Obama is promising tax cuts to those who create new jobs and tax penalties for those who outsource jobs overseas. Does anyone know specifics on this, such as cut-off dates or regressivity?
It seems like an Obama victory would incentivize any company to downsize its entire staff late this year and re-hire them next year. Additionally, any company planning on outsourcing in the future would simply move their plans up.
No?
Check my blog, if you're a loser
First, most jobs are created by wealthy people. I have never outside of the Army worked for folks who were not a lot more wealthy than I am. So any attempt to tax the wealthy will result necessarily in the loss of jobs.
Obama has all but admitted that his Capital Gains Tax Hike will result in reduced revenue to the Federal Government in the long run. History shows that in the longer term revenues to the Federal Government increase with lower tax rates. Furthermore, as the tax burden on the wealthy rises the percentage of taxes paid by the wealthy tends to decrease. So my view of history would say that taxing anyone more will only result in higher long term deficits.
This whole tax increase vs keeping them the same argument is simply an attempt to keep the public from asking for the real culprit in the down enconomy, higher deficits, huge military expenditures, etc, the spending. As long as the government keeps stealing 3 trillion from the productive in the economy there will be problems.
billott1: Obama has all but admitted that his Capital Gains Tax Hike will result in reduced revenue to the Federal Government in the long run. History shows that in the longer term revenues to the Federal Government increase with lower tax rates.
Obama has all but admitted that his Capital Gains Tax Hike will result in reduced revenue to the Federal Government in the long run. History shows that in the longer term revenues to the Federal Government increase with lower tax rates.
This is the problem. Republicans love to say "lower taxes = higher revenues" to the federal government. Why would a group that claims to be for smaller government want more revenue for the government? Starve the beast, I say.
"Starve the Beast" is a thoroughly ineffective strategy when the beast can borrow as much food as it wants.
Starving the beast by refusing to sell stocks could be argued as starving oneself in certain conditions.
Even if the government taxes you greater than 50%, you can win if you spend your money more wisely.
If the dollar is abandoned, the beast can only borrow a shrinking pie - that is hyperinflation.
When Republicans (Except Ron Paul and a small number of others) talk about smaller government they are not telling the truth. What they mean is smaller government in areas they deem unnecessary for government intrusion. Of course the other useless part feels that many if not all of these areas are prime for government intrusion and the ones the Republicans want are the ones that should be cut back. Of course these folks come to a devil's compromise and just make the whole government bigger.
This statement scares me. It appears that you are calling for higher taxes. This may not be the case; but it appears as such. I don't care what government revenue is if my taxes are low. That is Obama's way of thinking. You know....The rich are bad. I think Obama's eplan will be good for the government for an extremely short period of time. After the lag effect has happened, then you will see a drastic decline in jobs and growth. Like I said, Obama's plan will be good for the GOVERNMENT. Not the citizens. That seems to be what is overlooked here. Obama thinks that we owe government the money. That's not the case. We owe taxes only for government services that benefit all citizens. This has been raped repeatedly. The poor of the country get way more out of taxes than the middle class or rich. This is extremely far from what the founders envisioned. What I don't understand is where someone who doesn't work gets government assistance, while someone who does, but doesn't make a lot is said to make too much to get help. If we help ones that don't add productivity, and not help those that do produce, then we are heading nowhere. It's completely inefficient. As a nation America is efficient at one thing. Voting in the ones that promise to give us the most.
I am sad that I actually had to go to Barry Marx's website. Anyway, he makes a lot of misleading and sometimes untrue claims on this page.
1.) He says that 95% of workers will get a tax cut....95% of people dont pay taxes, so we are giving a tax cut to people who dont pay in the first place?
2.) He goes on to say on the page that the revenues will be lower than they were during the Reagan years, which I find hard to believe relative to inflation. If he means the real value of revenues will be lower than they were during the Reagan years, my problem is that during the Reagan years we had a huge activation due to the Cold War...and there was a Democrat Congress.
I think it all goes back to the constant belief that the President is the end all, be all and that any one thing that happens in the economy or otherwise is his fault. The President does not have the authority to create, pass and enact laws all by himself, and the Constitution makes sure it stays that way.
Harksaw: "Starve the Beast" is a thoroughly ineffective strategy when the beast can borrow as much food as it wants.
You are correct. I am foolish for not including that.
I always laugh when I hear that from Republicans. They seem to think that the government's job is to maximize its profits.
Again..Who cares what government revenue is? We should be worried about how much government is spending. If I have lower taxes, I don't care if government revenue is up or down. I am for citizens; not government. I always laugh when someone that is mentioning any topic related to economics mentions either Democrats or Republicans. They are both ignorant of economics. I know McCain and Palin aren't economic savvy. This doens't appoint Obama/Biden to be the economic experts. They are just as clueless. My theory is this. I think an Obama Administration will let the Bush tax cuts expire, and then they may enact some type of tax break from that higher tax rate of eight years ago; while still raising taxes on everybody from where they are today. I mean on everybody; Not just the "rich". Obama is looking out for government money. Anyone who has studied economics knows that Obama's plan will not produce jobs. The only way that wages go up is if we have more capital than people willing to work. We will have the oppisite effect with Obama's policies. I also envison health care going up. If Obama wants to cover the 47 million uninsured, and then negotiate how much the government is going to pay out, private citizens will have to make up the difference. Anyways...Obama is not lying when he says change is coming.
I care about what the government's revenue is because if it increases, then that means more private property is taken away from individuals. I don't want the government to have ANY revenue .
I agree that government should not be allowed private property; However, relating lower taxes = private property loss is a bit far reaching. I say this because as taxes go down, revenue goes up. To have no government isn't logical. There is a role for government. My personal tax policy would be a flat tax on individuals of 10%, a corporate tax of 10% with an amendment of NO subsidies. Subsidies are one of the biggest invitations for lobbyist. Also subsidies are in competition with the free market. It's not a free market if the government steps in and decides one company's cost should be less than anothers. That would be my Federal tax system. That's it. The states will then have their own policies as needed. I am a believer in some of the founders vision of liberation. I am not a believer of any political parties today. Spend, spend, spend is all they want to do. They only want to do this so they can get re-elected, and feed their ego's. I am a bigger fan of lower taxes = higher revenue, than I am high taxes = not as much revenue. I think we are on the same page, but I am looking at policies that can be put into place in reality; not a plan to eliminate government completely.
Roadhouse158:I think we are on the same page, but I am looking at policies that can be put into place in reality; not a plan to eliminate government completely.
What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive?
Anonymous Coward: Roadhouse158:I think we are on the same page, but I am looking at policies that can be put into place in reality; not a plan to eliminate government completely. What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive?
I don't know if this is the point you were trying to make; But the government putting policies in place that are logical isn't reality. That's for sure. I love how they subsidise tobacco companies while pushing for people to quit smoking. Like I said; we are definitely both against the government. Now if we could only get others to agree. However, I think the promise of "FREE" money taken from the evil rich is too strong. I actually hope Obama wins, and has a strong democrat controlled congress. This way, maybe the majority of people will see that government sucks. If that's what it takes for an actual revolution, I am willing to put up with it for four years.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap