Detroit News: Obama aims tax guns at job creators

posted at 11:40 am on June 16, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama wants to sell his tax package as a solution for the American middle class in times of economic turmoil. No state has known economic turmoil quite as much as Michigan, where Democrats have tried a soak-the-rich series of policies that have resulted in high unemployment and low investment. The Detroit News sees the same problems in the Obama package:

There are tax cuts for some, and that could be a positive. Obama promises to energize the middle class by eliminating income taxes for most households earning less than $75,000 year, which would trim 10 million earners off the tax rolls.

President Bush excused a similar number of Americans from tax liabilities in his 2001 cuts, and our concern now is the same as it was then — that shrinking the group of Americans who actually pay for government creates a smaller constituency for fiscal prudence.

While giving part of the middle class a break, Obama would wage what could be described as a war on wealth through the tax code. He would restore the tax rates on those earning more than $250,000 a year to pre-2001 levels, remove the cap on payroll taxes for upper-income earners and push the current 15 percent capital gains tax rate to 28 percent.

While soaking the rich might have some political resonance, it’s risky to strip investment incentives from those most likely to create jobs. And despite the rhetoric, even with the Bush tax cuts, the top 1 percent of American earners still carry 35.6 percent of the tax burden, compared with 31.6 percent in 1996, according to the Internal Revenue Service.

This is the great unreported truth of tax revenues under the Bush administration. The rich pay more as a percentage of federal revenues now than they did during the Clinton administration — in part because of the Bush tax cuts. The big cut in the capital-gains tax rate encouraged more investment and more diversity on the part of major venture capital funds. That allowed more businesses to open, more jobs to be created, and more profit to tax, increasing revenues to the federal government.

Instead of following the obvious success of these specific cuts by reducing the corporate tax rates, the highest in the Western world, Obama wants to reverse the very cuts that resulted in the wealth redistribution he seeks. He wants to return the capital-gains tax rates to their pre-Bush levels, which will have two effects. First, venture capitalists will sell off their investments ahead of the rate change to avoid the new rate, and they will find safer investments in the future rather than pay the same level of tax on riskier investments. Both effects will cost jobs in a market that can hardly afford to shed more of them, and in the end it will reduce rather than increase the revenue stream to the federal government.

The News finds more fault with Obama than just with capital-gains rates. They warn against destabilizing relations with our biggest trading partners on oil, Canada and Mexico, by attacking NAFTA while oil prices are going through the roof. Obama also wants to duplicate the economic effects seen this year by the minimum-wage hike by indexing the federal rate to inflation, ensuring a year-on-year inflationary effect of increased labor costs in entry-level positions, and creating a disincentive for businesses to create those jobs. They also hit Obama for his support for card-check legislation, accusing him of supporting the theft of a “basic right” from workers for a secret ballot in organizing activities.

The dispassionate tone of the News’ criticisms belies the breadth of their opposition to Obamanomics. Clearly, they see this as an extension of the disaster Democrats have wrought in Michigan.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

What part of “The government taxes me, I pass it onto you” doesn’t the left understand? It in the most basic principle of business. My costs go up, you pay more.

Any Dems here care to explain?

Limerick on June 16, 2008 at 11:48 AM

Yeah, I’ll go ahead and say it…

Both Barry and Maverick have no idea how our economic system works.

None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Barry’s a committed socialist (yeah, go on and argue) who believes in the power of the class of betters to make everyone equal and happy and reverent to the almighty state.

Maverick believes that he’s really a better person than all those greedy money-grubbing souls in the private section who are more concerned with profit than a “cause greater than their own self interest.”

So we wind up with both of them having for different reasons a disdain for the very system that made this country what it is.

And you know who I find myself wishing would stand up and answer both of them?

Mitt Romney.

Typhoon on June 16, 2008 at 11:50 AM

Taking people off the tax rolls is a strategy to hook Americans on the government and make future tax increases more palatable as the number of impacted individuals decreases. It increases the willingness of the public to accept government funded schemes like Hillary Care b/c the public believes the bill will fall on someone else’s shoulders. The Dems are most successful with the dependent classes and therfore want to create even more dependents.

