*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (2 Viewers)

[Josie Maran]

What do you all think about this? Note these aren't my words...

These polls are conveniently taken before the dem nomination and general election debates. If you think dem in-fighting is bad now, just wait till one of the two dems are bumped out. Obama and Hillary have polarized the democrat voting base so much, that a large portion of dems are ready to stray toward McCain when their favored nominee isn't nominated. =)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/Mc...?version=print

Additionally, Obama has yet to detail his plan for his potential administration. More and more, as he's expected to divulge these details, he loses momentum in light of his lack of a platform. This was made ESPECIALLY apparent in last night's debate. I don't agree with Hillary, but at least she's got a platform beyond "hope" and "change". Oh, and Hillary can very well still win.. She's leading in Pennsylvania polls, and still allegedly commands many of the superdelegates. Gotta love the democrats.

As for "McSame", he was dissenting the war in Iraq before Obama was even elected. He's still #####ing about how the war was poorly planned and under-manned. Not only that, but he spit in Bush's face regarding torture, and initially spit in his face regarding the taxcuts. McCain and Bush are of the same party, so inherently share many of the same ideals and opinions. If McCain is just another bush, Obama is just another Harry S. Truman. OMG TRUMAN NUKED JAPAN!! OBAMA IS NUKE-HAPPY TOO. ... Doesn't work that way.

These "McSame" and "100 year war" comments.. he knows how absolutely wrong he is, but still makes the comments in hopes of damaging McCain. Typical politics. Obama, though he claims otherwise, is "more of the same".

Well, as long as the decision is made in June then the Dems will have 5 months to get over the hostilities. It'll happen. Whoever wrote that is totally clueless about Obama's details...he's got more info out there than either of the other two. And wtf is the Obama/Truman thing about? I don't get it.

 

[All Your Base Are Belong To Us]

It's all political masturbation until the nominees are set.

 

[jonessed]

 

[Josie Maran]

Doesn't look like crying to me.

 

[All Your Base Are Belong To Us]

The man is funny.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Looks like an honest US President.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Obama on Real Sports talking hoops.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This article posted on the Anonymous Liberal earlier this week illustrates my feelings perfectly:

Monday, April 14, 2008But this week I finally put my finger on what's been bothering me. The problem with the Clintons is that they've learned the wrong lessons from their years of abuse at the hands of the right wing smear machine. They've come to adopt the tactics of their enemies. What's been turning me off about Hillary's campaign is that it has been run exactly like a Republican general election campaign.

The Clintons have always been this way. You guys are just now realizing what we righties have known for 16 years. Better late than never, I guess.

 

[timschochet]

The problem with this self-serving statement is that he played the game too. Like when he brought up what she said in '92 about "baking cookies". You think that wasn't on pupose? Obama's absolutely right about how ridiculous that debate was. But if you think he's really different, you're fooling himself. He pretends to be above the fray because it works for him. If it worked for him to play it like Hillary, he'd do it. It's all about winning for Obama and everyone else.

 

[Sammy3469]

It looks like after Weds debacle that Dean is basically telling every Super to end this now. It also looks like all the negative ads Clinton is running has really pissed off a lot of people associated with the party as someone like Reich just came out and endorsed Obama. I have a feeling this is all going to be over after he kills her in NC.

 

[phthalatemagic]

I liked how Obama stuck up his middle finger when he was talking about Hillary

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I have an extremely low opinion of Paul Krugman (the columnist), but I know lots of lefties love the guy and are probably interested in his take on bitter-gate:

Clinging to a Stereotype By PAUL KRUGMANWill Barack Obama’s now famous “bitter” quote turn out to have been a big deal politically? Frankly, I have no idea.But here’s a different question: was Mr. Obama right?Mr. Obama’s comments combined assertions about economics, sociology and voting behavior. In each case, his assertion was mostly if not entirely wrong.Start with the economics. Mr. Obama: “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration.”There are, indeed, towns where the mill closed during the 1980s and nothing has replaced it. But the suggestion that the American heartland suffered equally during the Clinton and Bush years is deeply misleading. In fact, the Clinton years were very good for working Americans in the Midwest, where real median household income soared before crashing after 2000. (You can see the numbers at my blog, krugman.blogs.nytimes.com.) We can argue about how much credit Bill Clinton deserves for that boom. But if I were a Democratic Party elder, I’d urge Mr. Obama to stop blurring the distinction between Clinton-era prosperity and Bush-era economic distress.Next, the sociology: “And it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.”The crucial word here isn’t “bitter,” it’s “cling.” Does economic hardship drive people to seek solace in firearms, God and xenophobia?It’s true that people in poor states are more likely to attend church regularly than residents of rich states. This might seem to indicate that faith is indeed a response to economic adversity.But this result largely reflects the fact that southern states are both church-going and poor; some poor states outside the South, like Maine and Montana, are actually less religious than Connecticut. Furthermore, within poor states, people with low incomes are actually less likely to attend church than those with high incomes. (The correlation runs the opposite way in rich states.)Over all, none of this suggests that people turn to God out of economic frustration.Finally, Mr. Obama, in later clarifying remarks, declared that the people he’s talking about “don’t vote on economic issues,” and are motivated instead by things like guns and gay marriage. That’s a political theory made famous by Thomas Frank’s “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” According to this theory, “values” issues lead working-class Americans to act against their own interests by voting Republican. Mr. Obama seemed to suggest that’s also why they support Hillary Clinton.I was impressed by Mr. Frank’s book when it came out. But my Princeton colleague Larry Bartels, who had an Op-Ed in The Times on Thursday, convinced me that Mr. Frank was mostly wrong. In his Op-Ed, Mr. Bartels cited data showing that small-town, working-class Americans are actually less likely than affluent metropolitan residents to vote on the basis of religion and social values. Nor have working-class voters trended Republican over time; on the contrary, Democrats do better with these voters now than they did in the 1960s. It’s true that Americans who attend church regularly are more likely to vote Republican. But contrary to the stereotype, this relationship is weak at low incomes but strong among high-income voters. That is, to the extent that religion helps the G.O.P., it’s not by convincing the working class to vote against its own interests, but by producing supermajorities among the evangelical affluent.So why have Republicans won so many elections? In his book, “Unequal Democracy,” Mr. Bartels shows that “the shift of the Solid South from Democratic to Republican control in the wake of the civil rights movement” explains all — literally all — of the Republican success story.Does it matter that Mr. Obama has embraced an incorrect theory about what motivates working-class voters? His campaign certainly hasn’t been based on Mr. Frank’s book, which calls for a renewed focus on economic issues as a way to win back the working class. Indeed, the book concludes with a blistering attack on Democrats who cater to “affluent, white-collar professionals who are liberal on social issues” while “dropping the class language that once distinguished them sharply from Republicans.” Doesn’t this sound a bit like the Obama campaign?Anyway, the important point is that working-class Americans do vote on economic issues — and can be swayed by a politician who offers real answers to their problems.And one more thing: let’s hope that once Mr. Obama is no longer running against someone named Clinton, he’ll stop denigrating the very good economic record of the only Democratic administration most Americans remember.

