Obama Might Not Repeal “Bush Tax Cuts”

I’d be thrilled to see Obama renege on this promise.

WASHINGTON – An economic crisis, rising joblessness and a credit squeeze can make a president-elect refine his words. Today’s word is “repeal.” During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised to repeal President George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy ahead of their scheduled expiration in 2011.

It was part of how Obama would pay for an overall net tax cut aimed at low- and middle-income taxpayers, and an effort to bring what he called “fairness” to the tax system.

No one is talking tax hikes now.

Over the weekend, Obama said he has charged his new economic team with devising a plan that would create or preserve 2.5 million jobs over two years. He said the plan would include broad spending plans as well as the middle- and low-income tax cuts he described during the campaign.

Aides later said the plan would not include any of the tax increases Obama, as a candidate, had said he would impose on taxpayers who make more than $250,000.

We don’t need a tax hike right now.  And lest you think that the so-called “Bush tax cuts” were just for the rich, remember these points:

- a new 10% bracket was created for single filers with taxable income up to $6,000, joint filers up to $12,000, and heads of households up to $10,000.

- the 15% bracket’s lower threshold was indexed to the new 10% bracket

- the 28% bracket would be lowered to 25% by 2006.

- the 31% bracket would be lowered to 28% by 2006

- the 36% bracket would be lowered to 33% by 2006

- the 39.6% bracket would be lowered to 35% by 2006

- The EGTRRA in many cases lowered the taxes on married couples filing jointly by increasing the standard deduction for joint filers to between 174% and 200% of the deduction for single filers.

- Additionally, it changed the rate of tax on dividend income starting in 2003 to 5% for those in the 0% or 15% brackets, falling to 0% in 2008. It was lowered to 15% for all other brackets.

- Additionally, EGTRRA increased the per-child tax credit and the amount eligible for credit spent on dependent child care, phased out limits on itemized deductions and personal exemptions for higher income taxpayers, and increased the exemption for the Alternative Minimum Tax, and created a new depreciation deduction for qualified property owners.

Are any of you benefiting from any of these provisions?  I thought so.  Do you consider yourself rich?  Obama apparently does. 

On a related note, this is going to get old:

Asked Monday when those hikes might go into effect, Obama said, “Whether that’s done through repeal, or whether that’s done because the Bush tax cuts are not renewed, is something that my economic team will be providing me a recommendation on.”

It’s good to get advice from people, but what the heck has Obama been doing for the past few months?  Presumably he advocated repealing the tax cuts because he thought it would improve the economy and Americans’ lives.  Is that not the case?  Was he advocating something that he knew would hurt the economy?  Is he capable of making a decision without a panel of prestigious advisers for cover?  Like I said… this is going to get old. 

In any case, Obama should make the tax cuts permanent.  It would do more for the economy than any of these bailouts. 

1. Presumably he advocated repealing the tax cuts because he thought it would improve the economy and Americans’ lives.  Is that not the case?

   Of course, because the cuts only benefited the rich, who are evil and don’t deserve them.  No, wait.  They benefited nearly every American?  Huh.  Now I’m confused.  Obama wouldn’t lie to us, would he?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 24, 2008 at 2301 hrs




2. We are in an income bracket Obama has said he intends to raise taxes on. You’re right, we don’t think of ourselves as rich. For example, we live in a mid-60s house, 1750 SF, not a trendy neighborhood, have needed a bigger one for years but can’t afford it. Can’t even afford to add on. I drive our paid-off 2002 minivan with hail damage. We live pretty modestly.

   But why should my perception of whether I am rich matter? The reality is, anyone making $250k and up is WAY rich compared to the vast majority of people on the entire planet. So I feel I should balance my need for a bigger house (which, if I am honest, is just a want) with the fact that our economy is in free fall, we need to invest in infrastructure and education and all sorts of things, pay off the war tab, take care of elderly - a whole lot of things I believe are good and necessary. In the face of all that, even if I don’t feel rich, I know objectively speaking that my family can kick in a little more. So I don’t mind. What’s that line - taxes are the price I pay for civilization?

   I don’t understand why a few percentage points got blown into “socialism” or gets anyone in my income range or higher worked up.

