PDA

View Full Version : Economic Policy Discussion



PHX-SOXFAN
09-05-2008, 03:46 PM
I think the economy, updates, and candidate policy should have it's own discussion. Obama and the Democratic candidates are spending a lot of time discussing the issue, and for good reason since it is the number one issue to voters. The republican candidates outright avoid this issue altogether and seem to rely on the old "dems will raise your taxes" routine.

With unemployment unexpectedly hitting 6.1%, 3 months after everyone got a stimulus check, and during the month in which back to school spending typically causes good economic results, this should be alarming to everyone. We are probably looking at unemployment reaching 6.5-7% come election day.

Feel free to post thoughts and policy info on taxes, spending, job creation, etc.

Wrigleyboy25
09-05-2008, 03:49 PM
Get rid of earmarks.

Start drilling for oil.

Adjust the tax cuts a bit.

PHX-SOXFAN
09-05-2008, 03:51 PM
Increase spending on government projects for infrastructure and education would be a great place to go to create jobs and get something useful from it. It's a lot better than just writing people checks for a quick bandaid. Obama is pushing for a $100 billion spending stimulus to create jobs:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/business/economy/06econ.html?hp

Not to mention his proposed investment in clean energy and the resultant job creation. One party is clearly out front of the other on the economy and job creation front

SmthBluCitrus
09-05-2008, 03:52 PM
Get rid of earmarks.

Start drilling for oil.

Adjust the tax cuts a bit.

Wrigs ... we can't start drilling for oil even if we wanted to. The infrastructure and equipment just don't exist.

And, there are areas open to Big Oil for expansion. They just don't go.

americaspasttim
09-05-2008, 04:03 PM
Increase spending on government projects for infrastructure and education would be a great place to go to create jobs and get something useful from it. It's a lot better than just writing people checks for a quick bandaid. Obama is pushing for a $100 billion spending stimulus to create jobs:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/business/economy/06econ.html?hp

Not to mention his proposed investment in clean energy and the resultant job creation. One party is clearly out front of the other on the economy and job creation front

But thats pretty much what Obama's stimulus package entails. Here's an interesting article in the NYT about it...NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31every.html)

americaspasttim
09-05-2008, 04:04 PM
Wrigs ... we can't start drilling for oil even if we wanted to. The infrastructure and equipment just don't exist.
And, there are areas open to Big Oil for expansion. They just don't go.

Sounds like an area prime for job creation...:clap:

PHX-SOXFAN
09-05-2008, 04:12 PM
But thats pretty much what Obama's stimulus package entails. Here's an interesting article in the NYT about it...NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31every.html)

obama's plan isn't sending out checks to citizens, it's funding projects that will create jobs. that's exactly what is needed. more jobs, better infrastructure. spending on construction and education projects is a safe bet right now.

SmthBluCitrus
09-05-2008, 04:25 PM
Sounds like an area prime for job creation...:clap:

Yea, great. They could do it if they wanted to. Again, there are already areas that are open for expansion and speculation that they're free to go to.

That puts it on the oil companies. Unless you're advocating government involvement in the job creation process FOR oil companies.

PHX-SOXFAN
09-05-2008, 04:26 PM
Obama calling out mccain on the economy:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080905/ap_on_el_pr/obama

PHX-SOXFAN
09-05-2008, 07:11 PM
Hillary's going to start teeing off on McCain regarding the economy:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080905/pl_politico/13193

Uncle Funster
09-05-2008, 07:22 PM
If it means higher personal taxes for me, I'm out. I pay way too much as it is to prop up welfare and other broken socialist..uh, I mean social... programs. And yes, that includes a stupid and unecessary "war" in Iraq.

More taxes imposed on those who make more is penalizing initiative and the very core of what drives our markets.

SmthBluCitrus
09-05-2008, 07:32 PM
Your Economic Darwinism leaves much to be desired.

Bosox Believer
09-05-2008, 08:00 PM
If it means higher personal taxes for me, I'm out. I pay way too much as it is to prop up welfare and other broken socialist..uh, I mean social... programs. And yes, that includes a stupid and unecessary "war" in Iraq.

More taxes imposed on those who make more is penalizing initiative and the very core of what drives our markets.

Do you make more than 200k a year? If so, please feel free to vote your interests over the country's. However, even some of the richest people in the world prefer higher taxes for the wealthy. Just ask Warren Buffet.

"Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner."

"If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

"Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

GHGHCP
09-05-2008, 08:11 PM
If it means higher personal taxes for me, I'm out. I pay way too much as it is to prop up welfare and other broken socialist..uh, I mean social... programs. And yes, that includes a stupid and unecessary "war" in Iraq.

More taxes imposed on those who make more is penalizing initiative and the very core of what drives our markets.

It's good to know you're voting for Obama then.

ari1013
09-05-2008, 08:49 PM
Unemployment will not hit 7% before the election. Maybe by the time the next president is sworn in but not in 2 months. If it goes up by nearly 1% in 2 months, we'd also likely be seeing the Dow dip below 10K. 1% might not sound like a lot, but it really is a HUGE number in economics.

Think about it this way. They recalculated the June and July employment numbers. They added in August's numbers. All in all they found about 100,000 net people lost their jobs. All of that led to a 0.3% increase in unemployment. So we're talking about roughly a 400,000 decrease in employment in two months. We haven't seen that in about 30 years.

Uncle Funster
09-05-2008, 11:58 PM
It's good to know you're voting for Obama then.

Sorry to dissappoint you, but my income is in excess of what he deems as "wealthy" (in reference to annual earnings). My taxes will surely go up at least 6-7 points per annum. And that is just plain unacceptable to me and many others.

Uncle Funster
09-06-2008, 12:13 AM
Do you make more than 200k a year? If so, please feel free to vote your interests over the country's. However, even some of the richest people in the world prefer higher taxes for the wealthy. Just ask Warren Buffet.

"Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner."

"If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

"Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

So, now that I make more than an artificial limit imposed by you and other liberals who don't make as much, I am not voting for the good of the country? Please spare me the moral lecture as I have employees to pay, workers comp to pay, corporate and personal income tax at the federal and state level to pay, massive insurance (liability and medical for my employees) bills to pay...all while trying to grow and compete in a REAL WORLD market. That is something that is totally lost on most posters in here that can only think in the single dimension that a theoretical vaccum affords. "Professors can't, so they teach"...or so the old adage goes.

There is a disparity between corporate tax vs. personal income tax. Unless you can show me a copy of his (Buffet's) personal income tax records, you can be sure that he has many corporate strutures in place to limit his exposure to personal taxes. Believe me, he has vast mechanisms for paying as few taxes as possible;) I respect him tremendously, but he is so far above everyone else, he can afford to be anything he wants. A right he has earned by the ACCUMULATION OF WEALTH. And Mr. Buffet is one man. I can list you 10 others in the upper strata of wealth who think quite differently.

As far as being responsible for others who have less...I agree!!! But I don't want the corrupt federal government (the most notoriously poor judge of spending allocations) to tell me what programs I must underwrite. I should be able to choose those charities myself as I have for many, many years.

DenButsu
09-06-2008, 12:36 AM
Sorry to dissappoint you, but my income is in excess of what he deems as "wealthy" (in reference to annual earnings). My taxes will surely go up at least 6-7 points per annum. And that is just plain unacceptable to me and many others.

Actually there are a LOT more of us who make less than that then there are of you who don't - by like a 95% to 5% margin.