 

[Sammy3469]

I have an extremely low opinion of Paul Krugman (the columnist), but I know lots of lefties love the guy and are probably interested in his take on bitter-gate:

Clinging to a Stereotype By PAUL KRUGMANWill Barack Obama’s now famous “bitter” quote turn out to have been a big deal politically? Frankly, I have no idea.But here’s a different question: was Mr. Obama right?Mr. Obama’s comments combined assertions about economics, sociology and voting behavior. In each case, his assertion was mostly if not entirely wrong.Start with the economics. Mr. Obama: “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration.”There are, indeed, towns where the mill closed during the 1980s and nothing has replaced it. But the suggestion that the American heartland suffered equally during the Clinton and Bush years is deeply misleading. In fact, the Clinton years were very good for working Americans in the Midwest, where real median household income soared before crashing after 2000. (You can see the numbers at my blog, krugman.blogs.nytimes.com.) We can argue about how much credit Bill Clinton deserves for that boom. But if I were a Democratic Party elder, I’d urge Mr. Obama to stop blurring the distinction between Clinton-era prosperity and Bush-era economic distress.Next, the sociology: “And it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.”The crucial word here isn’t “bitter,” it’s “cling.” Does economic hardship drive people to seek solace in firearms, God and xenophobia?It’s true that people in poor states are more likely to attend church regularly than residents of rich states. This might seem to indicate that faith is indeed a response to economic adversity.But this result largely reflects the fact that southern states are both church-going and poor; some poor states outside the South, like Maine and Montana, are actually less religious than Connecticut. Furthermore, within poor states, people with low incomes are actually less likely to attend church than those with high incomes. (The correlation runs the opposite way in rich states.)Over all, none of this suggests that people turn to God out of economic frustration.Finally, Mr. Obama, in later clarifying remarks, declared that the people he’s talking about “don’t vote on economic issues,” and are motivated instead by things like guns and gay marriage. That’s a political theory made famous by Thomas Frank’s “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” According to this theory, “values” issues lead working-class Americans to act against their own interests by voting Republican. Mr. Obama seemed to suggest that’s also why they support Hillary Clinton.I was impressed by Mr. Frank’s book when it came out. But my Princeton colleague Larry Bartels, who had an Op-Ed in The Times on Thursday, convinced me that Mr. Frank was mostly wrong. In his Op-Ed, Mr. Bartels cited data showing that small-town, working-class Americans are actually less likely than affluent metropolitan residents to vote on the basis of religion and social values. Nor have working-class voters trended Republican over time; on the contrary, Democrats do better with these voters now than they did in the 1960s. It’s true that Americans who attend church regularly are more likely to vote Republican. But contrary to the stereotype, this relationship is weak at low incomes but strong among high-income voters. That is, to the extent that religion helps the G.O.P., it’s not by convincing the working class to vote against its own interests, but by producing supermajorities among the evangelical affluent.So why have Republicans won so many elections? In his book, “Unequal Democracy,” Mr. Bartels shows that “the shift of the Solid South from Democratic to Republican control in the wake of the civil rights movement” explains all — literally all — of the Republican success story.Does it matter that Mr. Obama has embraced an incorrect theory about what motivates working-class voters? His campaign certainly hasn’t been based on Mr. Frank’s book, which calls for a renewed focus on economic issues as a way to win back the working class. Indeed, the book concludes with a blistering attack on Democrats who cater to “affluent, white-collar professionals who are liberal on social issues” while “dropping the class language that once distinguished them sharply from Republicans.” Doesn’t this sound a bit like the Obama campaign?Anyway, the important point is that working-class Americans do vote on economic issues — and can be swayed by a politician who offers real answers to their problems.And one more thing: let’s hope that once Mr. Obama is no longer running against someone named Clinton, he’ll stop denigrating the very good economic record of the only Democratic administration most Americans remember.

FWIW...I've found Krugman's gotten very very intellectually lazy recently. If you do the math, the Midwest and South have been lagging since Reagan years (ie 25 years) in % terms. He basically takes overlays a graph and says see which a man of his intelligence and econometric training should know doesn't pass muster. Really weak. For some persepctive he has two liquidity graphs above his "sourcing" for this piece trying to show some relationship or another and says "see"...only problem is the time scale are so off that you have no clue what your looking at with the TED spread. Really, really weak and lazy.I have no clue what his problem has been lately.

 

[adonis]

Did you even watch the debate?The way he brought up the cookies comment was not in any way to call her an elitist, but it was to show that everyone says stuff that other people take out of context and beat them to death with. He was basically telling Hillary that she should know better. He was in no way trying to bring that up to make any point about her OTHER than that she should know better, because in that case, people attacked her unfairly just like she is now attacking him unfairly.

 

[fightingduck]

In 20 seconds of googling: link

No, they don't go up just because you cut taxes.

This should be intuitively obvious if you think about it for 30 seconds. Assume a capital gains tax rate of 1%. Cut it to 0% Will tax revenues go up? No. Cut it to .1% Will tax revenues go up? No. Therefore, there are some tax cuts that do not result in increased revenues. It stands to reason, therefore, that some tax hikes will not result in decreased revenues.

Look, I will admit that there are some tax rates that are so high that people will not engage in the economic activity because the tax rates discourage it. Income taxes in the 60's were like this. However, it is far from obvious that a capital gains tax hike from 20% to 25% implicates that range. If you think it does, how about providing some emperical evidence?

Interesting. Chart shows increasing revenues right after tax cuts twice and the author argues the opposite.

 

[adonis]

FWIW...I've found Krugman's gotten very very intellectually lazy recently. If you do the math, the Midwest and South have been lagging since Reagan years (ie 25 years) in % terms. He basically takes overlays a graph and says see which a man of his intelligence and econometric training should know doesn't pass muster. Really weak.

For some persepctive he has two liquidity graphs above his "sourcing" for this piece trying to show some relationship or another and says "see"...only problem is the time scale are so off that you have no clue what your looking at with the TED spread. Really, really weak and lazy.



I have no clue what his problem has been lately.

Isn't he a strong clinton supporter?

 

[malice]

The difference is Clinton does it because she thinks it's her best offense to be offensive. Obama just throws counter-punches and gets back to the real point. I'm not saying he didn't come across as well as he could have in the ABC debate, but it was clear that he saw no point to most of the questions being asked and was put in a situation to go along with the circus rather than what he wanted to focus on.

 

[Sammy3469]

FWIW...I've found Krugman's gotten very very intellectually lazy recently. If you do the math, the Midwest and South have been lagging since Reagan years (ie 25 years) in % terms. He basically takes overlays a graph and says see which a man of his intelligence and econometric training should know doesn't pass muster. Really weak.

For some persepctive he has two liquidity graphs above his "sourcing" for this piece trying to show some relationship or another and says "see"...only problem is the time scale are so off that you have no clue what your looking at with the TED spread. Really, really weak and lazy.



I have no clue what his problem has been lately.

Isn't he a strong clinton supporter?

Yeah...I know that has something to do with it, but its not just the Hillary good/Obama bad part where he's gotten very lazy. Like I said no one with any type of even basic statistical training should the OIS and the TED spread charts (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/) out like that...so it runs deeping than just his Hillary bias.He's still fine when he's regurgitating someone else's research who knows what they're talking about (for instance a lot of his credit crisis regurgitation has been on the money), but once he has to string thoughts together, he leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[jonessed]

Exactly. He's above all of these peons.

 

[fightingduck]

Well in general have tax cuts increased revenues more times then not in the history of this country? I hope that isnt a meaningless question and it should be able to be answered by someone in the know.

Oh, OK. No, in general tax cuts have decreased revenue. I am only aware of one that mainstream economists agree resulted in increased revenue (the income tax cut reducing the 90% marginal rate at the top bracket).

Taxes have been raised a lot more often than they've been cut. So we'd get a bigger sample size by asking whether, in general, increasing tax rates has increased tax revenues. The obvious answer is yes. Both tax rates and tax revenues have increased somewhat steadily throughout our nation's history.If increasing tax rates generally increases tax revenues, a natural corollary is that decreasing tax rates would generally decrease tax revenues.

Actually, real supply-side cuts (as in the 20s, 60s, and 80s) increased revenues quite a bit. Supply side cuts are only those at the top end marginal rates and capital gains cuts. Laffer researchThe Bush tax cuts were only in part supply-side cuts. There was some pull down in revenue from the cuts at the lower end. Cutting the lowest income rate from 15% to 10% will result in a revenue decline - probably dollar for dollar. Same with the marraige penalty fix - a revenue loser. Behavior is affected only at the highest end of the range.

Another point about increasing revenues over history is that revenues will increase if nothing is done and the economy is growing. Revenues will decrease if nothing is done and the economy shrinks. I'll look for a link, but the major driver of tax revenues is the size of the economy. Rates have little direct effect (except the capital gains rate becuase people almost completely control the timing of gains), they have more indirect effect on economic activity.

