is the role of genetics and upbringing in becoming wealthy.

Whatever you think of the morality of wealth because of good genes the economic fact is that placing a higher tax on people who were born smarter or more creative doesn't retard economic growth. It is also highly unlikely that higher taxes will cause the upper-middle class to foresake their values and start telling their kids it doesn't matter how good their grades are or what college they get in to.

Furthermore, especially at the upper end of the income range there is growing evidence that its not about the money. High net worth individuals work had and achieve because business is a sport and they want to win. The money is secondary and seems to have small effect on their actual effort.

Again I am not saying anything about the morality of this just the fact that to the extent its true higher taxes will not blunt economic growth.

6/10/2008 11:19:54 AM

Quote :

"i dont see why someone should be taxed a higher percentage just because they might put in more work than someone else that doesnt seem like doing a good job of rewarding people for hard work"

high salary =/ hard work by any means.

not all rich people are hard workers and most rich people are born rich. people don't just get up and jump social classes. it takes more than hard work to do that. some get lucky, some don't.

there are plenty of people who are working 3 jobs and struggling to get themselves and their family a decent meal on their plate.

[Edited on June 10, 2008 at 1:13 PM. Reason : []

6/10/2008 1:11:55 PM

^you assume all rich people are schmucks

if you let the rich people have more of their money, they'd turn around and spend it on more employees for more jobs, and raises for these "hard working" families to take home daily.

yet, this isn't -always- the case obviously.

6/10/2008 1:16:34 PM

Man I hope Obama wins

All of you racist schmucks would slit your wrists at the thought of a Negro running your country and stealing your HARD EARNED MONEYS

6/10/2008 1:18:45 PM

6/10/2008 1:21:47 PM

Quote :

"Man I hope Obama wins All of you racist schmucks would slit your wrists at the thought of a Negro running your country and stealing your HARD EARNED MONEYS"

Because race plays a factor in me wanting to keep something I earned through hard work? What if I was black and felt the same way? Would I still be racist then?

And lol at you for using a yiddish insult while branding us racists. Good going.

6/10/2008 1:25:22 PM