   Posted by hope on November 24, 2008 at 2313 hrs




3. hope

   thanks for the truth.

   oddly Owen seems to make a big deal out of it,
   then goes on to insinuate not many folks fall into this category?
   which is clearly true.
   why should folks have to have a tax increase to support the wars?
   or is it really just going back to earlier,more fairer tax rates?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 25, 2008 at 0806 hrs




4. I don’t understand why a few percentage points got blown into “socialism” or gets anyone in my income range or higher worked up.

   Ask any financial adviser how important a few percentage points can be.  Would you rather have your 401k earning 5% or just a few points higher - say 9%?

   Open up an excel spread sheet and do some math.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 25, 2008 at 0850 hrs




5. Clint - I think you are missing my point. Sure, a few percentage points compounded over time can equal alot of money. The point is, my lifestyle will not be significantly different even if my taxes go up 4 or 5 percent, and further, that the small sacrifices I might need to make to offset that increase pale in comparison to the national needs.

   Also, telling me to “open a spreadsheet and do some math” comes across as very dismissive and rude. You may not have intended it that way, but that is how it seemed to me. Disagreement is fine, and I don’t at all mind having to clarify or defend my position. But treating people respectfully, even if you disagree with them, increases the likelihood of meaningful discussion.

   Posted by hope on November 25, 2008 at 0943 hrs




6. Well, Hope, you should open a spreadsheet and do the math.  Check and see how “a few percentage points” will affect everyone in every tax bracket.

   OTOH, the Dems will just let the tax cuts expire.  By their logic, that means “we didn’t vote for any tax increases”.

   Posted by The Asian Badger on November 25, 2008 at 0950 hrs




7. Lest you think I am unfamiliar with basic math, please know that I have a master’s degree in public affairs, have worked through the state legislative budget process and routinely balance the family checkbook.

   Seriously, though, neither of you addressed the issue of balancing the additional cost to a taxpayer versus what the country needs.

   It may be that you are fine with increased borrowing and staggering deficits and debt we never pay off. It may be you think the economy should right itself and the government shouldn’t step in. It may be that you think there is nothing the government needs to pay for that it isn’t already paying for. If that’s the case, say so - but all Clint and Badger have said is that people will pay more taxes. That isn’t an argument for anything. It isn’t even an argument with my main point.

   With the huge bailouts and the continuing economic crisis, I am very interested in hearing what small-government conservatives think about the appropriate role of the government in the crisis.  I was amused to find myself agreeing with conservatives on the initial Wall Street bailout, and again when I realized I agreed with the Bush administration and Mitt Romney, for Pete’s sake, on the auto industry request for a bailout. But what I haven’t really seen much of is a conservative discussion of how to fund the gaping budget hole we have been digging. I think it is obvious that trimming spending, a typical policy position, isn’t nearly enough given the magnitude of the dollars in question. Which means tax increases of some kind have to be on the table. Any thoughts on that?

   Posted by hope on November 25, 2008 at 1005 hrs




8. you are fine with increased borrowing and staggering deficits and debt we never pay off.

   Orrrrrr - how about cutting spending???????

   There is so much spending on the federal level that isn’t the federal levels job…...

   You might also want to look at history - lower taxes brings in more tax revenue…. therefore higher taxes brings in less revenue (yes there is a balance point in which that rule doesn’t work but we are not near that point yet)

   but all Clint and Badger have said is that people will pay more taxes.

   Yep more taxes that I pay - the less money that I have to take the family out to dinner… those waiters/waitress won’t get tips from me… the cooks will be cooking for fewer people ... etc but that is ok… they can join FDRjr’s road building crew.

   It may be you think the economy should right itself and the government shouldn’t step in.

   The economy is the way it is because the gummit is in the mortgage business.  Had they not been in the mortgage business then a lot of bad loans wouldn’t have been underwritten by the fed just so that a couple of presidents can boast about home ownership rates.

   With the huge bailouts I am very interested in hearing what small-government conservatives think about the appropriate role of the government in the crisis.

   Yeah - there is 700B that we could have saved.  Let AIG fail.  Let GM fail.  Let all of the companies that put greed in front of common business sense fail.  The companies and boards that were smart with their business practices and not greedy will emerge stronger with the failure of these crappy companies.