 

[fightingduck]

Well in general have tax cuts increased revenues more times then not in the history of this country? I hope that isnt a meaningless question and it should be able to be answered by someone in the know.

Oh, OK. No, in general tax cuts have decreased revenue. I am only aware of one that mainstream economists agree resulted in increased revenue (the income tax cut reducing the 90% marginal rate at the top bracket).

We have to be very specific here. I don't know how you classify "mainstream" but it is pretty much universally accepted that the capital gains tax rate has an inverse effect on revenues - just about every time it's moved. Link.It's even more dramatic if you adjust for inflation. The effetive cap rate in the 70s was over 100% becuase of inflation. Capital gains are not adjusted for inflation. Link

 

[fightingduck]

I don't know if this angle has been address on Obama and taxes yet (from the other night a least). I caught this in the article I posted above:

On Wednesday night, he repeated the vow. "I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes," said the Senator, "I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes."But Mr. Obama has also said he's open to raising – indeed, nearly doubling to 28% – the current top capital gains tax rate of 15%, which would in fact be a tax hike on some 100 million Americans who own stock, including millions of people who fit Mr. Obama's definition of middle class.The reality is that the Clinton and Obama rate increases would hit millions of Americans who make well under $200,000. In 2005, 47% of all tax returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000, and 79% came from households with incomes below $100,000.By the way, a higher capital gains tax rate isn't the only middle-class tax increase that Mr. Obama is proposing. He also wants to lift the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax. That cap was $97,500 in 2007 and is $102,000 this year. "Those are a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200[,000] and $250,000," said Mr. Gibson. "If you raise the payroll taxes, that's going to raise taxes on them." Ignoring the no-tax pledge he had made five minutes earlier, Mr. Obama explained that such a tax increase was nevertheless necessary.

That's a lotta tax raising....

 

[adonis]

I don't know if this angle has been address on Obama and taxes yet (from the other night a least). I caught this in the article I posted above:

On Wednesday night, he repeated the vow. "I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes," said the Senator, "I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes."But Mr. Obama has also said he's open to raising – indeed, nearly doubling to 28% – the current top capital gains tax rate of 15%, which would in fact be a tax hike on some 100 million Americans who own stock, including millions of people who fit Mr. Obama's definition of middle class.The reality is that the Clinton and Obama rate increases would hit millions of Americans who make well under $200,000. In 2005, 47% of all tax returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000, and 79% came from households with incomes below $100,000.By the way, a higher capital gains tax rate isn't the only middle-class tax increase that Mr. Obama is proposing. He also wants to lift the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax. That cap was $97,500 in 2007 and is $102,000 this year. "Those are a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200[,000] and $250,000," said Mr. Gibson. "If you raise the payroll taxes, that's going to raise taxes on them." Ignoring the no-tax pledge he had made five minutes earlier, Mr. Obama explained that such a tax increase was nevertheless necessary.

That's a lotta tax raising....

Does the capital gains tax really affect middle class Americans that much?

 

[jonessed]

I don't know if this angle has been address on Obama and taxes yet (from the other night a least). I caught this in the article I posted above:

On Wednesday night, he repeated the vow. "I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes," said the Senator, "I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes."But Mr. Obama has also said he's open to raising – indeed, nearly doubling to 28% – the current top capital gains tax rate of 15%, which would in fact be a tax hike on some 100 million Americans who own stock, including millions of people who fit Mr. Obama's definition of middle class.The reality is that the Clinton and Obama rate increases would hit millions of Americans who make well under $200,000. In 2005, 47% of all tax returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000, and 79% came from households with incomes below $100,000.By the way, a higher capital gains tax rate isn't the only middle-class tax increase that Mr. Obama is proposing. He also wants to lift the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax. That cap was $97,500 in 2007 and is $102,000 this year. "Those are a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200[,000] and $250,000," said Mr. Gibson. "If you raise the payroll taxes, that's going to raise taxes on them." Ignoring the no-tax pledge he had made five minutes earlier, Mr. Obama explained that such a tax increase was nevertheless necessary.

That's a lotta tax raising....

Does the capital gains tax really affect middle class Americans that much?

Investment = jobs, so it affects everyone.

 

[adonis]

I don't know if this angle has been address on Obama and taxes yet (from the other night a least). I caught this in the article I posted above:

On Wednesday night, he repeated the vow. "I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes," said the Senator, "I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes."But Mr. Obama has also said he's open to raising – indeed, nearly doubling to 28% – the current top capital gains tax rate of 15%, which would in fact be a tax hike on some 100 million Americans who own stock, including millions of people who fit Mr. Obama's definition of middle class.The reality is that the Clinton and Obama rate increases would hit millions of Americans who make well under $200,000. In 2005, 47% of all tax returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000, and 79% came from households with incomes below $100,000.By the way, a higher capital gains tax rate isn't the only middle-class tax increase that Mr. Obama is proposing. He also wants to lift the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax. That cap was $97,500 in 2007 and is $102,000 this year. "Those are a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200[,000] and $250,000," said Mr. Gibson. "If you raise the payroll taxes, that's going to raise taxes on them." Ignoring the no-tax pledge he had made five minutes earlier, Mr. Obama explained that such a tax increase was nevertheless necessary.

That's a lotta tax raising....

Does the capital gains tax really affect middle class Americans that much?

Investment = jobs, so it affects everyone.

So it's like the butterfly effect to you?My question was does it affect middle class americans much?I've read a few articles since posting that, all that seem kinda questionable as to how much it affects middle class americans. To me, it seems that it affects active traders the most, and aside from that, I'm not so sure.

 

[jonessed]

I don't know if this angle has been address on Obama and taxes yet (from the other night a least). I caught this in the article I posted above:

On Wednesday night, he repeated the vow. "I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes," said the Senator, "I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes."But Mr. Obama has also said he's open to raising – indeed, nearly doubling to 28% – the current top capital gains tax rate of 15%, which would in fact be a tax hike on some 100 million Americans who own stock, including millions of people who fit Mr. Obama's definition of middle class.The reality is that the Clinton and Obama rate increases would hit millions of Americans who make well under $200,000. In 2005, 47% of all tax returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000, and 79% came from households with incomes below $100,000.By the way, a higher capital gains tax rate isn't the only middle-class tax increase that Mr. Obama is proposing. He also wants to lift the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax. That cap was $97,500 in 2007 and is $102,000 this year. "Those are a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200[,000] and $250,000," said Mr. Gibson. "If you raise the payroll taxes, that's going to raise taxes on them." Ignoring the no-tax pledge he had made five minutes earlier, Mr. Obama explained that such a tax increase was nevertheless necessary.

That's a lotta tax raising....

Does the capital gains tax really affect middle class Americans that much?

Investment = jobs, so it affects everyone.

So it's like the butterfly effect to you?My question was does it affect middle class americans much?I've read a few articles since posting that, all that seem kinda questionable as to how much it affects middle class americans. To me, it seems that it affects active traders the most, and aside from that, I'm not so sure.

You read articles that don't think investment activity affects job growth?

 

[adonis]

I don't know if this angle has been address on Obama and taxes yet (from the other night a least). I caught this in the article I posted above:

On Wednesday night, he repeated the vow. "I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes," said the Senator, "I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes."But Mr. Obama has also said he's open to raising – indeed, nearly doubling to 28% – the current top capital gains tax rate of 15%, which would in fact be a tax hike on some 100 million Americans who own stock, including millions of people who fit Mr. Obama's definition of middle class.The reality is that the Clinton and Obama rate increases would hit millions of Americans who make well under $200,000. In 2005, 47% of all tax returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000, and 79% came from households with incomes below $100,000.By the way, a higher capital gains tax rate isn't the only middle-class tax increase that Mr. Obama is proposing. He also wants to lift the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax. That cap was $97,500 in 2007 and is $102,000 this year. "Those are a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200[,000] and $250,000," said Mr. Gibson. "If you raise the payroll taxes, that's going to raise taxes on them." Ignoring the no-tax pledge he had made five minutes earlier, Mr. Obama explained that such a tax increase was nevertheless necessary.