It is the responsibility of ALL Americans to pay taxes. If we feel the government is taking too much we can vote for Reps that will spend less and lower taxes.

DerKrieger on June 16, 2008 at 11:54 AM

Somewhere Pelosi is pushing the panich button and will unleash the anti-truth squad against the Detroit News.

I am thinking that Obama very well knows the mess that his tax plans would create in America. More importantly for him, he knows that the common masses will cast their vote for him because of his anti-wealth rhetoric.

He is more than willing to hurt America in order to be its leader.

Grafted on June 16, 2008 at 11:57 AM

The “rich” also have a whole new world of economic growth engines to invest in now–India, Ireland, Brazil, and all the Pacific Rim countries.

RBMN on June 16, 2008 at 11:57 AM

Limerick on June 16, 2008 at 11:48 AM

Sure

/puts on his Dem tinfoil hat… drops 100pts of IQ, and all common sense…

You see… its like this… the government really doesn’t need taxes anyway, they are just a way to punish those evil rich people. The Government can just print all the money it wants for what it needs… and then give all the EVVVIIILLLLL Rich peoples money to the poor… cause we all know its not their fault… because Rich People are RAAAAACCCCCIIIIIISSSSTTTTT.

/takes off his tinfoil hat, and shudders at what he just wrote…

Romeo13 on June 16, 2008 at 11:57 AM

God where is a REAL Republican when we need one?

DerKrieger on June 16, 2008 at 11:58 AM

I beleive they do know how the economic system works. They are intentionally (I can not believe it is naively) working to undermine business and the economy (ie capitalism) in the US and around the world. They are actively working to destroy the United States while George Soros and friends laugh all the way home.

jerseyman on June 16, 2008 at 11:58 AM

The dispassionate tone of the News’ criticisms belies the breadth of their opposition to Obamanomics. Clearly, they see this as an extension of the disaster Democrats have wrought in Michigan.

Now the Detroit News is just being divisive.

Frankly I do not see why the poor should be excused from taxes. If they’re using roads and living in a country protected by the US military they should help fund such things.

rbj on June 16, 2008 at 11:58 AM

DerKrieger on June 16, 2008 at 11:54 AM

Interesting point… if Obamas plan goes through, does anyone know what percentage of the electorate will not be paying taxes? will it hit 50%?

Romeo13 on June 16, 2008 at 11:59 AM

The scope of the stupidty of Obama grows every day. Instead of filling his empty suit, it also seems to be getting bigger.

We need VOTERS to get off their butts and get out there…

originalpechanga on June 16, 2008 at 11:59 AM

Obama raising the capital gains rate isn’t such a big deal.

He’s so leftist in his economic ideas that I expect the economy to tank, i.e. I won’t see any investment gains for him to tax in the first place.

SPCOlympics on June 16, 2008 at 12:02 PM

No $hit. Been there done that. These democrats are pandering fools hell bent on destroying “The Great America”, and replacing it with a dead beat society of entitled pseudo victims.

political heads need to roll if we are to be a nation of winners instead of a nation whiners saturated with rationalized excuses.

The cream always rises to the top, except during the “Cultural Revolution”. Is that what these fools want?

saiga on June 16, 2008 at 12:02 PM

I was born and raised in Michigan. Other than from 1994-2001 and after 2004, I have lived my whole life in Michigan.

No state has known economic turmoil quite as much as Michigan, where Democrats have tried a soak-the-rich series of policies that have resulted in high unemployment and low investment.

Hence the reason(s) I (and my family) live in Indiana now. I would like to move back to Michigan to be closer to family, but as long as Democrats are running the state into the ground, there’s no way. Obamanomics will do the same thing to the entire country as what has happened in Michigan. It is pure and outright redistribution of wealth (perverted form of Robin Hood). Obamanomics will not help anyone. Obamanomics will increase a class of people (and more importantly to the Democrats – a voting bloc) that will rely heavier on government instead of themselves.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 16, 2008 at 12:03 PM

Not sure what kind of impact this article is going to have on the Obamanation in SE Michigan. They seem to collectively blame every single problem on the economy on the vague “Replubicans” and would vote for Hitler if he was running on the Democratic ticket. The Detroit News is also the conservative paper here, so the message is going to an audience here that already understands that Obama is Bad News.

shibumi on June 16, 2008 at 12:05 PM

The smoke and mirrors behind the ‘no middle class tax’ is the Jedi mind trick of giving taxpayers ‘incentives’ to take deductions. Child care, tuition, heath insurance premiums, etc etc. They won’t actually lower your rates they will simply offer you the opportunity to take deductions. In the mean time the revenue stream keeps coming in with every payday and then Romeo’s print money scheme comes into play when it is tax-refund time.

