Obama's Economics

saveuplife

According to what I've heard, Obama "plans" to cut taxes for 95% of the general public. I'm assuming he'll raise taxes on the top 5% or income earners. (Top $200/$250 K).

Here's the problem. The top 5% pay MORE than 50% of all taxes. So, this is most likely an increase in taxes and not a cut. And that's "if" he keeps the level at $200/$250 thousand, which he obviously could change.

Moreover, small business owners most likely don't support this plan. Why? Well, their business most likely makes over $250 K a year. Also, doesn't Obama plan to hit coporations with increased taxes?

Then, where's the economic growth going to come from? From what I can tell.... Government is the answer. At least, according to his plan.

Am I wrong? Discuss.

jimed14

put in a different thread ... will copy here ...


But, one thing I am getting tired of when discussing the tax increases to the rich ... some people are acting like they are going to be bankrupt. Like they are going to have to fire people, it'll cost jobs is what i'm hearing.

Obama wants to reverse the Bush tax cuts, which, during a time when we're fighting 2 wars and racking up record deficits, seems to make sense.

This would mean the top income brackets will go back to the tax %s they had under Cliton ... 39.6% ... and it is currently 35% ....

Is that additional 4.6% to the weathiest 5% REALLY going to "stagnate" this economy? Are they going to get all chicken little and cry the sky is falling?

People had great financial success under Clinton ... and if they are making huge gobs of money, they will continue to do so under Obama.

know1

saveuplife wrote:

According to what I've heard, Obama "plans" to cut taxes for 95% of the general public. I'm assuming he'll raise taxes on the top 5% or income earners. (Top $200/$250 K).

Here's the problem. The top 5% pay MORE than 50% of all taxes. So, this is most likely an increase in taxes and not a cut. And that's "if" he keeps the level at $200/$250 thousand, which he obviously could change.

Moreover, small business owners most likely don't support this plan. Why? Well, their business most likely makes over $250 K a year. Also, doesn't Obama plan to hit coporations with increased taxes?

Then, where's the economic growth going to come from? From what I can tell.... Government is the answer. At least, according to his plan.

Am I wrong? Discuss.

I like that he's at least thinking of lowering taxes for some people, but I'm interested in the bottom line mostly. I'm guessing that the overall taxes collected will increase under his plan.

saveuplife

jimed14 wrote:

put in a different thread ... will copy here ...


But, one thing I am getting tired of when discussing the tax increases to the rich ... some people are acting like they are going to be bankrupt. Like they are going to have to fire people, it'll cost jobs is what i'm hearing.

Obama wants to reverse the Bush tax cuts, which, during a time when we're fighting 2 wars and racking up record deficits, seems to make sense.

This would mean the top income brackets will go back to the tax %s they had under Cliton ... 39.6% ... and it is currently 35% ....

Is that additional 4.6% to the weathiest 5% REALLY going to "stagnate" this economy? Are they going to get all chicken little and cry the sky is falling?

People had great financial success under Clinton ... and if they are making huge gobs of money, they will continue to do so under Obama.

I won't dismiss what you said because it's not necessarily wrong. I just have two points...

1) Business Cycles exist outside of policy. Clinton inherited a boom cycle. Whoever wins the next election will inherit a bust cycle. If you believe that raising taxes overall during a bust cycle is the answer... that's fine. We just disagree.

2) My problem is really only Obama's choice of words. He calls it a middle class tax cut. He doesn't talk about the fact that it's really "OVERALL" a increase in taxes... so it's really not a "tax cut". But, that's politics... Republicans certainly say BS all the time too.

jimed14

saveuplife wrote:

I won't dismiss what you said because it's not necessarily wrong. I just have two points...

1) Business Cycles exist outside of policy. Clinton inherited a boom cycle. Whoever wins the next election will inherit a bust cycle. If you believe that raising taxes overall during a bust cycle is the answer... that's fine. We just disagree.

2) My problem is really only Obama's choice of words. He calls it a middle class tax cut. He doesn't talk about the fact that it's really "OVERALL" a increase in taxes... so it's really not a "tax cut". But, that's politics... Republicans certainly say BS all the time too.

or, the verbiage is certianly manipulated to get the point across to John Q Public ... here's what I said else where when someone said they saw the deficit as a spending problem ...


well, it's both ... fighting these wars isn't helping ...

but as long as we are FORCED to spend on the wars, sorry, we need to collect a little more tax ... and sorry it's coming from the rich, but, it's not some ENORMOUS hit ...

I'm not a blind Obamanaut ... I think he suckered out and dodged the question "with a $700B bail out on the horizon, what are you going to cut from your spending plan?" during the debate (so did McCain) ...

Neither of these guys has a fool proof way to bring the deficit back to zero ... but, I do know, McCain wanting to LOWER taxes on the wealthy again, is down right irresponsible.

_

Here's a chart from the Washington Post comparing their tax plans:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

SundaySilence

saveuplife wrote:

2) My problem is really only Obama's choice of words. He calls it a middle class tax cut. He doesn't talk about the fact that it's really "OVERALL" a increase in taxes... so it's really not a "tax cut". But, that's politics... Republicans certainly say BS all the time too.

Then you don't have a problem at all. Obama's plan is an overall decrease in taxes by 0.3% per person according to the link in the previous post.