That's a lotta tax raising....

Does the capital gains tax really affect middle class Americans that much?

Investment = jobs, so it affects everyone.

So it's like the butterfly effect to you?My question was does it affect middle class americans much?I've read a few articles since posting that, all that seem kinda questionable as to how much it affects middle class americans. To me, it seems that it affects active traders the most, and aside from that, I'm not so sure.

You read articles that don't think investment activity affects jobs?

I was looking for articles on how increasing the capital gains tax affects middle class americans. The examples given weren't very good. One was buying a piece of jewelry that increased in value over a year from 75k to 150k, and then the person wants to sell it and has to pay 28% on the 75k it appreciated. Another was if a business didn't increase in value over a period of like 30 years, that due to inflation, if it was 100k in 50's and 300k in 90's, that they'd have to pay 28%ish on 200k if they sold it.Those don't really convince me that a capital gains tax affects most middle class families. You can make the argument that all taxes affect all people, but I'm not really interested in such broad-minded thinking as that, because if that's true, you might as well consider a tax cut to the rich a tax cut to the middle class, and we all know that isn't the case.

 

[fightingduck]

I don't know if this angle has been address on Obama and taxes yet (from the other night a least). I caught this in the article I posted above:

On Wednesday night, he repeated the vow. "I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes," said the Senator, "I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes."But Mr. Obama has also said he's open to raising – indeed, nearly doubling to 28% – the current top capital gains tax rate of 15%, which would in fact be a tax hike on some 100 million Americans who own stock, including millions of people who fit Mr. Obama's definition of middle class.The reality is that the Clinton and Obama rate increases would hit millions of Americans who make well under $200,000. In 2005, 47% of all tax returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000, and 79% came from households with incomes below $100,000.By the way, a higher capital gains tax rate isn't the only middle-class tax increase that Mr. Obama is proposing. He also wants to lift the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax. That cap was $97,500 in 2007 and is $102,000 this year. "Those are a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200[,000] and $250,000," said Mr. Gibson. "If you raise the payroll taxes, that's going to raise taxes on them." Ignoring the no-tax pledge he had made five minutes earlier, Mr. Obama explained that such a tax increase was nevertheless necessary.

That's a lotta tax raising....

Does the capital gains tax really affect middle class Americans that much?

Investment = jobs, so it affects everyone.

So it's like the butterfly effect to you?My question was does it affect middle class americans much?I've read a few articles since posting that, all that seem kinda questionable as to how much it affects middle class americans. To me, it seems that it affects active traders the most, and aside from that, I'm not so sure.

I think that you're only looking at it from the popular notion of the public stock markets. For active traders, it's just a cost of doing business. So minor changes to the code just increase their cost of business. A problem, but not disaterous.The real problem is the small business owner that looks to sell his business. This is someone that is paying taxes on the income from his business. Then, if he'd like to sell it, he's taxed again on the transfer. There are hundreds of thousands of middle class people that own serveral small businesses (Nail salons, postal drops, florists, franchises of all kinds). This is how they make thier living. Raising this tax (doubling it) would seriously dampen thier ability to move in and out of these business. It makes them less valubale.Not all middle class people are like the stereotype - one job, one employer. Also, like the data suggests, there are a significant number of people under 100k that report capital gains taxes. This could be for a number of reasons, and it's likely not a bunch of money in the economy. But if they report 2000k capital gain. Obama wants another $280 from a family of four making 50k. It's a lot of money to them.

 

[jonessed]

I don't know if this angle has been address on Obama and taxes yet (from the other night a least). I caught this in the article I posted above:

On Wednesday night, he repeated the vow. "I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes," said the Senator, "I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes."But Mr. Obama has also said he's open to raising – indeed, nearly doubling to 28% – the current top capital gains tax rate of 15%, which would in fact be a tax hike on some 100 million Americans who own stock, including millions of people who fit Mr. Obama's definition of middle class.The reality is that the Clinton and Obama rate increases would hit millions of Americans who make well under $200,000. In 2005, 47% of all tax returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000, and 79% came from households with incomes below $100,000.By the way, a higher capital gains tax rate isn't the only middle-class tax increase that Mr. Obama is proposing. He also wants to lift the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax. That cap was $97,500 in 2007 and is $102,000 this year. "Those are a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200[,000] and $250,000," said Mr. Gibson. "If you raise the payroll taxes, that's going to raise taxes on them." Ignoring the no-tax pledge he had made five minutes earlier, Mr. Obama explained that such a tax increase was nevertheless necessary.

That's a lotta tax raising....

Does the capital gains tax really affect middle class Americans that much?

Investment = jobs, so it affects everyone.

So it's like the butterfly effect to you?My question was does it affect middle class americans much?I've read a few articles since posting that, all that seem kinda questionable as to how much it affects middle class americans. To me, it seems that it affects active traders the most, and aside from that, I'm not so sure.

You read articles that don't think investment activity affects jobs?

I was looking for articles on how increasing the capital gains tax affects middle class americans. The examples given weren't very good. One was buying a piece of jewelry that increased in value over a year from 75k to 150k, and then the person wants to sell it and has to pay 28% on the 75k it appreciated. Another was if a business didn't increase in value over a period of like 30 years, that due to inflation, if it was 100k in 50's and 300k in 90's, that they'd have to pay 28%ish on 200k if they sold it.Those don't really convince me that a capital gains tax affects most middle class families. You can make the argument that all taxes affect all people, but I'm not really interested in such broad-minded thinking as that, because if that's true, you might as well consider a tax cut to the rich a tax cut to the middle class, and we all know that isn't the case.

I'm not really understanding where you are going with this. Businesses with more money have more money to invest in their business, that affects the amount of people they hire. Increasing capital gains taxes will affect the amount of investing done in everything from small businesses on up. Where the optimal point is I have no idea, but rolling the dice in a recessionary or recovering economy seems short-sighted.

 

[fightingduck]

I don't know if this angle has been address on Obama and taxes yet (from the other night a least). I caught this in the article I posted above:

On Wednesday night, he repeated the vow. "I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes," said the Senator, "I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes."

But Mr. Obama has also said he's open to raising – indeed, nearly doubling to 28% – the current top capital gains tax rate of 15%, which would in fact be a tax hike on some 100 million Americans who own stock, including millions of people who fit Mr. Obama's definition of middle class.

The reality is that the Clinton and Obama rate increases would hit millions of Americans who make well under $200,000. In 2005, 47% of all tax returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000, and 79% came from households with incomes below $100,000.

By the way, a higher capital gains tax rate isn't the only middle-class tax increase that Mr. Obama is proposing. He also wants to lift the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax. That cap was $97,500 in 2007 and is $102,000 this year. "Those are a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200[,000] and $250,000," said Mr. Gibson. "If you raise the payroll taxes, that's going to raise taxes on them." Ignoring the no-tax pledge he had made five minutes earlier, Mr. Obama explained that such a tax increase was nevertheless necessary.

That's a lotta tax raising....

Does the capital gains tax really affect middle class Americans that much?

Investment = jobs, so it affects everyone.

So it's like the butterfly effect to you?My question was does it affect middle class americans much?

I've read a few articles since posting that, all that seem kinda questionable as to how much it affects middle class americans. To me, it seems that it affects active traders the most, and aside from that, I'm not so sure.

You read articles that don't think investment activity affects jobs?

I was looking for articles on how increasing the capital gains tax affects middle class americans. The examples given weren't very good. One was buying a piece of jewelry that increased in value over a year from 75k to 150k, and then the person wants to sell it and has to pay 28% on the 75k it appreciated. Another was if a business didn't increase in value over a period of like 30 years, that due to inflation, if it was 100k in 50's and 300k in 90's, that they'd have to pay 28%ish on 200k if they sold it.Those don't really convince me that a capital gains tax affects most middle class families. You can make the argument that all taxes affect all people, but I'm not really interested in such broad-minded thinking as that, because if that's true, you might as well consider a tax cut to the rich a tax cut to the middle class, and we all know that isn't the case.