You rich folk must feel so.... persecuted, huh? :rolleyes:

Uncle Funster
09-06-2008, 12:48 AM
Actually there are a LOT more of us who make less than that then there are of you who don't - by like a 95% to 5% margin.

You rich folk must feel so.... persecuted, huh? :rolleyes:

In a way DB, yes. I (and many, many others) have sacrificed and risked quite a bit to get here and do not feel that success alone should be a reason (or excuse) to be unfairly and inequitably targeted to pay for more social programs that I (we) am (are) philosophically opposed to.

I came from a very low income home in NJ where the odds were against us. But that was never used as an excuse to settle for poor performance, but rather as a catalyst to do better. It was a terrific motivation to overcome those circumstances. We never went on welfare, never sacrificed morals for convenience and never excused poor performance with tough breaks.

My son is only 6, but is growing up in a vastly different economic and social environment than my wife and I. It is our singular challenge to impart those values in him that were so strongly ingrained in us: that in America, you rise up by rising above rough circumstances of your environment and your own bad choices. That despite the easier upbringing, he will be expected to work very hard for anything he wants and that he must compete with his best efforts in every aspect of his young life.

It will sound silly to those who haven't YET made a few bucks, but it is a viable concern to those who must provide not only for their families, but the many other families involved in those enterprises that have been the vehicles for that success. I carry a weight to make sure that all my employees and their families are not only able to support themselves, but are happy as well.

It is a better life, but please do not misunderstand that it comes with great effort and often, great sacrifice and risk.

Sorry to sound preachy, but I hope this lends some insight into my PoV.

ink
09-06-2008, 01:09 AM
Seriously I could write something very similar. I'm sure a few here could. Doing well now, humble enough beginnings, lots of difficult stuff along the way. I've never taken a penny of welfare or unemployment benefits - benefits I pay into - ever. I did get a grant to go to university, but after first year, paid my way, supplemented with scholarships. That time was really tough. I know there was a period (before my time) in the 70's when social programs were badly exploited. That time is over. IMO the benefits available here are just about right, they're not exploited, and I don't mind the taxation level I'm paying - which, btw, is high. I'm especially happy about the medical system in place. Landed on my head :D and had a concussion this winter while skiing and had the whole thing taken care of without even a question about who would pay the bill. I was only in ER for two or three hours and given excellent treatment. Had to take a week off (unpaid since I'm self-employed), recovered, and went back to work the next week. I'm not asking for anything, just happy the safety net is there when I absolutely need it.

DenButsu
09-06-2008, 01:16 AM
---edit--- reply to funster, not ink ---

What I don't get though is why you (mistakenly) have to automatically jump to the conclusion that everybody who needs help has it as their goal in life to dodge doing an honest day's work and just try to live off the doles.

That unlike you, poor people have no pride.

That unlike you, they don't want to be self-sufficient.

That unlike you, ... well I'll stop making this list, but you see where I'm going with it.


Let me ask you a question: Do you think banks should stop giving loans?

Because when I think of health care that is financed (at least in part) by the government, of education that is as well, of unemployment benefits, job training programs, social security, the whole general concept of the government having not only a safety net in place to catch those who slip through the cracks but some ladders as well to help people climb up, what I see is basically the institution that is created of, by and for the people giving a loan to some of those people - with interest. And the way in which the interest gets paid back is that those people in turn can be healthy, productive, well-educated, tax-paying members of society. It's an investment in ourselves.

To me, it looks like you operate under the illusion that you are not a member of society, that you exist in a bubble, isolated and detached from the rest of the world, with no vested interest in the well-being of your fellow citizens, no vested interest in having strong communities, a healthy society, a society with low unemployment. But the negative impacts of society lacking those things - higher crime rates, a more burdened health care system, more bitterness and alienation in society in general - do those things truly not affect you? I have a hard time believing that's the case.

---------------------------

edit --- side thought:

Is there a relationship between the more extreme religiosity of the right, and what appears to me to be a much darker, more negative assumption about the base quality of human nature (evil, self-centered, greedy, aggressive) that I see coming from the right a lot? "Original sin" and all that?

In_Ned_I_Trust
09-06-2008, 01:28 AM
I operate my own business and last year in my first year of filing I think we had something around 40-50K earnings on paper through the year, I owed. I made more on a side business where I was the sole employee, again I owed because I was a company. Obama wants to tax companies and not the individuals and if that goes in I would surely go out of business and be forced to work for someone else which is what the dems really want right? I employ a meager 6 people right now but I pay them a fair wage, on par with the cost of living in my area. if they are forced to work for a bigger company they will never get what I am paying them, since they see things nationally and what people earn in Missouri would not keep up with what people make in Southern California. So how is that fair to poor/middle class people?

DenButsu
09-06-2008, 01:51 AM
I operate my own business and last year in my first year of filing I think we had something around 40-50K earnings on paper through the year, I owed. I made more on a side business where I was the sole employee, again I owed because I was a company. Obama wants to tax companies and not the individuals and if that goes in I would surely go out of business and be forced to work for someone else which is what the dems really want right? I employ a meager 6 people right now but I pay them a fair wage, on par with the cost of living in my area. if they are forced to work for a bigger company they will never get what I am paying them, since they see things nationally and what people earn in Missouri would not keep up with what people make in Southern California. So how is that fair to poor/middle class people?


McCain's Small-Business Bunk
July 14, 2008
He claims 23 million small-business owners would pay higher tax rates under Obama. He's wrong. The vast majority would see no change, and many would get a cut.
Summary
McCain has repeatedly claimed that Obama would raise tax rates for 23 million small-business owners. It's a false and preposterously inflated figure.

We find that the overwhelming majority of those small-business owners would see no increase, because they earn too little to be affected. Obama's tax proposal would raise rates only on couples making more than $250,000 or singles earning more than $200,000.

McCain argues that Obama's proposed increase is a job-killer. He has a point. It's true that increasing taxes on those at the top would leave them less money for other purposes, including investment and hiring in the case of business owners. But the number of business owners who would see their rates go up would be only a small fraction of what McCain says. Many would see their taxes go down.factcheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccains_small-business_bunk.html)


More Tax Deceptions
August 8, 2008
Updated: August 12, 2008
McCain misrepresents Obama's tax proposals again. And again, and again.
Summary
McCain released three new ads with multiple false and misleading claims about Obama's tax proposals.

* A TV spot claims Obama once voted for a tax increase "on people making just $42,000 a year." That's true for a single taxpayer, who would have seen a tax increase of $15 for the year – if the measure had been enacted. But the ad shows a woman with two children, and as a single mother, she would not have been affected unless she made more than $62,150. The increase that Obama once supported as part of a Democratic budget bill is not part of his current tax plan anyway.

* A Spanish-language radio ad claims the measure Obama supported would have raised taxes on "families" making $42,000, which is simply false. Even a single mother with one child would have been able to make $58,650 without being affected. A family of four with income up to $90,000 would not have been affected.

* The TV ad claims in a graphic that Obama would "raise taxes on middle class." In fact, Obama's plan promises cuts for middle-income taxpayers and would increase rates only for persons with family incomes above $250,000 or with individual incomes above $200,000.

* The radio ad claims Obama would increase taxes "on the sale of your home." In fact, home-sale profits of up to $500,000 per couple would continue to be exempt from capital gains taxes. Very few sales would see an increase under Obama's proposal to raise the capital gains rate.

* A second radio ad, in English, says, "Obama has a history of raising taxes" on middle-class Americans. But that's false. It refers to a vote that did not actually result in a tax increase and could not have done so.

