David Brooks sees some of the same problems I saw with Hillary’s and Obama’s answers about taxes at the Philadelphia debate: Both promised to not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 or $250,000 a year. They both just……

Ellsworth Monkton Obama.

spmat on April 18, 2008 at 12:36 PM

Gotta disagree. Pinch is Toohey.

Instead, the gubmint takes more than 1/2 of MY money for its grand social redistribution plan while deigning to perhaps give me something back when I get old — assuming of course that they haven’t decreased benefits and payouts several times over at the end of the road.

They just can’t accept that some folkes are more capable in the money making game, and other are more capable in ball games. They can’t understand that choking down the pipe causes less water to flow for everyone.

Getting off the dola cycle takes the ability to face the facts and accept reality for what it is. Very hard for some, especially percieved victims.

Ben Stein is smarter than me and makes more money. I’m OK with that. Who’s fault is it? Not his or mine.

libhater on April 18, 2008 at 3:00 PM

Thinking that by raising the income threshold subject to higher taxes is news on the “good side” is exactly the trap which Obama wants voters to fall into.

Increased Cap Gains tax reduces incentive for capital investment, Capital investment drives economic growth.

The reason that high Cap Gains taxes produce lower revenue is not obscure or mysterious, it’s as clear as can be.

Democrats absolutely REFUSE to accept the simple reality, and the translation of “it’s more complex than that” is actually “I don’t like reality so I’m going to pretend it isn’t so.”

I don’t know that it would be strictly true to say that I hate democrats, but I do sure wish they would shut up and find something productive to do rather than constantly screwing things up for everyone else.

And Obama’s a moron – somebody ask him to explain how putting a disincentive on Capital Investment is “fair” to anyone. Moron.

But what about Google? When does a “pleasant surprise” become an evil “windfall” that warrants a penalty by the Feds?

This guy is completely clueless and a total JOKE! Becoming POTUS would be the worst nightmare this country could ever endure in terms of an election. God help us all!

OR, if it’s a single person maybe they don’t work the last 2 weeks of the year IF THEY ARE GETTING CLOSE TO THE MAGIC NUMBER.. {Rolls eyes}

It would stink to make $1 dollar over that put you into the the next tax bracket and that made you “rich” and you get hosed.

…you can’t really make the claim that this is a huge tax hike on people making less than $50,000; whatever its drawbacks, I doubt very much that it is.

It will be felt by retirees who, since they don’t work, earn a larger portion of their money from investments. Also, while individuals may not pay a “huge” amount more in taxes, when you add it all up it does amount to a huge tax increase on “the middle class.”

Indeed, data from Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation show 20% of those with capital gains in 2005 had annual incomes less than $50,000. So Obama’s “tax-the-rich” plan to jack up cap gains rates would in fact become a huge middle-class tax hike.

Many of those people are either married with taxable income less than $65,100 or single with taxable income less than $32,550. Those folks are paying a marginal 15% with or without the change. Without finer-grained data regarding this, you can’t really make the claim that this is a huge tax hike on people making less than $50,000; whatever its drawbacks, I doubt very much that it is.

It’s a remarkable technological achievement.

Just a technical point — Capital gains realized in 401ks and IRAs are not subject to taxes, correct? Or do people who have their money in mutual funds get hit with them anyway since the fund pays them? Either way it is arguable that people first gained exposure to investing through they vehciles, and then once comfortable with investing, now have some of their savings in trading accounts. So your point still stands.

Spolitics on April 18, 2008 at 1:23 PM

401Ks and traditional IRAs are pre-tax and grow tax free… so 100% of the capital gains are tax free and reinvested. Over 30-40 years this makes a huge difference.

The big point about capital gains tax hikes decreasing revenue is this: capital gains taxes are totally voluntary. Whatever is left over after maxing out every tax-free device you can doesnt have to be exposed to capgains. People will put all their high capgains yielding stocks inside tax free accounts and then not sell individual stocks during times of higher taxes.

Government can force you to pay income taxes- they cant force you to take capital gains.

I don’t know why I never realized this before, but when it comes to the payroll tax, you get whacked twice. Say you make a $100k. The government takes out $6k for social security (through the payroll tax). But, when it comes time to pay your income tax, you are taxed on the full $100k. Between $77k and $160k the tax rate is 28%. So that $6 grand that goes into SS really costs you $7,680. (Not to mention the $6 grand your company had to pay to match — which, arguably they could have paid to you directly.) Then the government borrows the money from the trust fund which they pay back with money they earn from our income taxes. So each SS Trust fund dollar really costs us two dollars plus interest. Then, when we finally retire and collect our social security, they tax us again.

Obama’s payroll tax hike is going to make things much, much worse. When are people going to realize that we need to privatize the beast?

However, thanks to changes in tax policy on long-term savings plans such as IRAs and 401Ks, middle America put its future into the markets. Over 70% of Americans now invest in stocks and bonds, and therefore have exposure to capital-gains tax changes.

Just a technical point — Capital gains realized in 401ks and IRAs are not subject to taxes, correct? Or do people who have their money in mutual funds get hit with them anyway since the fund pays them? Either way it is arguable that people first gained exposure to investing through they vehciles, and then once comfortable with investing, now have some of their savings in trading accounts. So your point still stands.

he knows exactly what he is doing.. marxist dogma all the way if you listen to him or his wife talk about it..

take away profits from drug companies,
forcing people to ‘sacrifice’ so other people can have the
American pie..

He is finding the golden equation for the producers to keep producing enough for the moochers and looters to take away but not yet want to stop producing..