« Small is beautiful | Main | To whom should corporate boards be responsible? »
Everything you ever wanted to know about taxes but were afraid to ask
25 Jul 2008 11:17 am
I'll be blogging more about this next week, but TaxProf has a really nice roundup of posts on Obama and McCain's tax plans.
Comments (24)
Well, it's about time that this self-styled "econ" blogger got around to what is arguably the defining economic issue of this campaign - tax policy. Now, while I'm eager to hear Meagan's thoughts on the whether (or should I say how much) economic damage Obama's planned tax increases will do (assuming as you must that any added revenue will be spent on goodies for Democratic constituencies rather than used to reduce the deficit), I do hope that she won't deliberately duck the moral question inherent in tax debates: just how much of a person's income can a government legitimately take by threat of force? I personally paid well over 40% last year (all in with state, city, and payroll taxes). I see Obama's plans to try to take more from me to buy votes from others as simply morally wrong. No individual should be forced to give over such a huge portion of the fruits of his labor to the "general good", no matter how pressing the need.
One can't help but wonder why ed keeps calling her "Jane Galt" a year after she switched blogs.
Let's see, what to do, what to do? Go back to a tax program which generated a massive surplus and helped spur massive economic gains--including among the most heavily taxed? Or continue the massive deficit generating taxes while the richest of the rich benefit, and the rest stagnate? Hmm. Decisions, decisions.
One can't help but wonder why ed keeps calling her "Jane Galt" a year after she switched blogs.
Because that's what Megan called herself back when. Pay attention. And why would it matter if I use quotes anyway, did you wonder to whom I referred?
One must simply dismiss McCain's tax plan since nothing he would propose would pass anyway. Obama's tax plan is the only one worthy of discussion.
Well except that
1. As I pointed out, she hasn't used that handle for a year
2. The only reason to bring it up now would be to try and paint her as a closet Randite
3. She's not
2. The only reason to bring it up now would be to try and paint her as a closet Randite
Well, that or a pseudo-libertarian packing a [high school] sophomore's level of wit. It's a fine line.
Or what I originally said. Pay attention.
Well if we strip the incendiary language from your post, you don't seem to be saying much of anything, just wondering aloud.
I have no idea what Megan-from-2000 thought of the Bush and Gore tax plans, but I do know what Megan-from-2002 thought of them:
"I'm sorry, I actually ran through the numbers analysis on both the Gore and Bush budget proposals, and both of them were so far off in never-never land that you couldn't even see them without a handful of pixie dust and Peter-Pan to guide you."
How that relates to a link to someone else's set of links, I couldn't say. Perhaps you could enlighten me.
"Let's see, what to do, what to do? Go back to a tax program which generated a massive surplus and helped spur massive economic gains--including among the most heavily taxed? Or continue the massive deficit generating taxes while the richest of the rich benefit, and the rest stagnate? Hmm. Decisions, decisions."
Yes, create a huge bubble, tax like hell, then have to pay it all back in the next two years.
Sounds like '99 '00 '01 & '02 to me.
Right Tom, 93-01 were horrible years. Since then has been awesome. You should keep chanting that. Maybe it'll catch on.
I see Obama's plans to try to take more from me to buy votes from others as simply morally wrong. No individual should be forced to give over such a huge portion of the fruits of his labor to the "general good", no matter how pressing the need.Posted by dsr | July 25, 2008 12:34 PM
Good luck with that. We have lived in a Robin Hood society since at least 1932. FDR's win was the death knell of the American Republic.
I think most Americans would accept higher taxes, on condition that they came with reduced spending by government. There is a perception that government spends our money on things we don't want or need. Some examples include "bridge to nowhere", "war in Iraq", "bailouts for bankers" and "welfare for rich people". I'm actually OK with the war, but it does cost a lot and I'd like it to end in a good way soon. The money for rich people making bad investment decisions, I'm totally against.
So, what are the candidates' plans for spending cuts?
FDR's win was the death knell of the American Republic.
Yeah, America since 1932 has really been the crapper. Nice observation. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Crusader is a white person.
ed, if you really, truly, believe that it was a "tax program which generated a massive surplus", well, go congratulate your rooster on making the sun rise this morning. This argument is every bit as dishonest as strong supply-side theory.