These ads continue what's become a pattern of misrepresentation by the McCain campaign about his opponent's tax proposals.

Update, Aug. 12: The tax falsehoods continued with the release of a McCain Web ad Aug. 11 claiming that the "perks" of joining the Obama "fan club" include "a tax incease for everyone earning more than $42,000 a year."
Analysis
Sen. John McCain's campaign released the 30-second spot Aug. 8. Campaign spokesman Brian Rogers said the ad would be running in Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

The ad continues McCain's pattern of misrepresenting Sen. Barack Obama's tax proposals as falling on middle-income families. It claims that Obama "promises more taxes on small businesses, seniors, your life savings, your family." But that's untrue for the vast majority of small businesses, seniors and individual taxpayers, who would see their taxes go down under Obama's actual plan. He proposes to increase taxes only for those with more than $250,000 in family income, or $200,000 in individual income.

...

A Continuing Pattern of Deceit

These three new McCain ads continue what has become a pattern of deceit, with McCain repeatedly misrepresenting what Obama is proposing.

Here are some of McCain's previous false claims, with links to previous analyses:

* McCain falsely claimed Obama's plan would increase taxes on 23 million small-business owners, when the vast majority of them would get a cut. Any increase would actually fall only on the most affluent, a few hundred thousand business owners.

* McCain falsely claimed Obama "says he'll raise taxes on electricity," though Obama has said no such thing and his tax plan contains no proposal for a tax on electricity.

* As noted already, McCain falsely claimed Obama once voted for a Democratic budget bill that called for raising taxes on persons making as little as $32,000 a year, when in fact the proposal would not have affected anyone with total income under $41,500 a year, or $83,000 for a married couple with no children.

* McCain stated that Obama would raise taxes "if you have an investment for your child’s education or own a mutual fund or a stock in a retirement plan." This was found to be "false" by our colleagues at Politifact.com, and we concur.

McCain has been twisting tax facts about Obama as far back as June 10, when he gave a speech to a small-business gathering saying: "Under Senator Obama's tax plan, Americans of every background would see their taxes rise." There may be persons of "every background" among the affluent, but McCain's phrasing was misleading. These ads continue his long-running pattern of deception on taxes.factcheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/more_tax_deceptions.html)

Rochesta
09-06-2008, 02:31 AM
McCain wants to lower the corporate tax rate by 10%, which would instantly reduce the taxes on the 50% percent of households who own securities, plus the multiple pension plans that rely on securities, from private pension plans to government pension plans.

Make no mistake, this is not a tax cut designed for the wealthy. Corporations are publicly traded, and many middle class Americans are paying a double-tax on their investments. A company is taxed, which lowers its value, which lowers its dividents. Then, the owner of a share (which is representative of the majority of Americans) pays an additional income tax on any money that they take away from their investment. This is a tax that we all pay, since the stock market is both integral to many of our personal financial futures, but it is also a tax that many of our competitors overseas do not pay to this extent.

As for Obama's tax cuts for the "poor smaller small businesses," it is completely assenine. Companies are taxed on earnings, not profits. Revenue, despite the simple and incorrect correlation that Obama has drawn, does nothing to indicate the wealth of the owner.

In other words, those mere "couple of hundred thousand companies" could easily be making less money per year than their smaller counterparts.

Consider an attorney, a "small business" owner, who owns his firm and operates it from his home. He brings in $280,000 in legal fees per year (revenue). His expenses, however, are small. He operates from within his home, has no employees, and no raw materials. He, because of his revenue, is given a break by the Obama tax cuts.

Now, consider a small business owner who sells auto parts. He brings in 1,000,000 dollars in revenue every year. However, he has 6 employees at 25k each. He also pays 65% of the cost of each part to purchase them from the manufacturer. Further to this, he pays rent and utilities on his building of 250,000 annually.

1,000,000
- 650,000 (cost to buy parts)
- 150,000 (labor)
- 250,000 (rent/util)
---------
-50,000 income

Now, under the Obama plan, this man receives a tax increase. Obviously, six jobs are lost, his job is lost, and a valuable community business closes.

Now, I don't want to suggest that this will happen all the time. But it will happen often in the current economic condition.


Compounding the problem is that those companies employ more people, have larger outstanding pension funds, and are more likley to provide health benefits to their employees than their smaller counterparts. The Obama tax hike on large companies could very well bankrupt some of these companies and eliminate good jobs.

In other words, Obama's supposed tax cut for the "poor" businesses while only taxing the "big bad companies" is completely ridiculous.

I could go on, but the point is this. For the most part, when you break down the actual economics, McCain is right to criticize Obama in many of the ways that he has criticized him. In fact, the Obama economic plan fails to really provide anything other than false hope for the middle class. His plan looks excellent on paper, but in reality it is only taking drops out of a bucket that we all share.

DenButsu
09-06-2008, 03:42 AM
I could go on, but the point is this. For the most part, when you break down the actual economics, McCain is right to criticize Obama in many of the ways that he has criticized him. In fact, the Obama economic plan fails to really provide anything other than false hope for the middle class. His plan looks excellent on paper, but in reality it is only taking drops out of a bucket that we all share.

He is LYING about Obama's tax plan.

What's "right" about that? :shrug:

ari1013
09-06-2008, 09:27 AM
McCain wants to lower the corporate tax rate by 10%, which would instantly reduce the taxes on the 50% percent of households who own securities, plus the multiple pension plans that rely on securities, from private pension plans to government pension plans.

Make no mistake, this is not a tax cut designed for the wealthy. Corporations are publicly traded, and many middle class Americans are paying a double-tax on their investments. A company is taxed, which lowers its value, which lowers its dividents. Then, the owner of a share (which is representative of the majority of Americans) pays an additional income tax on any money that they take away from their investment. This is a tax that we all pay, since the stock market is both integral to many of our personal financial futures, but it is also a tax that many of our competitors overseas do not pay to this extent.

As for Obama's tax cuts for the "poor smaller small businesses," it is completely assenine. Companies are taxed on earnings, not profits. Revenue, despite the simple and incorrect correlation that Obama has drawn, does nothing to indicate the wealth of the owner.

In other words, those mere "couple of hundred thousand companies" could easily be making less money per year than their smaller counterparts.

Consider an attorney, a "small business" owner, who owns his firm and operates it from his home. He brings in $280,000 in legal fees per year (revenue). His expenses, however, are small. He operates from within his home, has no employees, and no raw materials. He, because of his revenue, is given a break by the Obama tax cuts.

Now, consider a small business owner who sells auto parts. He brings in 1,000,000 dollars in revenue every year. However, he has 6 employees at 25k each. He also pays 65% of the cost of each part to purchase them from the manufacturer. Further to this, he pays rent and utilities on his building of 250,000 annually.

1,000,000
- 650,000 (cost to buy parts)
- 150,000 (labor)
- 250,000 (rent/util)
---------
-50,000 income

Now, under the Obama plan, this man receives a tax increase. Obviously, six jobs are lost, his job is lost, and a valuable community business closes.

Now, I don't want to suggest that this will happen all the time. But it will happen often in the current economic condition.


Compounding the problem is that those companies employ more people, have larger outstanding pension funds, and are more likley to provide health benefits to their employees than their smaller counterparts. The Obama tax hike on large companies could very well bankrupt some of these companies and eliminate good jobs.

In other words, Obama's supposed tax cut for the "poor" businesses while only taxing the "big bad companies" is completely ridiculous.