   I am a heartless bastard when it comes to federal spending.  I can cut the budget very easily in one weekend.  It won’t be pretty.  I will hear a lot of cries of “the children will starve” and other socialist fear mongering…  But the fed won’t be building anymore bike paths in Crudahy.  They won’t be paying to put bike racks on any city owned/operated buses.  They won’t be building a bridge to nowhere and they wont fund starving artists.  They also will return 100% control of schools to localities… that includes 100% of funding responsibility to school boards.  The only funds that will go toward New Orleans and Jefferson Parrish will be to return NO to natural wet lands as we stop trying to alter Mother Nature and the natural flow of the Mississippi River.  We will no longer subsidize flood insurance.  If you live in Davenport Iowa and in the flood zone of the Mississippi River and your basement floods every year… get your own insurance or don’t live on the river.

   Do you want me to continue with examples of how easy it would be cut the federal budget?  Of course I can make these recommendations because I have no desire to be re-elected to another term

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 25, 2008 at 1024 hrs




9. Sure, a few percentage points compounded over time can equal alot of money. The point is, my lifestyle will not be significantly different even if my taxes go up 4 or 5 percent,

   Not 4-5 percent - 4-5 percantage points….

   A couple of teachers with a pair of kids making 100k/year.  If taxes go up 4 points - that is $4000 - or $77 per week.  I don’t know what world you live in… but $77 a week is a big hit to take… especially when it goes to the federal gummit that has zero history of responsible spending.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 25, 2008 at 1030 hrs




10. So what would your cuts total, compared to what is needed (even assuming the government no longer had any of the spending obligations you would halt)? I’m guessing you don’t know, which is fine - I don’t expect that most people have done much tinkering with the federal debt and budget. I would just say that perhaps the amount you think you are cutting and the amount of money needed to fill the current hole are not an exact match.

    The other thing that occurs to me in reading your comment is that it is easy for anyone to point out spending they don’t like but the reality is, we live in a country with a wide range of opinions about the appropriate role of government and what constitutes appropriate spending. So you can’t just fixate on your personal pie in the sky to the exclusion of the range of feasible policy options. I don’t believe there is enough spending cuts that would receive majority support to fill the hole. And even conservative economists seem to agree that the government is going to have to fund a stimulus. So practically speaking, we aren’t going to manipulate the spending side of the equation to offset the govt’s financial obligations. Then you’re back to tax increases of some kind.

    Ack, I have spent too much time on this. I have to get back to work, need to bill more hours to pay for my taxes.

    Posted by hope on November 25, 2008 at 1046 hrs




11. Just saw Clint’s note so one last thing then I promise to leave you all alone…

    Obama intended to raise taxes on those making $250k and up. So your example doesn’t apply. 35% of $250k is about $87500, while 39% bumps the total $10k. That’s about $200 a week. I bill $185 per hour, which means I cover my tax increase in just over an hour each week. Alternatively, I can cover it not by working more, but by cooking a couple extra dinners each week myself rather than going to a restaurant and buying convenience foods, and not buying my kids smoothies/after school snacks at the posh grocery store three times a week. I don’t find either way of plugging the hole to be such a burden given what my country needs.

    Thank you for your responses.

    Posted by hope on November 25, 2008 at 1057 hrs




12. Obama intended to raise taxes on those making $250k

    But he also promised to repeal Bush’s tax cuts… so which is it? 

    I can cover it not by working more, but by cooking a couple extra dinners each week myself rather than going to a restaurant and buying convenience foods, and not buying my kids smoothies/after school snacks at the posh grocery store three times a week.

    So you can cover your taxes by not spending any of your money…. hummm wonder what effect that will have on the economy???

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 25, 2008 at 1106 hrs




13. So Hope, when is “enough” enough?

    A couple percentage points this year…  What happens when they need more?  A couple percentage points more then?

    A study of economics would dictate that there are unlimited wants, limited resources. 

    You state that your family has learned to live by that motto, then why not government?

    What’s that line - taxes are the price I pay for civilization?

    Sure… whats the other quote?  “Doin good ain’t got no end”

    Just under what circumstances do you believe we would then get a tax cut?