The plebs will still be sending in their cash every two weeks PLUS be paying more for everything (and all the extra sin taxes the Dems will put on everything).

COLAs are going to go through the roof. Inflation will make Ikea furniture a luxury.

Limerick on June 16, 2008 at 12:06 PM

Waitaminit.
First an article (in the headlines section) in the LAT, written by a TNR editor, that semi-supports Bush (Bush didn’t lie about Iraq). Now an article in a Detroit paper semi-critical of Barack.
This is semi-disorienting.

Rhinoboy on June 16, 2008 at 12:06 PM

Ok so if I get to $249,999 by October then I take the rest of the year off. Oh yea and I will spend my money instead of investing it (or hoard it in a mattress) and just get free health care and live off social security instead. Coool. Ok – go BO whoooo hoooo.
/s

HawaiiLwyr on June 16, 2008 at 12:06 PM

Fails every time it is tried.

tarpon on June 16, 2008 at 12:06 PM

BO….stupid is as stupid does.

My costs go up, you pay more.

Limerick on June 16, 2008 at 11:48 AM

No they don’t! You’re just trying to make a windfall profit! (sarcasm off)

I think everyone should be required to take an economics class. I’m taking one during the summer sessions and it’s been one the best classes I’ve taken and probably the one I’ve learned the most from. Of course my everyone probably applies to anyone with a “D” but…..

What a sad state of affairs with these two choices for Prez.

VikingGoneWild on June 16, 2008 at 12:09 PM

Hence the reason(s) I (and my family) live in Indiana now. I would like to move back to Michigan to be closer to family, but as long as Democrats are running the state into the ground, there’s no way. Obamanomics will do the same thing to the entire country as what has happened in Michigan.

The truly astoundingly great news is that this is an editorial in the largest paper in Michigan.

I don’t think the east coast media even has a clue of this sentiment. Or maybe they do but they choose to ignore it.

While they write and rail about how bleak the outlook is and how much the country hates Boooosh, what you can tale to the bank is that is Barry can’t carry Michigan, Barry’s not going to the White House.

And Michigan already has a big ol’ steaming pile of what Barry’s selling, knows it for what it is, and isn’t going to buy any more.

Typhoon on June 16, 2008 at 12:10 PM

Glad I sold all my stocks in early may. The selloff will just get worse. Government rev will be lower this year than last. the capital gains are not there. with the dems blocking drilling, raising taxes, and expanding programs, with the debt climbing to 9 Trillion under GWB and with the devolping countries coming online. america will no longer be the place to invest your money. Looking at Canada funds at the moment. at least they know enough to drill for their own damn oil.

unseen on June 16, 2008 at 12:18 PM

We’re gonna rely on the judgment of some “community activist” from Chicago for our economic organization?

Great. Queen Granholm is one of the worst governors of any state, ever.

Just simply incompetent. Just look how she is dealing with King Kwame, stall and hope to blame it on L. brooks Patterson.

That’s probably the Barry way, in fact, I’m sure of it, he has the maturity of a 15 year old.

benrand on June 16, 2008 at 12:18 PM

I doubt Barack even knows what’s going on. Some advisor gave him this advice, it fits his social theology, has a nice “steal from the rich give to…” feel to it.
He has no idea the impact, he just isn’t smart enough to think through his proposals.
That is what makes him so dangerous, he takes an issue based on a bumper sticker, and uses his “black status” to justify it.
We are going to end up with a bumper sticker economic program, a bumper sticker military plan, a bumper sticker health care program…the bills he writes will be 8 words long and probably rhyme.

right2bright on June 16, 2008 at 12:19 PM

I think every President wannabe should be tested and pass a course in economics 101 – make that Reagen Economics

Kini on June 16, 2008 at 12:19 PM

You wouldn’t see this kind of critical editorial in the Detroit Communist Free Press.