I'll vote for the guy who has a chance to win while proposing that the 1986 tax bill be re-passed, and then specifies what spending cuts, including entitlements, should be made to balance the budget.
Maybe I'll play 36 holes of golf on election day, and then take in a movie. That'll keep me busy until the polls close.
This argument is every bit as dishonest as strong supply-side theory.
Well a responsible tax policy certainly didn't hurt. I forget, which massive surplus was supply-side policy tied to again?
Ed, just quit putting forth dishonest assertions, and then rationalizing the dishonesty after the fact, will you? Yes, I say the same to the strong supply side crowd.
Ed - I'm not much of a supply sider myself, but the obvious response to your inane point about budget surpluses is that there is absolutely no reason to think that they are a good thing. therfore no reason to use the production of a surplus as a criteria for evaluating the merits of a given tax policy. a surplus just means that the government took too much of our money and owes us a refund.
Ed - I'm not much of a supply sider myself, but the obvious response to your inane point about budget surpluses is that there is absolutely no reason to think that they are a good thing. therfore no reason to use the production of a surplus as a criteria for evaluating the merits of a given tax policy. a surplus just means that the government took too much of our money and owes us a refund.
IMO, the comments section here really seems to have gone downhill. There's too many people who are more interested in attacking others than having an conversation. It's a shame, because this has been one of the better places to have discussions that included multiple points of view.
Anyone have suggestions for other blogs that have a pretty broad range of commenters but don't immediately degenerate into personal attacks and name calling?
ed -
I'm still trying to figure out what policy you're in favor of here. The stock market started to tank even before Clinton was out of office, so it seems self-evident that some of the gains during his administration were illusory just like the housing bubble during Bush's admin was illusory. Could you argue that the war has hurt the US economy? Sure. 9-11 hurt the economy? Sure. Could you argue that lowering tax rates causes people to be less efficient? That would take a lot more support than you've provided (more than a single correlation in history)
So, what are the candidates' plans for spending cuts?
The big problem I have with McCain is he is non-serious about the spending cuts. To balance the budget we will need to cut some out of defense, SS and medicare. We can't cut interest on the federal debt, without creating a surplus and paying it down first. I believe our current deficit is more than all the other spending combined. Whenever McCain is pressed on what he would cut he always says "Well of course, I wouldn't cut funding to that program." It's just like personal spending, it's very difficult to cut it down just by saying "I want to spend less" You have to make a budget and cut things you want or are popular.
Whenever McCain is pressed on what he would cut he always says "Well of course, I wouldn't cut funding to that program."
Imagine, the guy wants to get elected!
The standard deficit you always read about, forget it. We could run it forever, it's in the normal range for the last 40 years.
The KILLER is the $2.1 trillion (with a "t") unfunded accrual *each year* just for MEDICARE, and secondarily Social Security.
And this is *not* a 75-year problem.
CBO says that to stay even with this will require a 50% across-the-board income tax increase (that is all rates up 50%) just by 2030, and rising forever from there.
For context, as a percentage of GDP, this is larger than all the tax hikes enacted after Pearl Harbor to fight WWII. Just for 2030.
Alternatively, without the tax hikes but keeping the spending, Moody's and S&P both have the credit rating of the US falling starting in 2017, and S&P projects T-bonds will become "junk" by 2027.
The years 2017, 2027, 2030, are not so far away.
Note that this really has nothing at all to do with Bush's policies. In 2000 GAO projected, on the basis of Clinton tax rates and expected surpluses lasting for years (no 9/11, no war, no recession, etc.), that annual deficits would reach 20% of GDP by the mid 2040s and "government would end" -- due to MEDICARE, and secondarily Social Security.
Though Bush's drug benefit did make things about $8 trillion worse, present value. (The rest of his deficits are piddling in comparison)
Anyhow, do you want to eliminate the deficit that counts? There's only ONE way.
Go out there and say you are going to CUT MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY.
Or, alternatively, you won't and instead propose to start down the road of RAISING INCOME TAXES 50% ON EVERYONE, FOR STARTERS...
See how many votes you get with those ideas! Eh? ;-)
So what do McCain and Obama say instead?
What they are saying. They want to get elected.
| 
One can't help but wonder what "Jane Galt" thought about Bush and Gore's tax plans in 2000.
Posted by ed | July 25, 2008 12:17 PM