    Or once a tax increase to “pay for this stuff, pay off the war tab” is that kept up in perpetuity?

    Please share Hope under what circumstances a tax cut is in order. 

    I think we have pretty unmitigated evidence that government finds a way to spend every penny it takes in.  When there are surpluses internally government is all about keeping that money for more government.  When we’ve had surpluses in the past I never heard democrats clamoring for cutting taxes, they had plans for that money.  Remember “doin good ain’t got no end”.

    If we all shrugged our shoulder and just said “eh, i don’t mind paying a little more” (like a good little serf would) do you REALLY believe government would ever have any incentive to be judicious and stop its exponential growth? Government growth has been outpacing the private sector growth for decades.  Where does this end?

    So whats next on the pike?  Where do we draw the line?  How do we ask government to live within its means and when?

    And how judicious will people consume services when someone else is paying for them?  Ever compare people’s personal expenses when they travel compared to business expenses when they travel on an expense account?  We’ve got plenty of evidence of that too.  I have news for you, people spend like drunk sailors when its not “their money”.  And we’re going to create more entitlements?

    It comes back to the same thing. 

    As a society, its imperative that we demand accountability. As a society its imperative that people, YES, even the ones that aren’t “rich” must pay their fair share in taxes.

    We must position government to leverage the best of human nature.  Desire for reward, gain, motivation, self-efficacy.  We must not position government to leverage the worst of human nature.  Laziness, class envy, dependence, living off the fruits of other peoples labor and not your own, pandering to people’s propensity to see themselves as victims.

    That is how a society will prosper.  THAT is the way to ‘civilization’. 

    The most uncivilized portions of this city are the portions of this city that receive the greatest in public money.  The lions share of the cost of policing.  The lions share of entitlements. Sorry Hope… No matter how righteous it sounds to say taxes are the cost of civlization, tax and entitle hasn’t led to “civilization” now has it????

    On some level taxes fund the structure of government.  Those governments instituted among men at the consent of the governed DO INDEED provide a civilization. 

    But when we’ve warped the definition of a “public good” that ALL people benefit from and instead taxes do not fund a benefit for all but a detriment to one citizen at the benefit of another…  That’s not civilization Hope.  Thats not promoting a better society. 

    If MORE tax and MORE entitlement led to more civilization how do you explain MPS?  How do you explain the inner city?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 25, 2008 at 1149 hrs




14. Well said Pilot - much more eloquent than I

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 25, 2008 at 1259 hrs




15. But he also promised to repeal Bush’s tax cuts… so which is it? 

    Actually, he often (always?) used language like “Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans,” or Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest x% of earners,” etc.

    Does anyone have anything concrete that he plans to repeal (the small bit of) Bush’s tax cuts that went to me and you?

    Posted by scott on November 25, 2008 at 1451 hrs




16. Does anyone have anything concrete that he plans to repeal (the small bit of) Bush’s tax cuts that went to me and you?

    I suppose you are right…. since when can you believe what a politician promises…. Does that mean that Obama will fall back to his past history and raise taxes on everyone and not just the rich??

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 25, 2008 at 1458 hrs




17. Okay, Clint gives us a “no.”  Anyone else?

    Posted by scott on November 25, 2008 at 1501 hrs




18. Hey Scott - It is called history… Obama’s history is that he raieses taxes on everyone… that is concrete.  Or at least as concrete as a politician gets….

    And since you don’t feel that the tax cut that you got from Bush is so small…. can I have that money from your pocket???

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 25, 2008 at 1505 hrs




19. Clint, I’ve already counted your “no” response.  I got it.  You don’t have any concrete evidence that Obama is planning to do anything other than repeal that part of the Bush tax cuts that went to the wealthiest Americans.  Let’s move on now.

