Biden: Be Patriotic, Pay More Taxes!

[HowardRoark]

That sounds downright Keynesian, Howard. Maybe there's hope for you after all.

Private employment Tex. I am not a Socialist.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Obama's tax plan would increase taxes in 2009 on the wealthiest 20 percent of households, while offering tax cuts for the other 80 percent. The largest increases would be on the top 1 percent of earners, according to analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research group whose staff of experts includes former economic advisers to the White House and Congress under both Republicans and Democrats.

By comparison, the Tax Policy Center analysis says McCain would offer tax cuts across the board. Those at the top end of the scale would get the biggest percentage cuts under McCain, while households with the lowest incomes would receive the largest percentage cuts under Obama's plan.

Questions:

1. How does your first sentence square with Obama's oft-repeated mantra that his tax plan will cut taxes for 95% of all Americans?

2. Unless I'm reading the Tax Policy Center charts wrong, the income level at the 80% mark is about $110,000. How does this square with Obama's claim that his tax increases will only affect those with incomes over $250,000?

3. From the Tax Policy Center's "An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans: Updated September 12, 2008:"

The impact of the tax code on economic activity under each candidate's policies would differ in several important ways. Under Senator McCain's proposed policies, the top marginal rates (35 percent on individual income and 25 percent on corporate income) would be significantly lower than under Senator Obama's plan (39.6 and 35 percent, respectively). McCain's reduced individual and corporate rates could improve economic efficiency and increase domestic investment, but the larger future deficits would reduce and might completely negate any positive effect. In contrast, Senator Obama's proposed new tax credits could encourage desirable behavior, particularly if the childless EITC and payroll tax rebate encourage additional labor supply among childless low-income individuals. However, he would also direct new subsidies at an already favored group-seniors -and an already favored activity-homeownership-which could probably be better directed elsewhere.

This paragraph confirms Mr. Lott's numbers but does not speak in any way to his argument. Moreover, the sentence in boldface is a completely unsubstantiated and barely believable assertion. To assert that the effects of a 10% difference in the top marginal tax rate on corporate income would be reduced and negated by "larger future deficits" is absurd from the point of view of economic theory and recent history of the United States and Europe, most especially Sweden.

Furthermore, with regard to the underlined sentence, do you seriously believe that a "childless EITC and payroll tax rebate" (resulting in "additional labor supply among childless low-income individuals") would have a greater beneficial effect on American economic productivity than a difference of 10% in the top marginal tax rate on corporate income? Do you believe that after such catastrophic tax increases on the top 20% of taxpayers (not to mention corporate and FICA increases) there will be negligle effect on the American economy, that this top 20% will continue earning and producing wealth at the same pace they are now?!!!

4. Finally, regardless of the economic arguments, do you have no concern whatsoever that the definition of "rich" and "wealthy" will continue to be rounded down over the years until it includes you and me? (Of course, if you trust Lott's analysis, that threshhold has probably already been reached.)

[texaspackerbacker]

That sounds downright Keynesian, Howard. Maybe there's hope for you after all.

Private employment Tex. I am not a Socialist.

Government contractors ARE private employers--as are the second and third and fourth and fifth and so on levels of recipients of income generated by tax cuts AND government spending.

It's the RAISING of taxes that kills the golden goose.

[HowardRoark]

It's the RAISING of taxes that kills the golden goose.

RAISING off of what levels?

[LL2]

I just we could go to the good ole days of my great grandparents and pay no income taxes!

[HowardRoark]

That sounds downright Keynesian, Howard. Maybe there's hope for you after all.

Private employment Tex. I am not a Socialist.

Government contractors ARE private employers--as are the second and third and fourth and fifth and so on levels of recipients of income generated by tax cuts AND government spending.

It's the RAISING of taxes that kills the golden goose.

This is one debate I can do after a few beers. Perhaps Later. Tex, I just don't get it how a guy who rants and raves about Conservative values is such an advocate of the Federal Government moving the money around the economy.

We all know about the "multiplier effect".....why do believe the starting point has to come from the Government.

Two quick points:

a) free enterprise will sift through good ideas and bad ideas and expand economies.

b) the other day you mentioned that an individual might just stick his money in the bank and that is not good for the economy. That is wrong.....the bank can lend out that money many times over, it doesn't just sit there. And anyway, most of that capital is invested in equiteis and bonds. Again, WHEREVER THE INDIVIDUAL WANTS TO INVEST IT!!!

[bobblehead]

Obama's tax plan would increase taxes in 2009 on the wealthiest 20 percent of households, while offering tax cuts for the other 80 percent. The largest increases would be on the top 1 percent of earners, according to analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research group whose staff of experts includes former economic advisers to the White House and Congress under both Republicans and Democrats.

By comparison, the Tax Policy Center analysis says McCain would offer tax cuts across the board. Those at the top end of the scale would get the biggest percentage cuts under McCain, while households with the lowest incomes would receive the largest percentage cuts under Obama's plan.

That's just known as math.

The majority of people in this country don't even pay the kinds of taxes that Obama is talking about. He is advocating actually moving money out of one person's pocket and into the other person's pocket via Fed. Gov't

I contend that those with Capital do a better job of moving money into the poor person's pocket via private investment.

That sounds interesting.....could you elaborate?

Let me elaborate.....look up capitalism in the dictionary.

[bobblehead]

It's the RAISING of taxes that kills the golden goose.

RAISING off of what levels?

19% according to several studies. The top marginal rate should be 19%

[packinpatland]

Obama's tax plan would increase taxes in 2009 on the wealthiest 20 percent of households, while offering tax cuts for the other 80 percent. The largest increases would be on the top 1 percent of earners, according to analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research group whose staff of experts includes former economic advisers to the White House and Congress under both Republicans and Democrats.

