This is a waste of my and everyone else's time. On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Rich Thomas < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am more concerned about the definition of the word "fair" when applied > to the concept of taxation by those who want to take more in taxes from > people who make more money. Since "fair" changes with a change in > income, I would like to see those who use that word define it, ideally > in a table of income v. tax by % and total amount, kinda like what the > 1040 instruction book has in it. > > It's a real simple question, but no proponent of "fair" share taxation > has been able to tell me what they mean by that word. > > In some ways, I'm a simple-minded kind of guy, so simple answers help me > understand things better. Like, "I make X, how much is 'fair' for me to > pay in taxes?" > > And then, "So, how did you come up with that number?" [Answer probably > takes a bit more explanation] > > So, to Andrew -- if I made $150k per year how much would my "fair" tax > be? $50k, 75k, 100k, 200k, 250k just to round it out a bit. > > --R > > > Obamanomics Is a Recipe for Recession > > By *MICHAEL J. BOSKIN* > July 29, 2008; Page A17 > [nowides] > > What if I told you that a prominent global political figure in recent > months has proposed: abrogating key features of his government's > contracts with energy companies; unilaterally renegotiating his > country's international economic treaties; dramatically raising marginal > tax rates on the "rich" to levels not seen in his country in three > decades (which would make them among the highest in the world); and > changing his country's social insurance system into explicit welfare by > severing the link between taxes and benefits? > > The first name that came to mind would probably not be Barack Obama, > possibly our nation's next president. Yet despite his obvious general > intelligence, and uplifting and motivational eloquence, Sen. Obama > reveals this startling economic illiteracy in his policy proposals and > economic pronouncements. From the property rights and rule of (contract) > law foundations of a successful market economy to the specifics of tax, > spending, energy, regulatory and trade policy, if the proposals espoused > by candidate Obama ever became law, the American economy would suffer a > serious setback. > > To be sure, Mr. Obama has been clouding these positions as he heads into > the general election and, once elected, presidents sometimes see the > world differently than when they are running. Some cite Bill Clinton's > move to the economic policy center following his Hillary health-care and > 1994 Congressional election debacles as a possible Obama model. But > candidate Obama starts much further left on spending, taxes, trade and > regulation than candidate Clinton. A move as large as Mr. Clinton's > toward the center would still leave Mr. Obama on the economic left. > > Also, by 1995 the country had a Republican Congress to limit President > Clinton's big government agenda, whereas most political pundits predict > strengthened Democratic majorities in both Houses in 2009. Because newly > elected presidents usually try to implement the policies they campaigned > on, Mr. Obama's proposals are worth exploring in some depth. I'll > discuss taxes and trade, although the story on his other proposals is > similar. > > First, taxes. The table nearby demonstrates what could happen to > marginal tax rates in an Obama administration. Mr. Obama would raise the > top marginal rates on earnings, dividends and capital gains passed in > 2001 and 2003, and phase out itemized deductions for high income > taxpayers. He would uncap Social Security taxes, which currently are > levied on the first $102,000 of earnings. The result is a remarkable > reduction in work incentives for our most economically productive citizens. > > /(Continued below.)/ > > [Boskin] > > The top 35% marginal income tax rate rises to 39.6%; adding the state > income tax, the Medicare tax, the effect of the deduction phase-out and > Mr. Obama's new Social Security tax (of up to 12.4%) increases the total > combined marginal tax rate on additional labor earnings (or small > business income) from 44.6% to a whopping 62.8%. People respond to what > they get to keep after tax, which the Obama plan reduces from 55.4 cents > on the dollar to 37.2 cents -- a reduction of one-third in the after-tax > wage! > > Despite the rhetoric, that's not just on "rich" individuals. It's also > on a lot of small businesses and two-earner middle-aged middle-class > couples in their peak earnings years in high cost-of-living areas. (His > large increase in energy taxes, not documented here, would > disproportionately harm low-income Americans. And, while he says he will > not raise taxes on the middle class, he'll need many more tax hikes to > pay for his big increase in spending.) > > On dividends the story is about as bad, with rates rising from 50.4% to > 65.6%, and after-tax returns falling over 30%. Even a small response of > work and investment to these lower returns means such tax rates, sooner > or later, would seriously damage the economy. > > On economic policy, the president proposes and Congress disposes, so > presidents often wind up getting the favorite policy of powerful > senators or congressmen. Thus, while Mr. Obama also proposes an > alternative minimum tax (AMT) patch, he could instead wind up with the > permanent abolition plan for the AMT proposed by the Ways and Means > Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D., N.Y.) -- a 4.6% additional hike > in the marginal rate with /no/ deductibility of state income taxes. > Marginal tax rates would then approach 70%, levels not seen since the > 1970s and among the highest in the world. The after-tax return to work > -- the take-home wage for more time or effort -- would be cut by more > than 40%. > > Now trade. In the primaries, Sen. Obama was famously protectionist, > claiming he would rip up and renegotiate the North American Free Trade > Agreement (Nafta). Since its passage (for which former President Bill > Clinton ran a brave anchor leg, given opposition to trade liberalization > in his party), Nafta has risen to almost mythological proportions as a > metaphor for the alleged harm done by trade, globalization and the pace > of technological change. > > Yet since Nafta was passed (relative to the comparable period before > passage), U.S. manufacturing output grew more rapidly and reached an > all-time high last year; the average unemployment rate declined as > employment grew 24%; real hourly compensation in the business sector > grew twice as fast as before; agricultural exports destined for Canada > and Mexico have grown substantially and trade among the three nations > has tripled; Mexican wages have risen each year since the peso crisis of > 1994; and the two binational Nafta environmental institutions have > provided nearly $1 billion for 135 environmental infrastructure projects > along the U.S.