    Posted by scott on November 25, 2008 at 1506 hrs




20. Hey Scott - still waiting for that payment…..

    Do you have any concrete evidence of any of his promises…

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 25, 2008 at 1509 hrs




21. The tax cuts are not terribly relevant right now.    What is necessary is to cut government spending.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 25, 2008 at 1510 hrs




22. Okay, Clint gives us a “no.” Anyone else?

    Does anyone have any “troll feed” laying around for Scott? I’m fresh out…

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 25, 2008 at 1527 hrs




23. What is necessary is to cut government spending.

    No more gummit spending is the only way out of the crisis that gummit created….  We can spend our way to prosperity…. [/sarcasm]

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 25, 2008 at 1528 hrs




24. Look, I’m asking a serious question.  There’s a difference between saying ‘i’m going to repeal all of the Bush tax cuts, including those which went to the middle class” and saying “I’m going to repeal the Bush tax cuts that went to the wealthiest x% of earners.”  Doesn’t that distinction make all the difference here?

    Posted by scott on November 25, 2008 at 1534 hrs




25. Yes there is a difference…. There is also a difference between words (just words) and history - and considering his words changed daily on the campaign trail we will have to rely on history.  And since you don’t know what he said….  Here is what we do know (concrete) Obama used the Bush tax cuts and repealing the Bush Tax cuts as a rallying call.  Since Obama doesn’t know what he is doing… all we have is speculation - and HISTORY(what little there is of it).  Since history is more accurate than speculation…. lets go with that.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 25, 2008 at 1540 hrs




26. Bullshit.

    There’s some obvious and willful disingenuousness going on here in this post and in this thread.  You’re conflating two different things to muddy the water.  Obama says he’s going to repeal the tax cuts that went to the wealthy as a means of funding a middle-class tax cut (even larger than the one McCain proposed).  And no one here seems to have any evidence that this isn’t what he said or meant.  Then you go on a rant about how the Bush tax cuts weren’t just for the wealthy, so it’s great that he’s not repealing them.  I mean, c’mon.

    Posted by scott on November 25, 2008 at 1546 hrs




27. Bullshit on your bullshit…..

    Since Obama now has to come up with viable real solutions he doesn’t know what he is doing…. Which is why he can’t do anything without first discussing things with some panel.  So once again lets go back to history… he isn’t going to buck his own history unless he is just a puppet.  So tell me Scott - is he a puppet (or post turtle) or is he his own man?  If he is his own man… then he will follow the same trends that he has followed in the past - raise everyones taxes.  If he is a puppet….

    I am trying really hard to ignore BV’s comment but I am really close to asking that you return to the bridge that came out from under….

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 25, 2008 at 1552 hrs




28. I think you’re dodging the issue.  Calling me a troll doesn’t change that. 

    Claiming that repealing the Bush tax cuts would be bad because middle-class people got them while ignoring the fact that Obama is proposing to repeal them for the wealthy to fund an even larger middle-class tax cut is, well, bullshit reasoning.

    Posted by scott on November 25, 2008 at 1557 hrs




29. Calling me a troll doesn’t change that. 

    Which is why I didn’t do it.

    When was the last time that Obama voted for a tax cut - of any kind?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 25, 2008 at 1559 hrs




30. You’re making a different argument.  You’re saying you don’t believe he intends to do what he proposed because of your take on his record.  That’s different than saying it’s good that he’s postponing the repeal of the Bush tax cuts because some of them went to the middle-class—which is a specious and dumb argument, given that he’s proposing more tax cuts for the middle-class.

    Posted by scott on November 25, 2008 at 1605 hrs




31. So you can’t answer the question then…. and you didn’t appologize for putting words into my mouth….

    When was the last time that Obama voted for a tax cut - of any kind?

    It has nothing to do with my ‘take’ on his record - it is his record.  FACT - not ‘take’

    You make the assumption that he will follow through with his promise to lower taxes for the ‘middle class’.  I make the assumption -based on his history and not a campaign promise that he won’t lower anyones taxes - only repeal the tax cuts. 

    This is kind of like raising Milwaukee County sales tax to lower my property tax….there will some excuse why that tax cuts don’t happen - there always is.

    It would be nice if you stopped playing class warfare for a day.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 25, 2008 at 1612 hrs




32. Pretty slick, Clint.  I raise a salient question about the original post and instead of defending it, you simply go in a different direction (Obama’s record).

    I don’t really want to have an argument about how Obama’s record impacts his likelihood of doing what he said he’d do as president.  it’s a pissing match.  You’ll say his record somehow indicates that he won’t do as he said, I’ll say it doesn’t mean that—and by the time either of us see what really happens this argument will be long forgotten.  I’m not interested.