Smaller than McCain's plan, but we can't afford McCain's plan according to Greenspan:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE2JCSH5p9r2GBkQWS9TWAMzmuvQD9361PJO0

"Greenspan: Country can't afford McCain's tax cuts"


This is all before the coming bailout though, either McCain or Obama may still have to raise taxes. But Obama leaves more in the hands of the working class instead of the wealthly. This will have a larger and more immediate effect on the economy as money in the working class moves at a higher velocity than money in the wealth class.

saveuplife

SundaySilence wrote:

Then you don't have a problem at all. Obama's plan is an overall decrease in taxes by 0.3% per person according to the link in the previous post.


Smaller than McCain's plan, but we can't afford McCain's plan according to Greenspan:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE2JCSH5p9r2GBkQWS9TWAMzmuvQD9361PJO0

"Greenspan: Country can't afford McCain's tax cuts"


This is all before the coming bailout though, either McCain or Obama may still have to raise taxes. But Obama leaves more in the hands of the working class instead of the wealthly. This will have a larger and more immediate effect on the economy as money in the working class moves at a higher velocity than money in the wealth class.

First, I'm not necessarily wrong at all. Sorry. There's a lot of people in the U.S. The top 5% of wage earners is roughly 5% of the population. So, that's not a lot of people. Yet, that small sect pays over 50% of taxes. Therefore, if you look at Obama's plan it could certainly lower taxes by .3% PER PERSON (because there's a lot of people in the U.S.) and RAISE taxes OVERALL (because the top 5% pay over 50%). That's the point. It's not really a tax cut unless you lower taxes on aggregate.

Second, according to most economists (including myself) Alan Greenspan is one of the reasons we are in the mess we are in today. IMHO, I take everything he says with a grain of salt. He's been proven wrong over and over on the housing mess and the current state of the economy.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

it would be a tax cut for me, and i'm all that matters!

SundaySilence

saveuplife wrote:

First, I'm not necessarily wrong at all. Sorry. There's a lot of people in the U.S. The top 5% of wage earners is roughly 5% of the population. So, that's not a lot of people. Yet, that small sect pays over 50% of taxes. Therefore, if you look at Obama's plan it could certainly lower taxes by .3% PER PERSON (because there's a lot of people in the U.S.) and RAISE taxes OVERALL (because the top 5% pay over 50%). That's the point. It's not really a tax cut unless you lower taxes on aggregate.

We will likely see population growth which will lead to higher overall tax revenues with either the Obama or McCain plan.
Regardless the economic growth (the question in your original post) comes from more high velocity money in the hands of the working class creating markets.

SundaySilence

Upon further pondering, you may be correct saveuplife as I may have been confusing percentages with actual dollars. But as your contention is with Obama's semantics, he does describe his tax plan as tax cuts for the middle class, not overall tax cut, which is correct.

saveuplife

SundaySilence wrote:

Upon further pondering, you may be correct saveuplife as I may have been confusing percentages with actual dollars. But as your contention is with Obama's semantics, he does describe his tax plan as tax cuts for the middle class, not overall tax cut, which is correct.

Thank you.

You are right. It's really just an issue of semantics. I just hope he doesn't say that he's cutting taxes because (overall) that's not really true. I'm not 100% positive that I've heard him say that yet; however, I do think that I've heard him say it once or twice, although he may have been referring to his middle-class tax cuts. If he said I'm cutting middle class taxes every time, he's 100% dead on and I'd have no argument whatsoever.

Strangest Tribe

we can't confuse tax cuts and tax increases with tax breaks and restructuring.
I own a business and only pay myself $7500 per year and in turn give almost all that to income tax but it's still cheaper for me to live off my business as far as taxes go and sometimes if I have declared losses I pay no taxes at all.

So what do you think of that?

Commy

saveuplife wrote:

According to what I've heard, Obama "plans" to cut taxes for 95% of the general public. I'm assuming he'll raise taxes on the top 5% or income earners. (Top $200/$250 K).

Here's the problem. The top 5% pay MORE than 50% of all taxes. So, this is most likely an increase in taxes and not a cut. And that's "if" he keeps the level at $200/$250 thousand, which he obviously could change.

Moreover, small business owners most likely don't support this plan. Why? Well, their business most likely makes over $250 K a year. Also, doesn't Obama plan to hit coporations with increased taxes?

Then, where's the economic growth going to come from? From what I can tell.... Government is the answer. At least, according to his plan.

Am I wrong? Discuss.

You give tax cuts the majority and increase them on the minority, sounds like a fairly democratic move. More people running around with more money can't be bad for the economy. the super rich have anough as it is.

American economics- Give the rich all the steaks and hope they throw a bone to the masses every once in a while. Me? I want the goddamn steak.

saveuplife

Commy wrote:

You give tax cuts the majority and increase them on the minority, sounds like a fairly democratic move. More people running around with more money can't be bad for the economy. the super rich have anough as it is.

American economics- Give the rich all the steaks and hope they throw a bone to the masses every once in a while. Me? I want the goddamn steak.

First step to getting a steak is to get a job. Just kidding.

Commy

saveuplife wrote:

First step to getting a steak is to get a job. Just kidding.

ha. true. But now I'm wondering how you knew I was unemployed....

OffHeGoes29

The money has to come from some where, big government requires more cash for increased programs. They will slash Defence spending and other budgets first, but in the end our taxes are not going to drop.