I could go on, but the point is this. For the most part, when you break down the actual economics, McCain is right to criticize Obama in many of the ways that he has criticized him. In fact, the Obama economic plan fails to really provide anything other than false hope for the middle class. His plan looks excellent on paper, but in reality it is only taking drops out of a bucket that we all share.
1. You pay corporate income taxes on profit, not on revenue. And if you have real negative profit, you probably aren't running that good of a business. Lots of businesses have fake negative profit that they show for tax purposes and get away with paying $0 in taxes on it (or even getting a subsidy). Bear in mind that corporate welfare has hit record highs in recent years.

2. Stockholders pay a capital gains tax when they sell stocks. The bulk of that 50% of households figure that gets thrown around are people that own stocks/funds in their pension -- so they're not selling any time soon.

3. Interest/Dividends that you may earn from stocks/funds are taxed at the individual tax rate, not at the corporate tax rate.

So when you break down the "actual economics" you're completely wrong. Especially since this isn't economics. It's actuarial science.

hoosiercubsfan
09-06-2008, 11:19 AM
Obama: Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I’ve laid out how I’ll pay for every dime – by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don’t help America grow.

This is misleading. Even by his own campaign’s estimates, closing corporate loopholes and tax havens won’t pay for all of Obama’s new plans. In July, the campaign told the Los Angeles Times that they estimate the yearly cost of their proposed tax cuts at $130 billion. They put revenue from closing tax loopholes at just $80 billion. Obama also proposes to raise taxes to pre-Bush levels for families earning more than $250,000 a year and singles making more than $200,000, yielding additional revenue. But he didn't mention that in his speech.

But Obama’s claim is misleading on another level. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, "without substantial cuts in government spending" Obama’s plan – and McCain's, too – "would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years." Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor told FactCheck.org that the Tax Policy Center's analysis "fails to take in account Senator Obama's spending cuts, including ending the Iraq war." That's true, but Obama's proposed cuts are dwarfed by the Tax Policy Center's projected deficits. Obama’s new spending programs might be completely offset by new revenue and spending cuts. But overall spending will still exceed overall revenue, and the nation would face at least 10 more years of annual deficits.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_obama.html

Also from the same article on the same page.


Obama said "average family income" went down $2,000 under Bush, which isn't correct. An aide said he was really talking only about "working" families and not retired couples. And – math teachers, please note – he meant median (or midpoint) and not really the mean or average. Median family income actually has inched up slightly under Bush.


Obama noted that McCain’s health care plan would "tax people’s benefits" but didn’t say that it also would provide up to a $5,000 tax credit for families.


He said McCain would fail to lower taxes for 100 million Americans while his own plan would cut taxes for 95 percent of “working” families. But an independent analysis puts the number who would see no benefit from McCain’s plan at 66 million and finds that Obama’s plan would benefit 81 percent of all households when retirees and those without children are figured in.

So looks like both sides are not giving the entire facts on the others economic plans.

Bosox Believer
09-06-2008, 12:51 PM
So looks like both sides are not giving the entire facts on the others economic plans.

That could be true, but when you look at the facts that you quoted, Obama's plan still looks WAY better.

hoosiercubsfan
09-06-2008, 01:30 PM
That could be true, but when you look at the facts that you quoted, Obama's plan still looks WAY better.


What is Obama offering? A witch’s brew of tax credits that are aimed at various groups rather than lower taxes for everybody. Obama pays for these tax cuts by increasing the capital gains tax, keeping America’s 2nd highest in the world corporate taxes, and whacking upper-income earners with dramatically higher taxes. All things aimed squarely at reducing economic growth.

Tax credits for some and raising taxes on the wealthy are standard fare for Democrats. Call it Robin Hood economics, which is based on the idea that the idea of wealth in America is fixed and the role of government is to make sure that it gets into the right hands.

No I personally think Obama's plan will be horrible for our economy.


But modern economies build their wealth through investment and job creation, and Obama’s tax plan is aimed squarely at reducing investment and punishing wealth creation. Obama’s tax increases to pay for his new programs amount to billions of dollars on investments.

John McCain’s economic plan is aims to reduce the immediate tax burden of millions of ordinary citizens through tax cuts such as increasing the per-child personal exemption. But it also stimulates the economy by reducing the costs of doing business in the United States. More investment at home means more jobs and higher incomes for Americans.

http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidStrom/2008/09/04/robin_hood_economics

SmthBluCitrus
09-06-2008, 01:43 PM
come on hoosier. David Strom?? There's obvious bias there. The guy doesn't even like conservative Governor Tim Pawlenty anymore, and he balanced a $4.3 billion deficit.

And, doesn't Strom want to do away with taxes altogether?

Face it, the Republican plan has failed. Bush has implemented it since 2001, and he's had a congress to make sure it goes through. It's not working, and it's not going to work. The fact that McCain wants to continue it shows a complete lack of judgment. Continuing the Bush cuts is irresponsible.

Rochesta
09-06-2008, 01:53 PM
1. You pay corporate income taxes on profit, not on revenue. And if you have real negative profit, you probably aren't running that good of a business. Lots of businesses have fake negative profit that they show for tax purposes and get away with paying $0 in taxes on it (or even getting a subsidy). Bear in mind that corporate welfare has hit record highs in recent years.

Corporate tax rates are based on earnings before tax, EBT. Profit is calculated when the tax rate (40% for large companies) is deducted from the EBT. Then, dividends are payed out, which are then taxed on the individual owner's income tax. That is why the average security investment is taxed between 50-60%, and why you hear so much discussion on the 'double-tax' from investments.

The fact that some companies report false negatives is irrelevant to corporate tax rates. Its a different issue entirely that has to be addressed by the SEC.

Corporate welfare isn't always a bad thing. True, it is often based on unfair lobbying. But that, like false negatives, is a discussion for another day so far as tax rates are concerned.


2. Stockholders pay a capital gains tax when they sell stocks. The bulk of that 50% of households figure that gets thrown around are people that own stocks/funds in their pension -- so they're not selling any time soon.

Nobody owns stocks just to own them. They will all be sold, and the tax will be applied at some point. Every day people retire in this country, finance a child's education, or simply make a return. The argument that many people are holding them for the time being ignores the crux of the matter.


3. Interest/Dividends that you may earn from stocks/funds are taxed at the individual tax rate, not at the corporate tax rate.

No, they are taxed at both. Your dividends are based on the corporate tax rate after it is applied. A company cannot pay dividends before paying its corporate tax.

So, let's say that a company earned 10,000 dollars last year. It's rate of tax is 40%. So it then has 6,000 dollars to pay out as dividends, or to retain to pay long-term debts or add to the cash flow. Note: retained money is not kept by anyone. It is kept by the corporation, which is an independent entity. There is NO fat-cat who is pocketing that money (save for a scandal, of course). It is either used to pay for investments/new projects, or debt.

You own one share, and the company issues 3000 dollars in dividends to 1000 owners. You receive three dollars.

Then, you pay your tax on the three dollars in your income statement.


So when you break down the "actual economics" you're completely wrong. Especially since this isn't economics. It's actuarial science.

Risk management hasn't come up in this discussion. This is accounting 101, essentially, and has a lot to do with economics.

The example of the small businesses I described were examples of the types of businesses that could or may not receive tax breaks under Obama's plan. His plan is based on the business's size, which I have tried to show as an arbitrary method.