By comparison, the Tax Policy Center analysis says McCain would offer tax cuts across the board. Those at the top end of the scale would get the biggest percentage cuts under McCain, while households with the lowest incomes would receive the largest percentage cuts under Obama's plan.

That's just known as math.

The majority of people in this country don't even pay the kinds of taxes that Obama is talking about. He is advocating actually moving money out of one person's pocket and into the other person's pocket via Fed. Gov't

I contend that those with Capital do a better job of moving money into the poor person's pocket via private investment.

That sounds interesting.....could you elaborate?

Let me elaborate.....look up capitalism in the dictionary.

Thank you, 'O Smart One' ........................................

[Kiwon]

Biden is such a complete moron.

The patriotic thing to do in a troubled economy is to pay more taxes?

This from the guy that gave a total of $3,690 to charity over the last ten years!

I make a fraction of what Biden does and I give three times this much every year.

Barack and Michelle as well gave next to nothing for years and years and then when they did gave it to Rev. J-Wright's church.

The Obamas and the Bidens are prime examples of Dems that talk up socialist policies but then do the opposite in their own personal lives.

[retailguy]

Biden is such a complete moron.

The patriotic thing to do in a troubled economy is to pay more taxes?

This from the guy that gave a total of $3,690 to charity over the last ten years!

I make a fraction of what Biden does and I give three times this much every year.

Barack and Michelle as well gave next to nothing for years and years and then when they did gave it to Rev. J-Wright's church.

The Obamas and the Bidens are prime examples of Dems that talk up socialist policies but then do the opposite in their own personal lives.

I learned that these "statistics" are accurate in my own anecdotal way. I found that politics correlate closely to charitable giving. The more liberal, the less giving. The less religious, the less giving. It holds true with some exceptions, of course. However, those that attended and faithfully tithed to their church, also gave significant donations to other sources.

I saw something recently that the 'average' charitable contribution was 3%. when you have a significant part of "middle america" giving 10% to their church, there needs to be a lot of guys like Biden giving nothing to balance the trend out. 3% is less than half, so there are more not giving than giving.

I learned years ago that "well meaning liberals" want to spend YOUR money, not THEIRS.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Biden is such a complete moron.

The patriotic thing to do in a troubled economy is to pay more taxes?

This from the guy that gave a total of $3,690 to charity over the last ten years!

I make a fraction of what Biden does and I give three times this much every year.

Barack and Michelle as well gave next to nothing for years and years and then when they did gave it to Rev. J-Wright's church.

The Obamas and the Bidens are prime examples of Dems that talk up socialist policies but then do the opposite in their own personal lives.

yeah, cause a tax form is the best way to determine things.

Claiming a tax deduction for charitable giving is either selfish or immodest (as in politicians who want their publicly released tax forms to look "good").

Some people give to their church without claimng it. Some people give their time like Mrs. Biden..or pitched in driving supplies to the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina. Those don't count do they.

The bidens are far from wealthy and have to put three kids thru college and have an aging relative move in with them.

Yep, that sounds like a terrible human being.

I'd wait on criticizing till we see Mrs. Palin's tax records.

[retailguy]

Some people give to their church without claimng it.

Not ONE of my 2,000 + clients EVER did this. Liberal or Conservative, hell even the few Green party nuts brought in canceled checks, email receipts, and lists of donations they had made. They even brought their Goodwill receipts.

Some people give their time like Mrs. Biden..or pitched in driving supplies to the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina. Those don't count do they.

Actually, charitable mileage is deductible. If they "drove" supplies to the gulf in their personal automobile, mileage is deductible at .14 per mile. If they rented a truck, the cost of the truck rental is deductible. If they volunteered their time at the local YMCA, or the homeless center, the mileage from their house to the facility and back is also deductible.

Don't think if the Biden's had that deduction, they'd have ignored it. If they did their CPA should be FIRED.

[HowardRoark]

Some people give to their church without claimng it.

Not ONE of my 2,000 + clients EVER did this. Liberal or Conservative, hell even the few Green party nuts brought in canceled checks, email receipts, and lists of donations they had made. They even brought their Goodwill receipts.

Some people give their time like Mrs. Biden..or pitched in driving supplies to the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina. Those don't count do they.

Actually, charitable mileage is deductible. If they "drove" supplies to the gulf in their personal automobile, mileage is deductible at .14 per mile. If they rented a truck, the cost of the truck rental is deductible. If they volunteered their time at the local YMCA, or the homeless center, the mileage from their house to the facility and back is also deductible.

Don't think if the Biden's had that deduction, they'd have ignored it. If they did their CPA should be FIRED.

I write off my time I spend here.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Some people give to their church without claimng it.

Not ONE of my 2,000 + clients EVER did this. Liberal or Conservative, hell even the few Green party nuts brought in canceled checks, email receipts, and lists of donations they had made. They even brought their Goodwill receipts.

Some people give their time like Mrs. Biden..or pitched in driving supplies to the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina. Those don't count do they.

Actually, charitable mileage is deductible. If they "drove" supplies to the gulf in their personal automobile, mileage is deductible at .14 per mile. If they rented a truck, the cost of the truck rental is deductible. If they volunteered their time at the local YMCA, or the homeless center, the mileage from their house to the facility and back is also deductible.

Don't think if the Biden's had that deduction, they'd have ignored it. If they did their CPA should be FIRED.

Did you ever think that your clients were attracted to you because of your values? Those that don't go to you don't perhaps share your values.

You continue to bring up anecdotal evidence..that doesn't make it a truth.

Mileage: Some people don't care about writing things off.

Time: Nothing for you to say about that is there. Giving money is the easier way of contributing. Giving time is much more costly..especially for those with money.