This doens't strike you as a problem?

 

[adonis]

I don't know if this angle has been address on Obama and taxes yet (from the other night a least). I caught this in the article I posted above:

On Wednesday night, he repeated the vow. "I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes," said the Senator, "I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes."But Mr. Obama has also said he's open to raising – indeed, nearly doubling to 28% – the current top capital gains tax rate of 15%, which would in fact be a tax hike on some 100 million Americans who own stock, including millions of people who fit Mr. Obama's definition of middle class.The reality is that the Clinton and Obama rate increases would hit millions of Americans who make well under $200,000. In 2005, 47% of all tax returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000, and 79% came from households with incomes below $100,000.By the way, a higher capital gains tax rate isn't the only middle-class tax increase that Mr. Obama is proposing. He also wants to lift the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax. That cap was $97,500 in 2007 and is $102,000 this year. "Those are a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200[,000] and $250,000," said Mr. Gibson. "If you raise the payroll taxes, that's going to raise taxes on them." Ignoring the no-tax pledge he had made five minutes earlier, Mr. Obama explained that such a tax increase was nevertheless necessary.

That's a lotta tax raising....

Does the capital gains tax really affect middle class Americans that much?

Investment = jobs, so it affects everyone.

So it's like the butterfly effect to you?My question was does it affect middle class americans much?I've read a few articles since posting that, all that seem kinda questionable as to how much it affects middle class americans. To me, it seems that it affects active traders the most, and aside from that, I'm not so sure.

I think that you're only looking at it from the popular notion of the public stock markets. For active traders, it's just a cost of doing business. So minor changes to the code just increase their cost of business. A problem, but not disaterous.The real problem is the small business owner that looks to sell his business. This is someone that is paying taxes on the income from his business. Then, if he'd like to sell it, he's taxed again on the transfer. There are hundreds of thousands of middle class people that own serveral small businesses (Nail salons, postal drops, florists, franchises of all kinds). This is how they make thier living. Raising this tax (doubling it) would seriously dampen thier ability to move in and out of these business. It makes them less valubale.Not all middle class people are like the stereotype - one job, one employer. Also, like the data suggests, there are a significant number of people under 100k that report capital gains taxes. This could be for a number of reasons, and it's likely not a bunch of money in the economy. But if they report 2000k capital gain. Obama wants another $280 from a family of four making 50k. It's a lot of money to them.

I'm just not convinced that the vast majority of middle class americans own their own businesses and buy and sell them often. I think this tax is more for those who make a lot of money buying and selling stocks regularly.And wouldn't there be a way, if desired, to shelter middle class people who own a business who want to sell it from this tax?

 

[adonis]

I don't know if this angle has been address on Obama and taxes yet (from the other night a least). I caught this in the article I posted above:

On Wednesday night, he repeated the vow. "I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes," said the Senator, "I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes."

But Mr. Obama has also said he's open to raising – indeed, nearly doubling to 28% – the current top capital gains tax rate of 15%, which would in fact be a tax hike on some 100 million Americans who own stock, including millions of people who fit Mr. Obama's definition of middle class.

The reality is that the Clinton and Obama rate increases would hit millions of Americans who make well under $200,000. In 2005, 47% of all tax returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000, and 79% came from households with incomes below $100,000.

By the way, a higher capital gains tax rate isn't the only middle-class tax increase that Mr. Obama is proposing. He also wants to lift the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax. That cap was $97,500 in 2007 and is $102,000 this year. "Those are a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200[,000] and $250,000," said Mr. Gibson. "If you raise the payroll taxes, that's going to raise taxes on them." Ignoring the no-tax pledge he had made five minutes earlier, Mr. Obama explained that such a tax increase was nevertheless necessary.

That's a lotta tax raising....

Does the capital gains tax really affect middle class Americans that much?

Investment = jobs, so it affects everyone.

So it's like the butterfly effect to you?My question was does it affect middle class americans much?

I've read a few articles since posting that, all that seem kinda questionable as to how much it affects middle class americans. To me, it seems that it affects active traders the most, and aside from that, I'm not so sure.

You read articles that don't think investment activity affects jobs?

I was looking for articles on how increasing the capital gains tax affects middle class americans. The examples given weren't very good. One was buying a piece of jewelry that increased in value over a year from 75k to 150k, and then the person wants to sell it and has to pay 28% on the 75k it appreciated. Another was if a business didn't increase in value over a period of like 30 years, that due to inflation, if it was 100k in 50's and 300k in 90's, that they'd have to pay 28%ish on 200k if they sold it.Those don't really convince me that a capital gains tax affects most middle class families. You can make the argument that all taxes affect all people, but I'm not really interested in such broad-minded thinking as that, because if that's true, you might as well consider a tax cut to the rich a tax cut to the middle class, and we all know that isn't the case.

This doens't strike you as a problem?

I think that if someone has a business for 30 years or so, and it doesn't increase in value over that time, 1) that's not the govnmnts fault and 2) they've made quite a living out of that business for 30 years, selling it and not getting the full value out might just be considered a cost of doing business. I don't know.But what I do know is that this example is likely less than 1% of all middle class families. I don't believe it, or any other sad story is indicative of how this tax will affect middle class americans.

 

[fightingduck]

I'm just not convinced that the vast majority of middle class americans own their own businesses and buy and sell them often. I think this tax is more for those who make a lot of money buying and selling stocks regularly.

"The issue of counting as wealthy the middle-class person who occasionally realizes a capital gain that artificially inflates his income in a given year has been studied by the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). A panel analysis for the years 1979-1983 by the JCT found that 44 percent of taxpayers reporting capital gains realized a gain in only one of every five years." LinkI don't think you realize how large and diverse our economy is. I bet a recent stat would have this even higher than 44%

And wouldn't there be a way, if desired, to shelter middle class people who own a business who want to sell it from this tax?

Then, what's the point? Half of the revenue you seek goes away. Or, as Obama says, is this just an issue of fairness for you?I could go on all day and post study after study that shows how damaging the capital gains tax is. It's been that way since in every country throughout all of history. Some countries today don't even have it (because they recognize the inherent double tax in it.) But, if your issue is about fairness, then how do you escape the charge that all you’re doing is stirring up class warfare?

 

[fightingduck]

I think that if someone has a business for 30 years or so, and it doesn't increase in value over that time, 1) that's not the govnmnts fault

I think the burden is on you to show why the government can take someone's property. You've just agreed that the government took something that has exact same value as it did 30 years ago. The government just seized property.

and 2) they've made quite a living out of that business for 30 years, selling it and not getting the full value out might just be considered a cost of doing business. I don't know.

And the key is that they have been paying taxes on the income that was generated from that business. You've just double taxed them. Once on the income from the business. Twice on the sale of the business used to generate the income.

But what I do know is that this example is likely less than 1% of all middle class families. I don't believe it, or any other sad story is indicative of how this tax will affect middle class americans.

Why should this group of people be singled out. If I take everything you've just said at face value (I'm certain your percentages are wrong). But for the sake of the discussion, 99% of middle class people operate one way - a way in which your a familiar and comfortable with - and they get a break. 1% of middle class families are more entrepreneurs. They get smacked with an Obama tax. Shouldn't we want to promote small business? Why are giving break to and encouraging people to work for a large corporation?

 

[adonis]

I'm just not convinced that the vast majority of middle class americans own their own businesses and buy and sell them often. I think this tax is more for those who make a lot of money buying and selling stocks regularly.

"The issue of counting as wealthy the middle-class person who occasionally realizes a capital gain that artificially inflates his income in a given year has been studied by the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). A panel analysis for the years 1979-1983 by the JCT found that 44 percent of taxpayers reporting capital gains realized a gain in only one of every five years." LinkI don't think you realize how large and diverse our economy is. I bet a recent stat would have this even higher than 44%

And wouldn't there be a way, if desired, to shelter middle class people who own a business who want to sell it from this tax?