Rochesta
09-06-2008, 02:14 PM
He is LYING about Obama's tax plan.

What's "right" about that? :shrug:


You need to look closer than a site like "factcheck.org" to get your information. Not a slam on you at all, but you can't rely on a site like that anymore than I could rely on Rush Limbaugh.

First, some of McCain's arguments skip several steps of analysis. Of course, I consider that a bad idea for him. Even if he is right, he's not explaining it properly.

Obama will raise taxes on "dirty energy," which will increase the tax on electricity, obviously. McCain can say that Obama will raise taxes on electricity. Does McCain's statement only follow from a few different logical steps? Yes. Is it a bad tax to raise? No, not necessarily.

Most people are claiming that Obama never specifically said he'd raise taxes on electricity, which is true. McCain is guilty of twisting the words to make it appear that way.

In summary, neither candidate is very strong on the economy in terms of elaborating on their ideas. McCain's platform is stronger IMO but he sucks at explaining it. Obama's is soft IMO but people are following it much better. Its an interesting dichotomy.

I'll back out of this discussion since I don't have time to be discussing it while I'm supposed to be doing my actual accounting and economics homework, but I hope I've at least inspired someone to look deeper at reliable sources other than the campaigns themselves or slanted blogs and sites like factcheck.org. There's a LOT more to these discussions than "Obama won't raise taxes on anybody making less than the top 5%." Or, "McCain's plan to drill for oil and natural gas will create millions of jobs." These policies might be said, and might appear to do what they say, but they could all be untrue.

DenButsu
09-06-2008, 07:53 PM
Rochesta, while you're right about the idea that people (including me) should dig deeper, the entire premise of the campaign commercials in which McCain is lying about Obama's tax plan is to encourage people to do exactly the opposite.

"Hey, everybody, look no further than 'Obama is just another tax and spend liberal who will raise your taxes - that's all you need to know."

That's the real message. And it is, most definitely, a LIE.


If my response to it - and my use of factcheck.org - doesn't dig too much more deeply than the surface, it's only because it's on the surface where the "message battle" is taking place.

ink
09-06-2008, 08:26 PM
You need to look closer than a site like "factcheck.org" to get your information. Not a slam on you at all, but you can't rely on a site like that anymore than I could rely on Rush Limbaugh.

Speaking of digging deeper, you should do a little more looking into factcheck.org. During the DNC they had corrections on any incorrect facts made at that convention, just as they did during the RNC. I contacted them directly during the DNC, asking them to fact check the 90-95% figures the Obama campaign was citing, and they confirmed the voting record just as I posted in the thread on that subject. They also pointed out Obama's voting record to me. Contact Rush Limbaugh and see if he does the same. :eyebrow:

One is a talk show host and the other is a non-partisan group. In the spirit of fairness you were calling for in one of your earlier posts, I'd like to see what you have that shows they're biased. Here (from an interview made during the 2004 campaign) they address the subject directly:


Q: Who comes to visit FactCheck.org more: journalists, the political camps or just the average consumer that wants to know the deal?

Jackson: I’ve been pleasantly surprised just how many “civilians” have come to our Website. We are getting something like 9,000 visits per day. Twenty-thousand people have signed up to get free e-mail articles. I thought when we started this that we’d be primarily a service to other journalists who didn’t have time to dig into some of the nitty-gritty to check the factual accuracy of some of these statements. Turns out there are an awful lot of people puzzled by these conflicting claims and thankful for a politically neutral source to try and sorted it out for them.

Q: Would you say the mainstream media is just as unbiased as you are?

Jackson: I’ll have to leave it to others to determine if we have unbias or not. We certainly try to be unbiased. We are nonpartisan and we try to be non-ideological. We try to play it right down the middle. I have to say one of our best days was when both the Kerry and the Bush campaigns quoted us - FactCheck.org - in competing news releases, giving us as evidence of the other side shading the facts.

http://www.webtalkguys.com/062604.shtml

I've even read on McCain blogs that factcheck.org has a good, neutral reputation.

DenButsu
09-06-2008, 08:26 PM
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/which_8_years.gif

Uncle Funster
09-06-2008, 11:17 PM
---edit--- reply to funster, not ink ---

What I don't get though is why you (mistakenly) have to automatically jump to the conclusion that everybody who needs help has it as their goal in life to dodge doing an honest day's work and just try to live off the doles.

That unlike you, poor people have no pride.

That unlike you, they don't want to be self-sufficient.

That unlike you, ... well I'll stop making this list, but you see where I'm going with it.


Let me ask you a question: Do you think banks should stop giving loans?

Because when I think of health care that is financed (at least in part) by the government, of education that is as well, of unemployment benefits, job training programs, social security, the whole general concept of the government having not only a safety net in place to catch those who slip through the cracks but some ladders as well to help people climb up, what I see is basically the institution that is created of, by and for the people giving a loan to some of those people - with interest. And the way in which the interest gets paid back is that those people in turn can be healthy, productive, well-educated, tax-paying members of society. It's an investment in ourselves.

To me, it looks like you operate under the illusion that you are not a member of society, that you exist in a bubble, isolated and detached from the rest of the world, with no vested interest in the well-being of your fellow citizens, no vested interest in having strong communities, a healthy society, a society with low unemployment. But the negative impacts of society lacking those things - higher crime rates, a more burdened health care system, more bitterness and alienation in society in general - do those things truly not affect you? I have a hard time believing that's the case.

---------------------------

edit --- side thought:

Is there a relationship between the more extreme religiosity of the right, and what appears to me to be a much darker, more negative assumption about the base quality of human nature (evil, self-centered, greedy, aggressive) that I see coming from the right a lot? "Original sin" and all that?

DB...I never said any of those things that you accused me of saying re: poor people. That is unfair assumption on your part. I particularly pointed out that I wholehearttedly believe that those with must help those without. Re-read my post, please.

Not a member of society? I really do not see how you can possible derive that from my post where I pointedly commented on the clear responsibilities that I have toward the people I employ, theri families, and society on the whole. You are just making things up while intentionally ignoring both the content and tone of my post.

And where did I inject religion at any point in my post?

ari1013
09-06-2008, 11:43 PM
Corporate tax rates are based on earnings before tax, EBT. Profit is calculated when the tax rate (40% for large companies) is deducted from the EBT. Then, dividends are payed out, which are then taxed on the individual owner's income tax. That is why the average security investment is taxed between 50-60%, and why you hear so much discussion on the 'double-tax' from investments.

The fact that some companies report false negatives is irrelevant to corporate tax rates. Its a different issue entirely that has to be addressed by the SEC.

Corporate welfare isn't always a bad thing. True, it is often based on unfair lobbying. But that, like false negatives, is a discussion for another day so far as tax rates are concerned.



Nobody owns stocks just to own them. They will all be sold, and the tax will be applied at some point. Every day people retire in this country, finance a child's education, or simply make a return. The argument that many people are holding them for the time being ignores the crux of the matter.



No, they are taxed at both. Your dividends are based on the corporate tax rate after it is applied. A company cannot pay dividends before paying its corporate tax.

So, let's say that a company earned 10,000 dollars last year. It's rate of tax is 40%. So it then has 6,000 dollars to pay out as dividends, or to retain to pay long-term debts or add to the cash flow. Note: retained money is not kept by anyone. It is kept by the corporation, which is an independent entity. There is NO fat-cat who is pocketing that money (save for a scandal, of course). It is either used to pay for investments/new projects, or debt.