-Mexico border. > > In short, it would be hard, on balance, for any objective person to > argue that Nafta has injured the U.S. economy, reduced U.S. wages, > destroyed American manufacturing, harmed our agriculture, damaged > Mexican labor, failed to expand trade, or worsened the border > environment. But perhaps I am not objective, since Nafta originated in > meetings James Baker and I had early in the Bush 41 administration with > Pepe Cordoba, chief of staff to Mexico's President Carlos Salinas. > > Mr. Obama has also opposed other important free-trade agreements, > including those with Colombia, South Korea and Central America. He has > spoken eloquently about America's responsibility to help alleviate > global poverty -- even to the point of saying it would help defeat > terrorism -- but he has yet to endorse, let alone forcefully advocate, > the single most potent policy for doing so: a successful completion of > the Doha round of global trade liberalization. Worse yet, he wants to > put restrictions into trade treaties that would damage the ability of > poor countries to compete. And he seems to see no inconsistency in his > desire to improve America's standing in the eyes of the rest of the > world and turning his back on more than six decades of bipartisan > American presidential leadership on global trade expansion. When trade > rules are not being improved, nontariff barriers develop to offset the > liberalization from the current rules. So no trade liberalization means > creeping protectionism. > > History teaches us that high taxes and protectionism are not conducive > to a thriving economy, the extreme case being the higher taxes and > tariffs that deepened the Great Depression. While such a policy mix > would be a real change, as philosophers remind us, change is not always > progress. > > **Mr. Boskin, professor of economics at Stanford University and senior > fellow at the Hoover Institution, was chairman of the Council of > Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush.** > > > ** > > > Obamanomics Clarified > > By *MICHAEL J. BOSKIN* > August 4, 2008; Page A13 > [nowides] > > In my July 29 op-ed ("Obamanomics Is a Recipe for Recession > <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121728762442091427.html?mod=Commentary-US > >^1 > "), I was among the many who took Barack Obama's statements that he > would "end the Bush tax cuts for the top incomes" too literally. I > interpreted this to mean a return to the pre-Bush tax rates of 39.6% on > ordinary income and 20% on capital gains. > > The Obama campaign has now clarified that he proposes to do this for > labor earnings, but not for capital gains and dividends. I am told that > Mr. Obama declared last year that he would raise these rates to "no more > than the Reagan rate," by which he apparently means to 28%, from the > current 15%. Mr. Obama would thus raise the tax rate on capital gains by > about three times as much as President Bush cut it, but he'd preserve at > least some of the Bush reduction in the double-taxation of dividends. > > /(Continued below.)/ > > [Boskin] > > The 28% rate on capital gains was the price President Ronald Reagan paid > to pass the 1986 Tax Reform Act that lowered the top marginal tax rate > on ordinary income (including dividends) to 28%. The capital gains rate > was cut to 20% in 1997 under President Bill Clinton, and again to 15% in > 2003. > > However, Mr. Obama is proposing to raise the top marginal rate on wages > (also interest, rent and royalties, etc.) more than 40% above the > corresponding Reagan rate of 28%. Mr. Obama would thus give us the worst > of both worlds: tax rates on ordinary income 40% higher than Reagan and > on capital gains 40% higher than Clinton. > > Raising the rate on capital gains to 28% would greatly reduce the > ability of firms to minimize double taxation by returning cash to their > shareholders through repurchases. As for dividends, the Obama plan would > nearly double the tax to 28% from 15%. > > I have revised the table that accompanied my op-ed showing the negative > effects on the after-tax returns on investments to reflect the > clarification. It is also available at http://www.stanford.edu/~boskin/ > <http://www.stanford.edu/%7Eboskin/>^2 . Please use the new table for > reference purposes. > > I'm glad to hear that Mr. Obama is willing to retain at least a portion > of the Bush tax cuts on dividends. But nearly doubling the tax rates on > capital gains and dividends to 28% is a terrible idea that would damage > fragile financial markets and the economy. > > **Mr. Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a > senior fellow at the Hoover Institution; he was chairman of the > President's Council of Economic Advisers in the George H.W. Bush White > House. (The Journal has frequently invited the Obama campaign to explain > its tax plans in our pages, and we gladly repeat the invitation publicly > here today.)** > > Bill R wrote: > > Rich - Watch your language there. "Fair Tax" is pretty exactly defined in > a > > book of the same name. To eliminate ALL other taxes and go with a sales > tax > > to the final consumer only [no tax on business to business sales or used > > items] the estimate is somewhere in the low 20's% [don't recall exactly]. > > No income tax, no inheritance tax, no taxes on anything except sales to > > final consumer. > > BillR > > > > > _______________________________________ > http://www.okiebenz.com > For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ > For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > _______________________________________ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com