Then, what's the point? Half of the revenue you seek goes away. Or, as Obama says, is this just an issue of fairness for you?I could go on all day and post study after study that shows how damaging the capital gains tax is. It's been that way since in every country throughout all of history. Some countries today don't even have it (because they recognize the inherent double tax in it.) But, if your issue is about fairness, then how do you escape the charge that all you’re doing is stirring up class warfare?

Isn't the source of the quote you linked to an organization that makes promoting lower capital gains tax, and other taxes, a focus of their mission? It's like asking republican leaders about whether trickle down economics works.Regardless, just on the merits of its writing, I didn't come away with a clear understanding of how it affects middle class americans. It cites statistics from 1985, talks about middle class people paying a gains tax once every 5 years, likely on lower amounts of money making the tax not that much, but that taxes for richer people consist of far more money.

I'm still unclear on the effects on the middle class, and unclear as Obama said these increases would in part be used to give average middle class families tax cuts of $500-$1000, likely per year, rather than simply the 1/5 years they'd be taxed on capital gains.

 

[fightingduck]

But what I do know is that this example is likely less than 1% of all middle class families.

* 10.1 million self employed people as of May 1999, accounting for about 9 percent of the total work force. * Small business ownership is a significant part self-employment, which accounts for about 50 percent of self-employed workers.

Meaning 4.5% of people in the country operate a small business (ie, likely middle class). Are these the people you want to tax when they try and sell this business? Or more likely, would you rather they keep it. Instead of selling it to someone who has the capital needed to grow it to the next level?

 

[adonis]

But what I do know is that this example is likely less than 1% of all middle class families.

* 10.1 million self employed people as of May 1999, accounting for about 9 percent of the total work force. * Small business ownership is a significant part self-employment, which accounts for about 50 percent of self-employed workers.

Meaning 4.5% of people in the country operate a small business (ie, likely middle class). Are these the people you want to tax when they try and sell this business? Or more likely, would you rather they keep it. Instead of selling it to someone who has the capital needed to grow it to the next level?

What percentage of those people are selling their business each year at a profit?If only 9% of the total work force are self-employed, a smaller percentage of them are self-emplyed and in the middle class. Let's assume 4% are middle class small business owners. What percentage of these people are actively looking to sell their business? 25% ...are one out of four small business owners looking to sell their business each year, at a profit? That'd be 1%. And somehow I feel that's an overestimation.

 

[fightingduck]

I'm just not convinced that the vast majority of middle class americans own their own businesses and buy and sell them often. I think this tax is more for those who make a lot of money buying and selling stocks regularly.

"The issue of counting as wealthy the middle-class person who occasionally realizes a capital gain that artificially inflates his income in a given year has been studied by the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). A panel analysis for the years 1979-1983 by the JCT found that 44 percent of taxpayers reporting capital gains realized a gain in only one of every five years." LinkI don't think you realize how large and diverse our economy is. I bet a recent stat would have this even higher than 44%

And wouldn't there be a way, if desired, to shelter middle class people who own a business who want to sell it from this tax?

Then, what's the point? Half of the revenue you seek goes away. Or, as Obama says, is this just an issue of fairness for you?I could go on all day and post study after study that shows how damaging the capital gains tax is. It's been that way since in every country throughout all of history. Some countries today don't even have it (because they recognize the inherent double tax in it.) But, if your issue is about fairness, then how do you escape the charge that all you’re doing is stirring up class warfare?

Isn't the source of the quote you linked to an organization that makes promoting lower capital gains tax, and other taxes, a focus of their mission? It's like asking republican leaders about whether trickle down economics works.

Yes. They cite the JCT study (a nonpartisian organization). The point is to demonstrate to you that close to half of the people that pay capital gains tax are not stock traders by occupation. They are people that do not have capital gains every year - highly likely the middle class.

Regardless, just on the merits of its writing, I didn't come away with a clear understanding of how it affects middle class americans. It cites statistics from 1985, talks about middle class people paying a gains tax once every 5 years, likely on lower amounts of money making the tax not that much, but that taxes for richer people consist of far more money.

Ummm.. That's what we're talking about here. The middle class are affected by this tax. As to the amount of money - of course, they are paying less dollars on this, but it's not small change to them. I'll keep posting stats for you on how this hurts the middle class (I'll look for more recent stuff and some non-partisian left-leaning blogs. At least, more recent.)

I'm still unclear on the effects on the middle class, and unclear as Obama said these increases would in part be used to give average middle class families tax cuts of $500-$1000, likely per year, rather than simply the 1/5 years they'd be taxed on capital gains.

Unclear because we know he's going to raise taxes on a certian segment of the middle class - the entreprenuer class. Unclear becuase they have a harder choice now - to sell or to wait for a more favorable tax picture. Unclear becuase the majority of middle class families that own public stock will have to hire a financial advisor to help understand tax planning strategies on top of diversification, principle protection, etc. You're right. It will be unclear under Obama.

 

[adonis]

Here are two quotes as well:

* Most capital gains income is realized by high-income taxpayers; nearly three-quarters of all capital gains are realized by taxpayers with income exceeding $100,000. One-quarter of all capital gains income is realized by taxpayers with incomes exceeding $1 million.(5) * Last year, CBO director June O'Neill testified that tax receipts have risen as a share of the Gross Domestic Product in the last few years "mainly because realizations of capital gains were unusually high and because a larger share of income was earned by people at the top of the income ladder, who are taxed at higher rates."(6) Again, neither of these developments has much or any effect on families in the middle of the income scale.

 

[fightingduck]

But what I do know is that this example is likely less than 1% of all middle class families.

* 10.1 million self employed people as of May 1999, accounting for about 9 percent of the total work force. * Small business ownership is a significant part self-employment, which accounts for about 50 percent of self-employed workers.

Meaning 4.5% of people in the country operate a small business (ie, likely middle class). Are these the people you want to tax when they try and sell this business? Or more likely, would you rather they keep it. Instead of selling it to someone who has the capital needed to grow it to the next level?

What percentage of those people are selling their business each year at a profit?If only 9% of the total work force are self-employed, a smaller percentage of them are self-emplyed and in the middle class. Let's assume 4% are middle class small business owners. What percentage of these people are actively looking to sell their business? 25% ...are one out of four small business owners looking to sell their business each year, at a profit? That'd be 1%. And somehow I feel that's an overestimation.

Actually, after the tax increase, it will likely be a smaller number considering a sale using your logic. Why would they consider selling their business at all? That's the point your missing. The 4.5% of small business owners have their capital locked in their current business. The only way to get it out is by selling that business. I don't know what % of these people think about selling their business each year, but I know first hand that the tax rate is a consideration. If you tax them at 28%, that is less money for them to roll into their next enterprise, or retire with, or put into tax-free munis and collect interest. It takes away thier income producing capital and gives it to a capital destroyer - the government. Thus, they are less likely to sell at all. Your effective tax is 100% to them. So, it effects all 4.5% of them either way.

The evidence for this is posted in my initial posts this morning. With high rates from the early 60s to the early 80s, very few capital transactions even happened. It's not surprising then that the amount of the self-employed declined rapidly during this period. Agriculture has something to do with that, but who would open a business unless they can get an after-tax profitble exit? I know you might not think like that, but entrepreneurs do.

 

[adonis]

Has there been any talk about capital gains tax cut helping to create the bubble that burst near 2000? Not that this is a reason against it, just kinda makes sense that if the tax rate is really low, then buying and selling stocks a lot becomes more profitable than it had been with higher taxes, and with more buying and selling comes more demand, potentially inflating stock prices.

I dunno...this whole thing is complicated. The economy isn't simply a "Cut taxes, revenue increases" system, and to pretend it is is to oversimplify the reality of the situation.

The economy grows, inflation grows, over time, and as such, tax revenues will likely grow regardless of what we do. People want low taxes, I get it. But people also want a country that upholds its promise to Social security, that has a lower national debt, that can pay for education and keep our infrastructure strong. To do this, we need funds, and to get funds, taxes must be raised. For many people, the thought that lowering taxes can increase revenue is just too intellectually tasty to let go of, but at some point, you can't lower them any more without losing all income altogether, and at some point, taxes have to be raised to account for a higher government need of funding. We're at that point now.