You own one share, and the company issues 3000 dollars in dividends to 1000 owners. You receive three dollars.

Then, you pay your tax on the three dollars in your income statement.



Risk management hasn't come up in this discussion. This is accounting 101, essentially, and has a lot to do with economics.

The example of the small businesses I described were examples of the types of businesses that could or may not receive tax breaks under Obama's plan. His plan is based on the business's size, which I have tried to show as an arbitrary method.
You're still jumbling up the corporate and the individual levels here with regard to short term vs. long term. A company with real losses isn't going to be taxed on that negative "profit" any more than someone who doesn't sell their stocks isn't going to be taxed on the value of their stock until they sell. In the long run, yes the profits should pick up and thus the taxes will kick in on both fronts. But that's not going to keep the hypothetical company from getting its hypothetical act together and turn the ship around.

ari1013
09-06-2008, 11:52 PM
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/which_8_years.gif
I was going to post that up but I wasn't sure if I still could as a retiree. Anyway, just to give it a little perspective, the basic premise is that our economy typically needs between 80K and 120K new jobs created net each month just to keep pace with population growth.

We lost 600,000 jobs in the last 8 months. But that really feels like we dropped about 1.3 million jobs which explains why our unemployment figures topped 6% for the first time since the last recession.

Another interesting graph to look at would be the U6 which measures both unemployment and underemployment. That combined rate is now higher than its been since the first Bush was President.

We might not be in a classically-defined recession, but we're definitely not looking good.

DenButsu
09-07-2008, 05:18 AM
DB...I never said any of those things that you accused me of saying re: poor people. That is unfair assumption on your part. I particularly pointed out that I wholehearttedly believe that those with must help those without. Re-read my post, please.

Not a member of society? I really do not see how you can possible derive that from my post where I pointedly commented on the clear responsibilities that I have toward the people I employ, theri families, and society on the whole. You are just making things up while intentionally ignoring both the content and tone of my post.

And where did I inject religion at any point in my post?


I came from a very low income home in NJ where the odds were against us. But that was never used as an excuse to settle for poor performance, but rather as a catalyst to do better. It was a terrific motivation to overcome those circumstances. We never went on welfare, never sacrificed morals for convenience and never excused poor performance with tough breaks.

It is a better life, but please do not misunderstand that it comes with great effort and often, great sacrifice and risk.


To me, the statements I underlined above sure implied that the people who haven't been as successful as you have:

-used poverty as an excuse for poor performance

-gone on welfare because of some moral deficiency (unlike you, who "never sacrificed" your morals)

-prioritized the "convenience" of welfare over hard work

-excused poor performance with tough breaks

-didn't put in as much effort as you

-didn't sacrifice as much as you

-didn't risk as much as you



Sorry if you feel I mischaracterized your statement, but that's the vibe I felt your post was emitting pretty strongly and clearly.


And the remark about religion wasn't in response to you directly. That's why I said it was a "side thought". It does seem to me, however, that there is a positive correlation between certain religions - including but not limited to Christianity (especially in its more extreme/rightist forms) - and the beliefs their followers have about "sin" and so forth, and a very dismal view of human nature.

Uncle Funster
09-07-2008, 01:21 PM
To me, the statements I underlined above sure implied that the people who haven't been as successful as you have:

-used poverty as an excuse for poor performance

-gone on welfare because of some moral deficiency (unlike you, who "never sacrificed" your morals)

-prioritized the "convenience" of welfare over hard work

-excused poor performance with tough breaks

-didn't put in as much effort as you

-didn't sacrifice as much as you

-didn't risk as much as you



Sorry if you feel I mischaracterized your statement, but that's the vibe I felt your post was emitting pretty strongly and clearly.


And the remark about religion wasn't in response to you directly. That's why I said it was a "side thought". It does seem to me, however, that there is a positive correlation between certain religions - including but not limited to Christianity (especially in its more extreme/rightist forms) - and the beliefs their followers have about "sin" and so forth, and a very dismal view of human nature.

I tried to use my own experiences to illustrate that there are other options besides welfare. I also touched on many other issues, including the fact that for some in our society (who cannot work for various valid reasons), there MUST be government aid and support. I tried to establish that my business endeavors support over 100 employees and their families and that a substantial portion of the revenues go towards paying taxes and other governmental requirements for their employment, as well as an extremely expensive health care plan. Their wages are above the industry standard and I make sure that each employee is ot only sustaining his family, but feels a sense of worth and contentment in his/her job.

Maybe some didn't put in a s much effort as I did, I was simply stating that it is a better alternative to strive for something greater rather than to give in a go on subsudies that are paid for by others' efforts...is that a bad message? What do you want your children to do believe?


But forget all that...let's go for what you really want to do and hash out my feelings on the current state of the welfare state:

Do all the people on welfare belong there?

Are there not cases every day, in every state where fraudulent claims are made? Didn't NJ, one of the country's most liberal states, pass law putting welfare recipients on a clock whereby they must find employment in a reasonable amount of time or have their benefits stopped? It has been very successful in taking families off the welfare roles after generations...

Have there not been families that have been on welfare for generations who have no interest in finding employment?

Was their not rampant fraudulent insurance and aid claims after Katrina?

Are there not ridiculous studies, fundings and pork barrel programs that my tax dollars must support?

Why are there so many people on welfare? Are they all entitled? For how long?

I believe strongly (for the third ****ing time now) that we need to take care of the weaker elements of society. NO DOUBT. But you, as a typical liberally minded attack dog, chose to ignore those portions of my posts. There are many other forms of governmental spending that I deplore...such as the obscene amount spent on the defense budget, corporate subsidies to oil companies, non-competed contracts to huge contractors overseas, etc...


I believe the reason you are so obsessed with welfare lies in one of your earlier posts where you said that you were "glad it was there if you needed it". The difference between us is that it is never a consideration for me. NEVER. I will work for my earnings even if I have to flip burgers, mop floors and clean urinals every day.

I will never speak about religion with you or anyone on this board. There is not as sufficient level of acceptance on either side of the discussion in a place like this.

SLY WILLIAMS
09-07-2008, 02:08 PM
Didnt Obama say today he would not do away with the Bush tax cuts if the economy is slow? Hmmm is he finally admitting that you dont raise taxes in a recession? Nice to see he is listening to economists. :)

ari1013
09-07-2008, 02:11 PM
Didnt Obama say today he would not do away with the Bush tax cuts if the economy is slow? Hmmm is he finally admitting that you dont raise taxes in a recession? Nice to see he is listening to economists. :)
Actually he's not listening to economists if he's not going to touch fiscal policy at all. I didn't hear what he said, but if he's going to leave things as they are, that's not going to provide any impetus for growth.

SLY WILLIAMS
09-07-2008, 02:12 PM
I believe the reason you are so obsessed with welfare lies in one of your earlier posts where you said that you were "glad it was there if you needed it". The difference between us is that it is never a consideration for me. NEVER. I will work for my earnings even if I have to flip burgers, mop floors and clean urinals (see PSD political forum) every day.


I hate welfare abuse. I have never received a dime from the government but I do believe you are going over the line in a personal manner in that quote.

Some families and young kids do not have a choice and need that assistance.

SLY WILLIAMS
09-07-2008, 02:15 PM
Actually he's not listening to economists if he's not going to touch fiscal policy at all. I didn't hear what he said, but if he's going to leave things as they are, that's not going to provide any impetus for growth.