It’s still beholden to the stupid politics of the 60′s.

The Queen of Michigan excretes gold and silk to the Communist hacks in that rag.

This state is a filth pile.

benrand on June 16, 2008 at 12:22 PM

Typhoon on June 16, 2008 at 12:10 PM

BHO will try a southern stratagy to take North carolina, virgina and GA in place of MI, OH and PA.

PA is going thru a rebirth with the finding of the Marshella shale natrual gas. The fact that the dems are so anti-drilling may play a major issue in PA this time around.

I think CA may be the test state. It’s economy is tanking due to its environmental wackos. If the voters turn enmass on these nutjobs CA could turn RED.

Energy will be the biggest issue of this election. It will trump the economy becauee it will be the leading indicator for the economy.

unseen on June 16, 2008 at 12:23 PM

The rich pay more as a percentage of federal revenues now than they did during the Clinton administration — in part because of the Bush tax cuts

Last time I checkec, things weren’t so bad under Clinton when the wealthy paid a higher tax rate.

How is adding $10,000 to the national debt for every man, woman, and child in the US considered some kind of economic success story? Yes, pumping all that cash into the economy helps prevent recessions, but it has negative consequences. The decline of the dollar- one of the major reasons oil prices are so high- tells you something about the economic direction of this country over the last 8 years. It’s not good.

bayam on June 16, 2008 at 12:25 PM

Taxpayers will take defensive actions responding to Hussein’s confiscatory program. The deleterious effects will be followed on by more “solutions.” Defensive financial decisions will then be severely punished as Hussein’s plan’s entirely predictable effect on the economy plays out.

With Dems it’s all about punishment and power.

Akzed on June 16, 2008 at 12:26 PM

Typhoon on June 16, 2008 at 12:10 PM

My wife and I make a good living (middle class; not rich by stretch of imagination) in Indiana. We did a calculation of what we would need to earn to maintain our lifestyle if we were to move back to Michigan. We would have to earn $40K-$50K more than we make now if we wanted to move back. We assumed a house of equivalent price as have in Indiana. The increased earnings are to pay for higher sales taxes, higher property taxes, and higher fees in general in comparison to those items that we pay for in Indiana.

For God’s sake, when Jenny got the last budget passed, they pay taxes now on haircuts. They pay taxes on movie tickets. It’s never enough for the Democrats. They take and take. Reagan said it best in 1964.

We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they’re going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer — and they’ve had almost 30 years of it — shouldn’t we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn’t they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater.

And they will keep growing. Liberty is in jeopardy.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 16, 2008 at 12:31 PM

bayam on June 16, 2008 at 12:25 PM

God I HATE revisionist history. Clinton had NOTHING to do with balancing the budget… its was BOTH partys in Congress’s attempt to stop the threat of Perot and the Reform party.

And these are NOT the Bush Tax Cuts… Tax cuts are enacted by CONGRESS, not the President… he can ask! but Congress had to do it… this idea that, for either credit, or blame, we don’t accuratly assign the correct powers to the various branches of government is why people don’t understand government.

Labels ARE important… words matter… and the MSM understands this. Thats why just before an election cycle they declared that we are in a recession, before we technicly were.

Romeo13 on June 16, 2008 at 12:32 PM

I think the more this comes out, the more we need a Mitt Romney for VP. I would hope that he is strong enough to disagree with mccain about drilling, immigration and of course taxes and teach him a lot about the economy.

Every time I get a letter from the GOP, I send it back with a note to drill Alaska, build the fence, and put Romney on as VP and not a cent until then. They are killing us!

Bambi on June 16, 2008 at 12:33 PM

bayam on June 16, 2008 at 12:25 PM

the problem is not taxes…it is spending. the difference btw Bush and Clinton was that Clinton for 6 of his 8 years had a Congress that tried to balance the budget. bush had a Congress for 6 of his 8 years that tried to spend everyones money. He as then had a Congress for the last 2 years that has tried even harder to spend that money.

you can raise taxes, cut taxes, keep taxes the same it matters not until you deal with the problem of run away spending.

unseen on June 16, 2008 at 12:34 PM

My costs go up, you pay more.