It'd be nice if we weren't in a tough spot as a nation, where everyone will be more burdened from the deficit, from the cost of the war, from the cost of many bad policy decisions, but we're at that point. Tough decisions will have to be made, people will have to pay more in many cases, to get us out of the mess we're in. It's a reality that those who want to keep promoting tax cut after tax cut don't seem to want to deal with.

I know people will say that i'm wrong, and that they're dealing with it in a way they think works, but while it may have some advantageous effect on increasing revenue, it won't increase it nearly as much as raising taxes will, and it won't raise it in a way that will significantly decrease our deficit or pay for needed programs. Reality says that programs won't be cut, therefore to me, reality says we need to raise more money. I don't see cutting taxes as a way to raise more revenue.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

can you change the subtitle of the thread? TIA

 

[fightingduck]

Here are two quotes as well:

* Most capital gains income is realized by high-income taxpayers; nearly three-quarters of all capital gains are realized by taxpayers with income exceeding $100,000. One-quarter of all capital gains income is realized by taxpayers with incomes exceeding $1 million.(5)

* Last year, CBO director June O'Neill testified that tax receipts have risen as a share of the Gross Domestic Product in the last few years "mainly because realizations of capital gains were unusually high and because a larger share of income was earned by people at the top of the income ladder, who are taxed at higher rates."(6) Again, neither of these developments has much or any effect on families in the middle of the income scale.

Point 1: No one is arguing that on a dollar basis the rich pay more (that's good right?). For this discussion about the effect on the middle class, you have to consider it on a number of people basis. The point above skews the results because the higher dollar is weighting it more towards the rich. I posted earlier that 80% of the number of tax filers are under 100k. Granted, its slightly less than their relative population (80% to 94% that make under 100k), however it still shows that this tax hits many middle to lower income filers also.Point 2: Disagree that your conclusion is supported by the quote. What the quote does support is that tax receipts rise as the GDP rises. Thus, paramount to this discussion is that tax policy should be designed to help grow GDP.

This is where we probably fundamentally disagree. I believe you are arguing that fairness should be the top goal of tax policy. I am trying to understand how the cap gains tax is fair since it produces double taxation.

 

[Sweet J]

Speaking of economic principles: Robert Reich to endorse Obama

Bill Clinton's Secretary of Labor. This is huge, to me. I've always loved Reich. A serious academic, and brilliant guy.

edit to add the text:

Some of these endorsers are super-delegates, and thus of no small consequence to the outcome of the race. Others are simply window-dressing, deployed to create a sense of ineluctable momentum in Obama's direction. But none have the particular resonance of the endorsement that's coming — unbeknownst to the campaign — a little later today.

The endorsement in question is that of Robert Reich, Bill Clinton's first Secretary of Labor and a friend of both the former president and his wife for four decades. Around 1:00pm EST, Reich informs me, he intends formally to declare his support for Obama on his blog.

Now, in one sense, the Reich endorsement comes as no great surprise. For some time, it's been clear to anyone paying attention that Reich favors Obama. Back in December, in a blog post titled "Why is HRC Stooping So Low?," Reich loudly and sharply criticized Clinton's conduct in Iowa and defended Obama's proposals for health-care and Social Security reform. Two days before the race-charged South Carolina primary, he assailed Bill Clinton's "ill-tempered and ill-founded attacks" on Obama, arguing that they were "doing no credit to the former president, his legacy, or his wife's campaign." And all throughout the primary season, he has spoken and written of Obama's candidacy with evident admiration and enthusiasm.

But Reich insists that the endorsement does indeed come as a surprise — to him. As we chatted in Washington, where Reich had come from Berkeley, where he teaches, to give a speech and meet with some Democrats on Capitol Hill, he explained that, despite the criticisms he's made of the Clintons ("I call it as I see it"), he had planned to refrain from offering an official backing for Obama out of respect for Hillary. "She's an old friend," Reich said, "I've known her 40 years. I was absolutely dead set against getting into the whole endorsement thing. I've struggled with it. I've not wanted to do it. Out of loyalty to her, I just felt it would be inappropriate."

So what's changed? I asked Reich.

"I saw the ads" — the negative man-on-street commercials that the Clinton campaign put up in Pennsylvania in the wake of Obama's bitter/cling comments a week ago — "and I was appalled, frankly. I thought it represented the nadir of mean-spirited, negative politics. And also of the politics of distraction, of gotcha politics. It's the worst of all worlds. We have three terrible traditions that we've developed in American campaigns. One is outright meanness and negativity. The second is taking out of context something your opponent said, maybe inartfully, and blowing it up into something your opponent doesn't possibly believe and doesn't possibly represent. And third is a kind of tradition of distraction, of getting off the big subject with sideshows that have nothing to do with what matters. And these three aspects of the old politics I've seen growing in Hillary's campaign. And I've come to the point, after seeing those ads, where I can't in good conscience not say out loud what I believe about who should be president. Those ads are nothing but Republicanism. They're lending legitimacy to a Republican message that's wrong to begin with, and they harken back to the past 20 years of demagoguery on guns and religion. It's old politics at its worst — and old Republican politics, not even old Democratic politics. It's just so deeply cynical."

The Clinton campaign will, no doubt, shrug off the Reich endorsement of Obama. (And hey, who knows, maybe James Carville will get into the act and declare Reich a Benedict Arnold!) They will say that it's unlikely to move any votes, and that, since Reich is not a super-delegate, it does nothing tangible to move Obama even one inch closer to the nomination.

All of which is true enough, as far as it goes. But beyond the bald fact of Reich's support for Obama, the Clinton campaign should pay heed to the reasoning behind it. In his disgust with Hillary's increasingly harsh tactics, Reich is hardly alone. Indeed, the feeling seems to be spreading more broadly in the party with every passing day. It's been clear for some time that Hillary's attacks on Obama were driving up her negatives. You could certainly argue this might be a price worth paying if those attacks were amping up doubts about him. But it's hard to see any logic — or even sanity — in the tactic if the result is to drive even people who once regarded Hillary dearly into Obama's arms. — John Heilemann

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

For those supporters in Pittsburgh (if I'm not the only one)

Please join Franco Harris and other current and former Pittsburgh Steelers players, special guests, and fellow supporters on Friday, April 18th, to kick off the Steelers Vote for Change Blitz to support Barack Obama.Steelers Vote for Change Tailgatewith Senator Bob CaseyHeinz Field, Gold Lot 2PittsburghFriday, April 18thGates open at 6 p.m.

 

[fightingduck]

Has there been any talk about capital gains tax cut helping to create the bubble that burst near 2000? Not that this is a reason against it, just kinda makes sense that if the tax rate is really low, then buying and selling stocks a lot becomes more profitable than it had been with higher taxes, and with more buying and selling comes more demand, potentially inflating stock prices.

Asset bubbles have more to do with monetary policy. Stocks tend to rise rapidly in deflationary environments (the 20s and the 90s). Tax policy is a tiny driver of asset prices compared to other fundamentals.

I dunno...this whole thing is complicated. The economy isn't simply a "Cut taxes, revenue increases" system, and to pretend it is is to oversimplify the reality of the situation.

I'm not trying to simplify this at all and agree that it is very complicated. I know some just make those blanket statemetns, but if you look at my posts, I'll readily admit that some tax rate cuts lower revenue and some raise it. The capital gains tax cut works in the reverse and has a very strong inverse relationship to revenue. I think it is even more complicated than that. Becuase I would argue to eliminate it. Incomes would rise dramatically.

The economy grows, inflation grows, over time, and as such, tax revenues will likely grow regardless of what we do.

Agreed.

People want low taxes, I get it. But people also want a country that upholds its promise to Social security, that has a lower national debt, that can pay for education and keep our infrastructure strong. To do this, we need funds, and to get funds, taxes must be raised.

I have a hard time accepting the government can't live on $3.0 trillion. We need to talk about priorities, imho. Becuase, we are overtaxed.