I dont think my post said he would do nothing at all. Not raising taxes doesnt mean doing nothing at all. I do not know of any economist worth his salt that thinks raising taxes during a slow economic period will encourage growth.

You don't encourage economic growth via higher taxes. You encourage economic growth by speeding up money velocity by taking away as many obstructions to money velocity as possible.

ari1013
09-07-2008, 02:21 PM
I dont think my post said he would do nothing at all. Not raising taxes doesnt mean doing nothing at all. I do not know of any economist worth his salt that thinks raising taxes during a slow economic period will encourage growth.

You don't encourage economic growth via higher taxes. You encourage economic growth by speeding up money velocity by taking away as many obstructions to money velocity as possible.
Well I do know some that would argue for that, but nobody takes them seriously. That's the old Keynesian method where you increase taxes slightly to finance foreign loans to the country and then overspend using those loans. But that's an antiquated system that really hasn't worked since we fully dropped off the gold standard in the 1970s.

Anyway, the point you're making with velocity is true. Only you have to consider that it applies to consumption more than anything. So if you want to improve the situation you need to put more disposable income into the hands of those that would use it. Realigning the tax cuts to put more money where it'll be spent would be a more efficient way to increase velocity.

ari1013
09-07-2008, 02:24 PM
I hate welfare abuse. I have never received a dime from the government but I do believe you are going over the line in a personal manner in that quote.

Some families and young kids do not have a choice and need that assistance.
My family was on WIC when my sister and I were little. But my dad worked his way off of it after a little over a year. Without WIC I'm honestly not sure if we would have made it. And that's what those programs are there for.

SLY WILLIAMS
09-07-2008, 02:32 PM
My family was on WIC when my sister and I were little. But my dad worked his way off of it after a little over a year. Without WIC I'm honestly not sure if we would have made it. And that's what those programs are there for.

I agree and I'm sincerely glad they helped you. I want those programs there as an emergency plan. Sometimes emergencies happen to good people. I pay taxes just like most people and I want those taxes to go to help people in need rather than to pay for the millionaires in congress limousines or health care.

tomno00
09-07-2008, 02:48 PM
stricter regulations placed on corporations........Stock Options in particular.. Its ashaed what these CEO's are making in terms of SO when the little people under them are getting laid off...

Less money in defense spending and more allocation into education. In my opinion, every child should have the same resources when getting educated. Eliminate the teacher's union. Allow schools to fire teachers.

Make welfare incentive based. People on welfare that have children should get allowances for higher grades. This motivates both the parent and child.

The governement/banks need to stop giving out free handouts. Yes it would be great if everyone could own their own home, but realize this is a capatilistic economy and we all have to work to get what we want.

Socialized medicine is fine, but make it incentive based. Stay in school and you can keep it. Drop out or refusal to go to college or get some type of technical training, then you get dropped.

Lower the capital gains rates and make it easier for people to invest.

Uncle Funster
09-07-2008, 03:17 PM
I hate welfare abuse. I have never received a dime from the government but I do believe you are going over the line in a personal manner in that quote.

Some families and young kids do not have a choice and need that assistance.




I also touched on many other issues, including the fact that for some in our society (who cannot work for various valid reasons), there MUST be government aid and support.

I also said this in the referenced post...twice.

Uncle Funster
09-07-2008, 03:27 PM
I hate welfare abuse. I have never received a dime from the government but I do believe you are going over the line in a personal manner in that quote.

Some families and young kids do not have a choice and need that assistance.

I edited my post accordingly.

Rochesta
09-07-2008, 09:26 PM
You're still jumbling up the corporate and the individual levels here with regard to short term vs. long term. A company with real losses isn't going to be taxed on that negative "profit" any more than someone who doesn't sell their stocks isn't going to be taxed on the value of their stock until they sell. In the long run, yes the profits should pick up and thus the taxes will kick in on both fronts. But that's not going to keep the hypothetical company from getting its hypothetical act together and turn the ship around.

I don't want to get into the politics as I am bored of that but I would like to know what you're getting at, as I'm curious and I don't think I completely follow.

First, dividends comprise a large amount of a corporation's actual profits, in fact, they are the corporation's actual profits. Money retained after tax is either payed as a dividend to the shareholder (profit to the owners) or is retained to be used to pay for costs or investments in the future, or saved. There isn't anything more to it than that. Many, many stocks are 'held' in order to collect these dividends. Not many people wheel and deal stocks to try and make a quick capital gain. Further to that -

The value of a stock is quite largely based on the dividends that it is expected to pay. So the corporate income tax is very relevant, even if you decide to hold.

Corporate tax is assessed and taken out of the value of the company heading in to the next fiscal year. While this value may not be high in many companies, it still matters to the value of the stock.

Companies with real losses are very much taxed. Their entire operation is taxed, head to toe. They pay FICA taxes for every worker, they pay sales tax on their raw materials, they pay property tax, and they pay taxes at their inception. The corporate tax is icing on the cake, and it is a thick layer of icing. It is up to 40% of a company's earnings, which is the entire point of their existence and the entire point of us owning them as shareholders.

PHX-SOXFAN
09-08-2008, 10:38 AM
Unemployment will not hit 7% before the election. Maybe by the time the next president is sworn in but not in 2 months. If it goes up by nearly 1% in 2 months, we'd also likely be seeing the Dow dip below 10K. 1% might not sound like a lot, but it really is a HUGE number in economics.

Think about it this way. They recalculated the June and July employment numbers. They added in August's numbers. All in all they found about 100,000 net people lost their jobs. All of that led to a 0.3% increase in unemployment. So we're talking about roughly a 400,000 decrease in employment in two months. We haven't seen that in about 30 years.

6.5% isn't far off though and I didn't think there would be 85,000 jobs lost in august. three months after stimulus checks and in a month when back to school spending usually provides a lift. Instead, retail numbers were down and retailers were part of the layoffs.:speechless:

PHX-SOXFAN
09-08-2008, 10:40 AM
Sorry to dissappoint you, but my income is in excess of what he deems as "wealthy" (in reference to annual earnings). My taxes will surely go up at least 6-7 points per annum. And that is just plain unacceptable to me and many others.

you mean "a few others" not "many"

hoosiercubsfan
09-08-2008, 10:41 AM
6.5% isn't far off though and I didn't think there would be 85,000 jobs lost in august. three months after stimulus checks and in a month when back to school spending usually provides a lift. Instead, retail numbers were down and retailers were part of the layoffs.:speechless:

Higher transportation costs are hitting every part of the economy. Granted I don't have any studies or anything to back this up but I wonder how much these prices are affecting these jobs. On top of that with the increase of minimum wage costs of doing business are going up. And when you are not able to pass the entire cost down the line you have to make up for it in other places. That means cutting the number of employees and forcing those that are left to do more. The payroll of businesses is not an infinite pot where they can just go get more any time they need it.

SmthBluCitrus
09-08-2008, 10:48 AM
Edit ... better deserving in the fact/fiction thread since it concerns more than economic policy.

http://prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6562927#post6562927

ari1013
09-08-2008, 12:13 PM
I don't want to get into the politics as I am bored of that but I would like to know what you're getting at, as I'm curious and I don't think I completely follow.

First, dividends comprise a large amount of a corporation's actual profits, in fact, they are the corporation's actual profits. Money retained after tax is either payed as a dividend to the shareholder (profit to the owners) or is retained to be used to pay for costs or investments in the future, or saved. There isn't anything more to it than that. Many, many stocks are 'held' in order to collect these dividends. Not many people wheel and deal stocks to try and make a quick capital gain. Further to that -

The value of a stock is quite largely based on the dividends that it is expected to pay. So the corporate income tax is very relevant, even if you decide to hold.