Limerick on June 16, 2008 at 11:48 AM

Except in Michigan it goes like this: My costs go up, I leave the state, you lose your job, and you can pay whatever your welfare check lets you pay.

And the educational corrolary: Michigan’s schools turn out some of the best workers other states have ever gained.

James on June 16, 2008 at 12:35 PM

PS: OK, so if the government is getting 18 cents a gallon why aren’t we as rich as the oil companies? Where is all that money going? Let’s get a report on the “wind fall taxes” to the government!

Bambi on June 16, 2008 at 12:36 PM

“Clearly, they see this as an extension of the disaster Democrats have wrought in Michigan.”

And all this time I thought Michigan was a Democratic Worker’s Paradise.

GarandFan on June 16, 2008 at 12:43 PM

DerKrieger on June 16, 2008 at 11:54 AM

I’d add that the answer is to eliminate tax withholding. Not only do you not have to give the government a tax-free loan (subject to penalties on YOU if you have to pay estimate tax but don’t pay enough) but if everyone has an enormous tax liability come April, people will put a stop to profligate spending by Congress.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on June 16, 2008 at 12:44 PM

James on June 16, 2008 at 12:35 PM

Yep. Retention is the problem.

Indiana had the same problem, too. At least our gov (Mitch Daniels) has worked hard to recruit jobs to the state and provide incentives for business. Why do you think Indiana has the lowest unemployment rate of the Midwest?

Indiana 4.2% (April ’08)
Michigan 6.9% (April ’08), 3.2% (March 2000), Granholm elected 2002
Ohio 5.6% (April ’08)
Illinois 5.4% (April ’08)
Kentucky 5.6% (April ’08)

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 16, 2008 at 12:44 PM

Bambi on June 16, 2008 at 12:36 PM

Thats only the Tax YOU see… there are also corporate taxes involved… at like 15%? And then the oil lease fees they pay…

Oil companies are a cash cow for the government…

Romeo13 on June 16, 2008 at 12:45 PM

Why do you think Indiana has the lowest unemployment rate of the Midwest?

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 16, 2008 at 12:44 PM

Because your governor isn’t a certified moron and has created a business-friendly climate?

James on June 16, 2008 at 12:47 PM

Oil companies are a cash cow for the government…

Romeo13 on June 16, 2008 at 12:45 PM

In 2007, Exxon Mobile paid $30 billion in taxes (at a 41% tax rate!).

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 16, 2008 at 12:49 PM

Because your governor isn’t a certified moron and has created a business-friendly climate?

James on June 16, 2008 at 12:47 PM

Yep. He even served as G-Dubs director for the Office of Management and Budget from 2001-2003 and has worked in the private sector too. The man understands business and the economy.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 16, 2008 at 12:51 PM

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 16, 2008 at 12:51 PM

Granted, though that was more a comment on Michigan than Indiana.

James on June 16, 2008 at 12:53 PM

Why do you think Indiana has the lowest unemployment rate of the Midwest?

You mean that Michigan’s failing auto industry isn’t a factor? When you add the per capita income and unemployment rate of Massachusetts or NY to the list, then everyon’s favorite little theory starts to fall apart.

bayam on June 16, 2008 at 12:53 PM

It’s the lesson that never gets learned by the Left: If you want more of something, you subsidize it. If you want less of something, you tax it.

The Left reflexively taxes wealth production, inhibiting it. The Left lavishly subsidizes bad behavior, encouraging it. Then they wonder why the wealth producers (and the jobs they create) have headed for the hills while poverty and the number of out-of wedlock births have skyrocketed.

Cicero43 on June 16, 2008 at 12:53 PM

While giving part of the middle class a break, Obama would wage what could be described as a war on wealth through the tax code.

A War? Isn’t that just a bit Drama Queenish?