    What I would like to know is whether Obama actually ever proposed repealing the Bush tax cuts that went to the middle-class.  And even if he ever did, isn’t it moot anyway because he proposed other, larger middle-class tax cuts?

    Posted by scott on November 25, 2008 at 1621 hrs




33. I don’t really want to have an argument about how Obama’s record impacts his likelihood of doing what he said he’d do as president.

    So since history means nothing to you…. does that mean that you will vote for a conservative in the next round of elections…. will you stand behind Jim Sensebrenner or Paul Ryan or Mark Green??  Or will your history as a liberal and borderline socialist prevent clear thinking???  My money is that you will continue to support the most liberal candidates on the ballot. 

    Thank you for once again proving and documenting for everyone that words mean more than action and truth to you.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 25, 2008 at 1625 hrs




34. As far as I know, Obama has never proposed increasing taxes for the middle class.  In fact, his tax policy proposals indicate that I’d get a larger tax cut from him than I would have received from McCain.  Therefore, being glad that he’s reportedly holding off on repealing “the Bush tax cuts” on the grounds that middle-class people got them too is disingenuous. 

    Blah, blah, blah, you’re a socialist!  Blah, blah, blah, you’re a troll!  Blah, blah, blah, have you ever looked at his record?!?!?!!1

    Yawn.

    Posted by scott on November 25, 2008 at 1634 hrs




35. Once again Scott - I didn’t call you a troll.

    Secondly - as usual you missed the point.  Would you have supported McCain if he only promised bigger cuts?  Forget about reality or history… if it is all about empty promises…. then why bother.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 25, 2008 at 1637 hrs




36. Okay, I can answer that.  No, if McCain had proposed increasing taxes on the wealthy and giving the middle-class a tax cut that wouldn’t have been enough for me to support him.  But let me be clear: that would have been a nice step in that direction.  If he also admitted that Iraq was a mistake and that we should find a way to leave, and if he also became pro-choice, and if he also ...  you see where I’m going.

    if you think Obama is just a big liar and that his record proves he won’t give me the promised tax cut, then say so.  And then when it happens, we’ll revisit your wrongness and discuss it thoroughly.  How about that?

    Posted by scott on November 25, 2008 at 1643 hrs




37. What I would like to know is whether Obama actually ever proposed repealing the Bush tax cuts that went to the middle-class.

    Actually he did - sort of.  The tax plan on his website called for raising the top two tax brackets.  That would include earners below the “rich” level of $250k since bracket #2 (the 33% bracket) is assessed on dollars $164,550 thru $357,700.

    Similarly with the dividend and capital gains Bush tax cuts.  Obama proposed raising those.  So, anyone with an interest bearing savings or checking account, stock ownership with their employer, personal stock account, etc. will have their taxes raised.

    Of course, his tax plan was sufficiently vague enough that he could probably do anything he wants and claim that he didn’t break any promises. I read his plans very closely and the vagueness was comical.  Here’s a test: try figuring out exactly where his Social Security FICA withholding cuts off and then re-starts.  Reconciling the written plan vs. the speeches, it could conceivably re-start at dollat $250,001 or at $125,001.

    I don’t think he actually has a tax plan at all.  I think they set $250k as a good number that people could understand and would stoke the class warfare fears enough to keep enough people from complaining about it.  In light of what’s happening to the economy, I think most people will be thankful to simply still have a job by the end 2009 - no matter how much they’ll be taxed.

    BTW Scott, I found your paradise.  I was in Denmark for 10 days this month.  Got to talk to some people over there.  Not only are their income taxes nice and high (63%) but you get 100% free cradle-to-grave health care, education, retirement (their version of social security), and stipends when you’re unemployed.  One can, if they so choose, quit their job and decide to go back to university for a whole new degree in another field.  The schooling is free and they’ll even pay you enough of a monthly stipend to rent an apartment and eat.

    And their unemployment is so low that they have to recruit foreigners with lower income taxes just to fill the demand of employers.  You could go move over there now and only pay 25% income tax for the first 4 years you’re there.

    Neat, eh?