For many people, the thought that lowering taxes can increase revenue is just too intellectually tasty to let go of, but at some point, you can't lower them any more without losing all income altogether, and at some point, taxes have to be raised to account for a higher government need of funding. We're at that point now.

I agree that some people overstate the case, but we haven't had serious changes to the tax code since 81 (other than the 97 reduction in cap gains rate). We've been safely in the fat of the Laffer curve ever since.

It'd be nice if we weren't in a tough spot as a nation, where everyone will be more burdened from the deficit, from the cost of the war, from the cost of many bad policy decisions, but we're at that point. Tough decisions will have to be made, people will have to pay more in many cases, to get us out of the mess we're in. It's a reality that those who want to keep promoting tax cut after tax cut don't seem to want to deal with.

I agree that we're in a tough spot. Tax rate increases won't help at all. They might hurt as whole and they will most definately hurt some disproportionately.

I know people will say that i'm wrong, and that they're dealing with it in a way they think works, but while it may have some advantageous effect on increasing revenue, it won't increase it nearly as much as raising taxes will, and it won't raise it in a way that will significantly decrease our deficit or pay for needed programs. Reality says that programs won't be cut, therefore to me, reality says we need to raise more money. I don't see cutting taxes as a way to raise more revenue.

I probably agree with you that we can't cut rates more to get more revenue at this point. I just disagree that you will get much revenue by raising it either. Maybe for a little while, but not for very long and not from people with capital and the ability to generate high incomes. They'll sit it out like the did in the 30s and 70s.

 

[fightingduck]

Speaking of economic principles: Robert Reich to endorse Obama

Bill Clinton's Secretary of Labor. This is huge, to me. I've always loved Reich. A serious academic, and brilliant guy.

edit to add the text:

Some of these endorsers are super-delegates, and thus of no small consequence to the outcome of the race. Others are simply window-dressing, deployed to create a sense of ineluctable momentum in Obama's direction. But none have the particular resonance of the endorsement that's coming — unbeknownst to the campaign — a little later today.

The endorsement in question is that of Robert Reich, Bill Clinton's first Secretary of Labor and a friend of both the former president and his wife for four decades. Around 1:00pm EST, Reich informs me, he intends formally to declare his support for Obama on his blog.

Now, in one sense, the Reich endorsement comes as no great surprise. For some time, it's been clear to anyone paying attention that Reich favors Obama. Back in December, in a blog post titled "Why is HRC Stooping So Low?," Reich loudly and sharply criticized Clinton's conduct in Iowa and defended Obama's proposals for health-care and Social Security reform. Two days before the race-charged South Carolina primary, he assailed Bill Clinton's "ill-tempered and ill-founded attacks" on Obama, arguing that they were "doing no credit to the former president, his legacy, or his wife's campaign." And all throughout the primary season, he has spoken and written of Obama's candidacy with evident admiration and enthusiasm.

But Reich insists that the endorsement does indeed come as a surprise — to him. As we chatted in Washington, where Reich had come from Berkeley, where he teaches, to give a speech and meet with some Democrats on Capitol Hill, he explained that, despite the criticisms he's made of the Clintons ("I call it as I see it"), he had planned to refrain from offering an official backing for Obama out of respect for Hillary. "She's an old friend," Reich said, "I've known her 40 years. I was absolutely dead set against getting into the whole endorsement thing. I've struggled with it. I've not wanted to do it. Out of loyalty to her, I just felt it would be inappropriate."

So what's changed? I asked Reich.

"I saw the ads" — the negative man-on-street commercials that the Clinton campaign put up in Pennsylvania in the wake of Obama's bitter/cling comments a week ago — "and I was appalled, frankly. I thought it represented the nadir of mean-spirited, negative politics. And also of the politics of distraction, of gotcha politics. It's the worst of all worlds. We have three terrible traditions that we've developed in American campaigns. One is outright meanness and negativity. The second is taking out of context something your opponent said, maybe inartfully, and blowing it up into something your opponent doesn't possibly believe and doesn't possibly represent. And third is a kind of tradition of distraction, of getting off the big subject with sideshows that have nothing to do with what matters. And these three aspects of the old politics I've seen growing in Hillary's campaign. And I've come to the point, after seeing those ads, where I can't in good conscience not say out loud what I believe about who should be president. Those ads are nothing but Republicanism. They're lending legitimacy to a Republican message that's wrong to begin with, and they harken back to the past 20 years of demagoguery on guns and religion. It's old politics at its worst — and old Republican politics, not even old Democratic politics. It's just so deeply cynical."

The Clinton campaign will, no doubt, shrug off the Reich endorsement of Obama. (And hey, who knows, maybe James Carville will get into the act and declare Reich a Benedict Arnold!) They will say that it's unlikely to move any votes, and that, since Reich is not a super-delegate, it does nothing tangible to move Obama even one inch closer to the nomination.

All of which is true enough, as far as it goes. But beyond the bald fact of Reich's support for Obama, the Clinton campaign should pay heed to the reasoning behind it. In his disgust with Hillary's increasingly harsh tactics, Reich is hardly alone. Indeed, the feeling seems to be spreading more broadly in the party with every passing day. It's been clear for some time that Hillary's attacks on Obama were driving up her negatives. You could certainly argue this might be a price worth paying if those attacks were amping up doubts about him. But it's hard to see any logic — or even sanity — in the tactic if the result is to drive even people who once regarded Hillary dearly into Obama's arms. — John Heilemann

I'm pretty much on the opposite end of the spectrum of Reich, but I've always considered him an honest guy. He wrote this article once about who stupid it was to limit CEO pay. I was shocked that it was him. He made a strong case that the government should stay out of it. He closed the article with the catch. If you want income equality, then raise marginal tax rates. I disagree, but it was a honest argument.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Well in general have tax cuts increased revenues more times then not in the history of this country? I hope that isnt a meaningless question and it should be able to be answered by someone in the know.

Oh, OK. No, in general tax cuts have decreased revenue. I am only aware of one that mainstream economists agree resulted in increased revenue (the income tax cut reducing the 90% marginal rate at the top bracket).

Taxes have been raised a lot more often than they've been cut. So we'd get a bigger sample size by asking whether, in general, increasing tax rates has increased tax revenues. The obvious answer is yes. Both tax rates and tax revenues have increased somewhat steadily throughout our nation's history.If increasing tax rates generally increases tax revenues, a natural corollary is that decreasing tax rates would generally decrease tax revenues.

Actually, real supply-side cuts (as in the 20s, 60s, and 80s) increased revenues quite a bit. Supply side cuts are only those at the top end marginal rates and capital gains cuts. Laffer researchThe Bush tax cuts were only in part supply-side cuts. There was some pull down in revenue from the cuts at the lower end. Cutting the lowest income rate from 15% to 10% will result in a revenue decline - probably dollar for dollar. Same with the marraige penalty fix - a revenue loser. Behavior is affected only at the highest end of the range.

Another point about increasing revenues over history is that revenues will increase if nothing is done and the economy is growing. Revenues will decrease if nothing is done and the economy shrinks. I'll look for a link, but the major driver of tax revenues is the size of the economy. Rates have little direct effect (except the capital gains rate becuase people almost completely control the timing of gains), they have more indirect effect on economic activity.

You're right if we're talking about absolute revenues, but I meant tax revenues as a percentage of GDP. GDP going up won't, on its own, increase tax revenues as a percentage of GDP (except to the extent that it puts more people in the higher tax brackets -- but that effect is due to an effective increase in the marginal rates people are paying).Over the nation's history, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have increased quite a bit, as have tax rates. I don't think the correlation is coincidental. The Laffer curve is real, but for most of the nation's history we've apparently been below the revenue-maximizing tax rates; so increasing rates has tended to increase revenues.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

"But I eventually came to realize that working biologists regard Gould much the same way that economists regard Robert Reich: talented writer, too bad he never gets anything right." -- Paul Krugman

I agree with Krugman on that one.

 

[videoguy505]

I liked how Obama stuck up his middle finger when he was talking about Hillary

with video via youtube...