He would restore the tax rates on those earning more than $250,000 a year to pre-2001 levels, remove the cap on payroll taxes for upper-income earners

What’s so wrong with removing the cap on the payroll tax? There is no cap on the income tax and Social Security isn’t really a retirement system so much as it is a ponzi welfare system just like so much else that the federal government funds.

and push the current 15 percent capital gains tax rate to 28 percent.

I have really never seen the fairness, or equal protection under the (tax) law, in taxing income on wealth less than earned income.

MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 12:55 PM

Obama’s muslim half-brother came out claiming Obama was a muslim at one time and have a pic of them together dressed in like attire…

jp on June 16, 2008 at 12:59 PM

Bob Heckle was on Fox News this morning saying that the Great Hussein Obama would not raise taxes.

Either Obama is lying, which he is, or the left is in denial, which they are.

madmonkphotog on June 16, 2008 at 1:01 PM

James on June 16, 2008 at 12:53 PM

Yeah. I know.

I left in 2004. My wife had worked for Pharmacia (Upjohn) in Kalamazoo. When Pfizer “acquired” Pharmacia, Jenny did nothing to try and keep Pfizer (and those employed by them) in Michigan. Pfizer has closed almost all sites in Michigan (even the large research facility in Ann Arbor).

Lawyers make for the worst executive politicians.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 16, 2008 at 1:04 PM

madmonkphotog on June 16, 2008 at 1:01 PM

It’s not just a river in Egypt, dude.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 16, 2008 at 1:05 PM

MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 12:55 PM

If the US ever reaches a point where 50% of the electorate pays no taxes, or only hidden taxes, then we are doomed.

That same 50% will be consistantly bought off. You will have the tyranny of the masses that doomed the origional French Revolution… as you will have a minority of the electorate supporting the state, and thus not getting any fiscal conservatives elected.

We’re close to that now.

Romeo13 on June 16, 2008 at 1:06 PM

If you wanna be taxed into Tax Payers Hell…
Vote for Barack Hussein Obama. Like Jimmy Carter, Obama’s another clueless moron!

byteshredder on June 16, 2008 at 1:09 PM

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 16, 2008 at 1:04 PM

Yeah, I wonder why Stryker hasn’t pulled up their tent stakes yet. In any case, I’m only here on orders and I’ll be gone by August when my hitch is up.

James on June 16, 2008 at 1:16 PM

You mean that Michigan’s failing auto industry isn’t a factor?

bayam on June 16, 2008 at 12:53 PM

No, it isn’t a factor, it’s a result of the state government refusing to go against UAW and make Michigan business-friendly. UAW may soon find themselves the lords of the wasteland.

James on June 16, 2008 at 1:19 PM

James on June 16, 2008 at 1:16 PM

If it weren’t for the MEDC and the Life Sciences Corridor, there would be no pharmaceutical/biotech business in southwest Michigan.

James on June 16, 2008 at 1:19 PM

Agreed. My dad retired from GM in 1999 when some of the plants were being sold off to other firms (during which the UAW was having hissy fits!).

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 16, 2008 at 1:31 PM

And Michigan already has a big ol’ steaming pile of what Barry’s selling, knows it for what it is, and isn’t going to buy any more.

Wanna put some money on that? I’ll bet on the Democratic Party retaining control of the Michigan government, because all of the problems are the result of those “Republicans” doing something evil.

Annoying Old Guy on June 16, 2008 at 1:42 PM

BO is in the two most lib and dependent cities in Michigan today, Flint and Detroit. He’ll be preaching to the choir in both cities. Both of these cities have embraced the worst elements of the dem brand and it has worked out so poorly these voting fools are going to scream with joy and demand more while they syphon financial resources from the balance of a once great state.

The end of Michigan is near, with dem leadership from Granholm, Kwame Kilpatrick, Debbie Stabenow and lifer Ben Franklin wannabe complete with bad comb-over Carl Levin. And now Mr Hope and Change shows up to pound the final nail in our coffin.

swami on June 16, 2008 at 1:50 PM

There are tax cuts for some, and that could be a positive. Obama promises to energize the middle class by eliminating income taxes for most households earning less than $75,000 year, which would trim 10 million earners off the tax rolls.