    Posted by David on November 25, 2008 at 1723 hrs




38. Actually he did - sort of.  The tax plan on his website

    Can you provide a link to back up this claim?

    the dividend and capital gains Bush tax cuts.  Obama proposed raising those.  So, anyone with an interest bearing savings or checking account, stock ownership with their employer, personal stock account, etc. will have their taxes raised.

    You’re leaving out an important detail: the capital gains tax would in fact be raised to 20%—but only for those who make 250k annually.  Or do I have that wrong?

    And for fuck’s sake, David, I’m not asking to become Denmark.  I’m asking for some pretty moderate things here.  The most radical thing on my list would be tax-funded health insurance—something Obama’s not even proposing, and practically every other nation on earth has already. Stop demonizing people like myself.

    Posted by scott on November 25, 2008 at 1732 hrs




39. Here is the link to the tax plan (pdf): http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan _FINAL.pdf

    Page 5 talks about the top two tax brackets.  They claim to work with the Treasury department to adjust the thresholds to protect the $250k limit.  But again, why the vague language?  Why not just put in a table to state where each bracket’s limits begin and end?  And then it goes on to punish people for being married since the rich limit for single payers is $200k.  So a married couple each making $100k would be taxed heavier than a single guy making $199k. Niiiice.

    And I wasn’t trying to demonize with the Denmark thing.  It was tongue-in-cheek.  If anything, the same arguments you have for socialized health care, higher taxes, etc. could be used against you for even higher taxation and expansion of government programs when comparing to a place like Denmark.  Meaning: The battle will never end.  Some groups will always want more or less taxation and government programs.  One can look at any host of reasons why a model like Denmark works for Denmark, but wouldn’t work for some other country like New Zealand or Singapore.

    All I can say about Obama and his tax plans at this point is: good luck.  I’m not sure what would work for this country right now because I don’t think anyone honestly knows for sure.  This is new territory.  But I do know that I’d like to keep more of my own paycheck.  I’m not of the Sean Penn crowd who beg for higher taxes but can never be found actually writing an extra check to the government in lieu of buying that new car or French château.

    Posted by David on November 25, 2008 at 1812 hrs




40. I’m asking for some pretty moderate things here.

    Where do you stop Scott??  Liberals of the 60’s were asking for some pretty moderate things as well…. they got them… now they are asking for more.  The problem is Scott that you will get those ‘moderate’ things and then when they don’t work, we will here some crap about how ‘invested’ we are in the solution and how we just need a bit more.

    You lost the definition of moderate years ago.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2008 at 0903 hrs




41. It would be helpful if you could limit the discussion to, you know, real things.  Instead of your fever-dream fantasies about how future liberals may say.

    And God only knows what horrific things in the 60s you’re referring to.

    I’m getting tired of asking this.  Does anyone have any documentation to indicate that Obama’s plan to “repeal the Bush tax cuts” ever included the portion which went to the middle-class?  Because if that’s not what he proposed, then the idea that waiting to repeal them is good for the middle-class because some of that tax cut was theirs is false.

    Let me spell it out more clearly.  Put this way, it makes sense:

    a) Obama pledges to repeal the Bush tax cuts, some of which went to the middle-class

    b) Obama says he may have to wait until the economic situation improves before he does so.

    c) Therefore, middle-class rejoice!  You’re going to keep your Bush tax cut for a while.

    Put this way, it doesn’t.

    a) Obama pledges to repeal the portion of the Bush tax cuts that went to the wealthy.

    b) Obama says he may have to wait until the economic situation improves before he does so.

    c) Therefore, middle-class rejoice!  You’re going to keep your Bush tax cut for a while.

    Posted by scott on November 26, 2008 at 0943 hrs




42. It would be helpful if you could limit the discussion to, you know, real things. 

    Ok - does that mean that you will stop talking about a liberal cutting taxes??

    Sorry - I didn’t read anything after that because you are so far off your rocker…  Go back to comment #33 - that is where you should have stopped because you lost all credibility when you said that history wasn’t an indicator of future actions/results.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2008 at 0948 hrs




43. No, it doesn’t mean that, Clint.  Sorry.

    And I never said history wasn’t an indicator of the future, genius.  I said arguing that his record causes you to doubt what he’s being truthful about his current proposals is a different argument than the one being made above: that he actually proposed repealing that portion of the Bush tax cuts that went to the middle-class.

