Re: [MBZ] OT Difference on Taxes - Fair Tax
Great piece... from the Rupert Murdoch Street Journal. Oh wait, shall we mention that Mr. Boskin, correction Dr. Boskin (the PhD after his name means he's smart right?) is on the board of directors of ExxonMobil, served on FOoliani's economic advisory team in his run for 2008, member of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution senior advisory board (an industry funded organization that advocates lower taxes and less regulation for big business, taking large donations from conservative organizations) and lets see, what else... oh yea, served on the Council of Economic Advisors for George H.W. Bush. Gee, wonder why he doesn't like Obama... Please do a little research before posting this crap... then again, I guess you are as you said, a "simple-minded kind of guy". Save it for your nouveau riche email buddies that work harder for their money than anyone else, or better yet, those good, patriotic American folks that think Obama is a terrorist. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of andrew strasfogel Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:28 PM To: Mercedes Discussion List Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT Difference on Taxes - Fair Tax 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 > m
Re: [MBZ] OT Difference on Taxes - Fair Tax
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 retu
Re: [MBZ] OT Difference on Taxes - Fair Tax
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
Re: [MBZ] OT Difference on Taxes - Fair Tax
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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Thomas Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:30 AM To: Mercedes Discussion List Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT Difference on Taxes What is a "fair" tax for all to pay -- % of income and total amount? Real hard numbers, not some vague generalities please. Reason I ask is that I always hear "paying their fair share" etc. and I never hear any of them say what "fair" is. I suppose it depends on where you fall on the political and income spectrum, but that word is un- or ill-defined. I ask my more liberal friends and they launch into long-winded vague responses that don't answer the question, making me think that they don't have one other than "more money." My sense is that people of lower income consume similar or more proportional to their income of tax-provided services than do higher-income people, so I wonder why higher-income people should pay for that. Amounts of money spent on various "programs" targeted at lower-income people for the last, say, 40 years have shown no benefit in reduction of poverty or crime or unstable families, and in fact many of these measures show increases in such problems despite almost continuous economic growth over that time period. Not a lot of incentive to keep paying for those failures. There appear to be a lot of people still standing at the station while the trains keep leaving, and they aren't getting on them. Part of the reason is that it is sorta easy to stay on the platform due to various "programs," and part of it is that there is just a portion of the population that is going to be lazy no-count dumbasses no matter what. Some people have legitimate needs that should be supported, others just don't make an effort to elevate themselves (or take advantages of opportunities to do so). --R andrew strasfogel wrote: > And if you want the less wealthy to pay proportionately more in taxes, then > McCain's your man. > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Rich Thomas < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> "If you want more taxes on people who really make this country run - >> working Americans - to support yet another generation of >> sit-on-your-[butt]-and-collect-a-check slackers, then Obama's your man!" >> >> http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/27063739.html >> >> --R >> >> ___ >> 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 > > ___ 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