What If i earned $76,000 ?

would I only get taxed for $1,001 that i went over?

Or would i get taxed for the whole $76,000?

Chakra Hammer on June 16, 2008 at 1:51 PM

looks like under Obama’s plan there is no incentive for working overtime, since it could put into a “Taxable Bracket”

Chakra Hammer on June 16, 2008 at 1:53 PM

looks like under Obama’s plan there is no incentive for working overtime, since it could put you into a “Taxable Bracket”

Chakra Hammer on June 16, 2008 at 1:54 PM

If you go over “***BOOM*** ***WHACK***”

then instead of keeping your 75,000 it gets taxed.. 30-40%

Chakra Hammer on June 16, 2008 at 1:55 PM

I saw on TV BO was told that historically raising the CG tax reduced revenues and lowering it raised them. Given that, why did he want to raise the rate? In his answer, he did not dispute the facts about the revenues. He just said he would raise it because it was “fairer.” What kind of frakking idiot is he?

Kafir on June 16, 2008 at 2:10 PM

Michigan was doing pretty well while John Engler was governor, cutting taxes and balancing the state’s budget. Jenny Grandstand has run it right into the ground.

It’s too bad Engler went on the be the head of the National Association of Manufacturers. He would have been a perfect running mate for McCain. But he would be crucifed as a lobbyist.

rockmom on June 16, 2008 at 2:23 PM

Typhoon on June 16, 2008 at 12:10 PM
I only wish that were true but the same morons from s.e. michigan who reelected Granholm, will elect Barry by a landslide. They wouldn’t vote for a republican if they were giving away gold for every vote.

flytier on June 16, 2008 at 2:25 PM

Michigan gets the politicians it deserves! They keep electing them, they keep getting the same results, and everyone keeps letting the UAW have it’s way. I blame the union mentality on Michigans destruction and many of my relatives have drank that kool-aid. I left Michigan to get away from it, which sucks, because it is a great state to live in and I would love to go back once I retire from the Military.

gator70 on June 16, 2008 at 2:40 PM

This is what you get from someone who has never worked a day in his life on anything other than getting elected.

drjohn on June 16, 2008 at 2:55 PM

Wait till Cramer hears about this. . . .

Texyank on June 16, 2008 at 3:32 PM

Wait till Cramer hears about this. . . .

Cramer, Buffet, Gates, and others support higher taxes on the wealthy. If you think that Wall Street is full of supply siders, you’re wrong. That religion went out of style in the late 1980′s.

Bush had the former Alcoa CEO as Treasury Secretary telling him not to lower taxes so much for the rich. But this is an administration where Karl Rove has more policy-making power than anyone from Wall Street or the top echelons of business. So you get lower taxes on the rich and a budget deficit going through the roof.

bayam on June 16, 2008 at 3:39 PM

Anybody who is self-employed as a s-corp or knows anybody who is should be made aware that the Rangel-Obama plan will do away with all tax benefits. The bill does away with the partial exemption from the brutal “self-employment” tax (full 15% FICA on top of income tax). This would cost me about $5000 annually, and I don’t make near the $250,000 Obama considers to be rich.

This bill would mean a big tax hike for the self-employed middle class, and the only thing stopping it for now is a promised Bush veto.

forest on June 16, 2008 at 3:56 PM

Where I live in Michigan, they bulldozed acres of trees and wildlife habitat that was home to deer and ducks to build their “Technology/Biotech Corridor”. They were going to lure all kinds of high tech firms to their new Tech corridor and there would be tons of new high paying jobs there. What was the grand result of all their environmental destruction? How many high tech/bio-tech firms/worker did we attract to MI? ZERO. All that we ended up with was a new WalMart and the part-time only, minimum wage jobs that they offer.

Bill Brasky on June 16, 2008 at 4:15 PM

If a capital gains tax hike goes bad, you know he`ll just blame it on the “reckless fiscal policies of the Bush administration.”

ThePrez on June 16, 2008 at 4:18 PM

Wanna put some money on that? I’ll bet on the Democratic Party retaining control of the Michigan government, because all of the problems are the result of those “Republicans” doing something evil.