    Posted by scott on November 26, 2008 at 0952 hrs




44. you contradict your self…. the leapord changed his spots - and you believe that obama record has nothing to do with what he believes in….  Wow you are lost.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2008 at 0953 hrs




45. Christ, I just don’t know where to go with you.  I tried.

    Posted by scott on November 26, 2008 at 1000 hrs




46. There is no where to go with me…. I can’t follow someone who is so wrapped up in their own lies and misconceptions that they only lead down the gutter….

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2008 at 1001 hrs




47. I think you could benefit from professional help.  You’re not to Peter DeGaudio levels, yet, but it’s still worrisome.

    Posted by scott on November 26, 2008 at 1004 hrs




48. So Clint. I ask you this…  Are you ready to join the concensus yet! 

    The great thing about the internet and this blog for scott is there is an endless line of people who wander through that try to make sense with him and have a logical debate.  One by one, we all learn.  I’ve tried.  I’m sure many before me tried. It really is pointless.  Its even impossible to agree to disgree with him because there is no basis for his conjecture.  No willingness on his part to debate in “good faith” and acknowledge a point or a fact.  We all come to the same conclusion you did in 46.

    My epiphany with scott came in this thread.  For me, it was finally undeniable that you just can’t reason with him on any level.  Its a Gem.  Demonstrates just perfectly Scotts m.o. when you present facts to him.

    http://www.bootsandsabers.com/index.php/weblog/perma link/gun_sales_booming/

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2008 at 1224 hrs




49. Dude, I came here to ask a simple and relevant question.  I came to point out that Obama’s desire to delay the repeal of the Bush tax cuts did represent a boon to middle-class taxpayers.  What’d I get in return?  I get called a troll.  I get a bait-and-switch discussion about Obama’s record.  I am told that I contradict myself, when I most certainly have not.  Not one person even acknowledged the validity of my question, let alone bothered to respond to it.

    Posted by scott on November 26, 2008 at 1239 hrs




50. sorry scott, not bitin… learned my lesson with you…

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2008 at 1244 hrs




51. Dude——

    You still don’t get it…. your arguement is that Obama is going to raise taxes to lower taxes…. The fact is that nobody (in their right mind) believe that Obama will actually lower taxes…. why because he has NEVER done it before.

    So if he actually does it - then he is someones puppet… since not many people believe that he is a puppet - then nobody has any faith that he will do it based on campaign promises.  That is what you don’t get.  A leapord can not change its spots.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2008 at 1244 hrs




52. My argument is in direct response to the original post: delaying the repeal of the Bush tax cuts is not a boon to middle-class taxpayers because Obama stated he was only going to repeal that portion which went to the wealthiest earners.  (Or that his other middle-class tax cuts would more than make up for it—larger than the one’s McCain proposed, according to CNN.

    After the comments reached the teens, and I had already asked this pointed question, someone then wanted to make it about whether Obama was believable when he pledged to cut anyone’s taxes—which is a whole different issue, don’t you agree?  Fine if you want to have a discussion about that, but that’s not what this was originally about.

    Posted by scott on November 26, 2008 at 1253 hrs




53. FWIW Scott, I at least provided some documentation.  The problem is that “middle class” has no standard definition.  A $200k salary in Manhattan is squarely in the middle class.  But in Podunk fly-over country - eh. it’s probably considered wealthy.  You can buy drastically more or less with that money depending on where one lives.

    Such is the folly of a national income tax in the first place for a country of this size.  But that another whole topic altogether.

    Posted by David on November 26, 2008 at 1309 hrs




54. I really don’t think that’s a critical problem, David.  We draw the line on things like that every day—always have.  I’m fine with drawing that line at 250k in income.  A graduated rise in tax rates starting at that level and rising to, what, a couple extra percent doesn’t strike me as particularly draconian.  Especially when you consider my new “trickle-up” theory of economics.  What you do is, you give tax cuts to people earning less than 200k annually.  They go out and buy more goods and services, thus fueling the economy.  The wealthy actually see some benefit, too, as their business investments get the returns associated with higher sales and consumption.  Win win.

    Posted by scott on November 26, 2008 at 1319 hrs