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