Annoying Old Guy on June 16, 2008 at 1:42 PM

Michigan will go solidly blue come November, they always do. When Al Gore put out a book saying he wanted to eliminate the internal combustion engine, he was the US auto industries worst enemy and the UAW zombies all voted for him anyway. There’s nothing a Dem can say or do to stop the UAW zombies from voting Dhimmicrat.

Bill Brasky on June 16, 2008 at 4:43 PM

The end of Michigan is near, with dem leadership from Granholm, Kwame Kilpatrick, Debbie Stabenow and lifer Ben Franklin wannabe complete with bad comb-over Carl Levin. And now Mr Hope and Change shows up to pound the final nail in our coffin.

swami on June 16, 2008 at 1:50 PM

But some of us actually have a plan. First we expel all of the trolls and flatlanders back south of the Big Mack. Then we take over the toll booths on the north end. All sothward flow of tax revenues to Lansing cease. Then a fence along the border with The Peoples Republic of Wisconsin. If you want to come into the UP after that you have to pay a use tax, an entrance tax, and an exit tax.

We then declare independence from the Lower Peninsula. Remember, for the 300,000 inhabitants of the UP there is a larger firearm to resident ratio than the LP. Probably more Bibles, too. The flag is being designed… ;-)

Yoop on June 16, 2008 at 5:31 PM

Sure go ahead, tax the hell out of the businesses that create jobs. They’ll just cut back on benifits and pay to there employees and jack up their prices.

That’s the whole idea of the commies, you have massive unemployment and run away inflation then all the sudden communism will look like a good idea.

TheSitRep on June 16, 2008 at 5:59 PM

I guess since the Democrats are in love with raising taxes and consider raising taxes the only solution in their political tool box, I hereby propose a new 20% surtax on income taxes paid by Democrats and only Democrats.

Certainly Democrats would be thrilled to be able to put their (tax) money where their mouths are and to demonstrate their vastly superior intellect and leadership skills.

Meanwhile, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians and busineses will pay the normal tax rate, saving our economy and the livelihoods of millions.

Dr. Bob on June 16, 2008 at 11:45 PM

Meanwhile, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians and busineses will pay the normal tax rate, saving our economy and the livelihoods of millions.

Building a massive federal debt and killing the value of the dollar- that’s real progress. You probably think that $140 oil creates jobs.

bayam on June 17, 2008 at 1:00 AM

What part of “The government taxes me, I pass it onto you” doesn’t the left understand? It in the most basic principle of business. My costs go up, you pay more.

Any Dems here care to explain?

Limerick on June 16, 2008 at 11:48 AM

I have a friend who runs a successful small business. He told me, he doesnt pay for anything. When prices (or taxes) increase, he passes that cost along to the customer. It’s only common sense, you cant do business for free and expect to make a living. Limerick is right. Socialist democrats either know nothing about the free market or they choose to ignore it for pandering purposes. Tax the oil companies? Who do they think is going to wind up paying those taxes? We will, at the pump. But to millionaires like the socialist democrats, what’s a few more dollars at the pump, more or less? Just more ammunition for them to use for their thumb sucking, tummy rubbing, nanny state supporters.

abcurtis on June 17, 2008 at 8:31 AM

I paid $3.89 for a gallon of milk, and $2.69 for a loaf of bread last week. Why dont the socialist democrats go after Big Milk and Big Bread? Arent their profits obscene, Maverick? Arent milk and bread just as important as a gallon of gas? How about a windfall profit tax on them?
Phooey on all of the pandering politicians.

abcurtis on June 17, 2008 at 8:34 AM

$75,000 a year used to be the threshold for “rich” when Democrats planned their destruction of the economy.

President Bush excused a similar number of Americans from tax liabilities in his 2001 cuts, and our concern now is the same as it was then — that shrinking the group of Americans who actually pay for government creates a smaller constituency for fiscal prudence.

While giving part of the middle class a break, Obama would wage what could be described as a war on wealth through the tax code.

The importance of this cannot be overstated. The more people who have no responsibility in funding the very government largesse they demand, the faster the decline of our Republic.

Buy Danish on June 17, 2008 at 11:17 AM