Corporate tax is assessed and taken out of the value of the company heading in to the next fiscal year. While this value may not be high in many companies, it still matters to the value of the stock.

Companies with real losses are very much taxed. Their entire operation is taxed, head to toe. They pay FICA taxes for every worker, they pay sales tax on their raw materials, they pay property tax, and they pay taxes at their inception. The corporate tax is icing on the cake, and it is a thick layer of icing. It is up to 40% of a company's earnings, which is the entire point of their existence and the entire point of us owning them as shareholders.
Right. So let's look at an example. A company makes $1,000,000 in profit and wants to give that to its 1,000 shareholders. Each shareholder should get $1,000 in a tax-free world. But the corporate tax would reduce that down by 40% or so, meaning shareholders would get $600 and then pay an individual personal tax on that income (thus the double taxation).

My point is this: if a company instead reports negative profits and does not hand out dividends, it does not pay any taxes. So in that example you gave of that company losing money, there would be no taxes assessed in the short run. In the long run, hopefully that company gets back on its feet and is profitable. At that point, it then can pay its share of taxes.

Of course, looking at the data, several large corporations avoided paying taxes by creatively coming up with additional costs that reduced profit-margins. Therefore they wound up paying either nothing or a very small percentage of their actual costs.

ari1013
09-08-2008, 12:16 PM
6.5% isn't far off though and I didn't think there would be 85,000 jobs lost in august. three months after stimulus checks and in a month when back to school spending usually provides a lift. Instead, retail numbers were down and retailers were part of the layoffs.:speechless:
Back to school spending wouldn't have a real effect until September for GDP. And it never does much for employment in the late summer. We always have a downturn at the end of the summer as part-timers leave their jobs to go back to college/HS/etc.

Let's see what happens on Black Friday this year. If sales stay in the red, the recession's definitely going to begin in 2008Q4.

ari1013
09-08-2008, 12:17 PM
Higher transportation costs are hitting every part of the economy. Granted I don't have any studies or anything to back this up but I wonder how much these prices are affecting these jobs. On top of that with the increase of minimum wage costs of doing business are going up. And when you are not able to pass the entire cost down the line you have to make up for it in other places. That means cutting the number of employees and forcing those that are left to do more. The payroll of businesses is not an infinite pot where they can just go get more any time they need it.
No, but if minimum wage workers can afford to buy more goods, those businesses will have increased revenues.

Transportation costs, however, are the bigger issue as you pointed out.

hoosiercubsfan
09-08-2008, 03:49 PM
No, but if minimum wage workers can afford to buy more goods, those businesses will have increased revenues.

Transportation costs, however, are the bigger issue as you pointed out.

Also I believe the unemployment numbers are being artificially inflated also.


A surprising jump in the U.S. unemployment rate last month may partly reflect temporary emergency aid that encouraged more people to count themselves as unemployed, but this ought to fade when the program ends.


But a chunk of this deterioration stemmed from a 250,000 increase in the civilian labor force that some economists said looked suspicious. Employment fell by 342,000 people and together, this pushed unemployment up by 592,000 last month.

"People reclassified themselves as a result of moving onto the job rolls for the supplemental program," said Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson IPAC in Jersey City, New Jersey.


He estimated that without the program, which extended the duration of jobless benefits to 26 weeks from 13 weeks, unemployment would have increased to just 5.8 percent. Analysts polled by Reuters before Friday's monthly payroll report had expected it would remain unchanged.
http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSN0547654120080905?rpc=401&feedType=RSS&feedName=reutersEdge&rpc=401

Granted it looks as though it would have still been 5.8 but that doesn't sound as good as saying 6.1. And the government is coming to the rescue yet again to extend these benefits.


Key Democrats announced Friday that the House will take up legislation to extend unemployment benefits when Congress returns next week.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/congress-to-debate-more-unemployment-benefits-2008-09-05.html

PHX-SOXFAN
09-08-2008, 03:52 PM
I don't want to get into the politics as I am bored of that but I would like to know what you're getting at, as I'm curious and I don't think I completely follow.

First, dividends comprise a large amount of a corporation's actual profits, in fact, they are the corporation's actual profits. Money retained after tax is either payed as a dividend to the shareholder (profit to the owners) or is retained to be used to pay for costs or investments in the future, or saved. There isn't anything more to it than that. Many, many stocks are 'held' in order to collect these dividends. Not many people wheel and deal stocks to try and make a quick capital gain. Further to that -

The value of a stock is quite largely based on the dividends that it is expected to pay. So the corporate income tax is very relevant, even if you decide to hold.

Corporate tax is assessed and taken out of the value of the company heading in to the next fiscal year. While this value may not be high in many companies, it still matters to the value of the stock.

Companies with real losses are very much taxed. Their entire operation is taxed, head to toe. They pay FICA taxes for every worker, they pay sales tax on their raw materials, they pay property tax, and they pay taxes at their inception. The corporate tax is icing on the cake, and it is a thick layer of icing. It is up to 40% of a company's earnings, which is the entire point of their existence and the entire point of us owning them as shareholders.

good old snopes.com has this broken down to cut through the BS, as usual the typical "tax and spend" spin is being put on:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/taxes.asp

ink
09-08-2008, 04:20 PM
good old snopes.com has this broken down to cut through the BS, as usual the typical "tax and spend" spin is being put on:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/taxes.asp

This link (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/presidential_candidates.cfm) gets you to the source they're referring to. It's linked in the summary on snopes.com.

Rochesta
09-08-2008, 08:47 PM
Right. So let's look at an example. A company makes $1,000,000 in profit and wants to give that to its 1,000 shareholders. Each shareholder should get $1,000 in a tax-free world. But the corporate tax would reduce that down by 40% or so, meaning shareholders would get $600 and then pay an individual personal tax on that income (thus the double taxation).

My point is this: if a company instead reports negative profits and does not hand out dividends, it does not pay any taxes. So in that example you gave of that company losing money, there would be no taxes assessed in the short run. In the long run, hopefully that company gets back on its feet and is profitable. At that point, it then can pay its share of taxes.

Of course, looking at the data, several large corporations avoided paying taxes by creatively coming up with additional costs that reduced profit-margins. Therefore they wound up paying either nothing or a very small percentage of their actual costs.

I see. Well, in order to do that, the company can't pay a single dividend. It does happen that companies record shadow losses, but you can't declare negative earnings and then pay dividends out of that year's earnings, obviously. The check on declaring no earnings is that you can't pay dividends, which shoots your stock value to ****.

Now, you can pay dividends from your cash or from financing to your shareholders in order to preserve your share value, but this usually occurs with stock that has scheduled dividend payments, sort of like a coupon rate.

The example I gave was a small business, not a corporation. There aren't any dividends paid, but there are self-employed earnings that the owner takes home, which are taxed at the income rate.

Forget that the parts warehouse in my example suffered a loss. Let's say that the store earned 18,000 that year. Since the Obama plan relies on size, his business is still taxed at whatever rate, while the lawyer receives a cut.

Rochesta
09-08-2008, 08:49 PM
Oh, and shadow profits aren't necessarily illegal either. For example, GM carried that 37 billion in losses for a long time, but the SEC forced them to finally declare certain items that can be postponed on the expense sheet. I won't get into it because its very complex and quite frankly I don't know how those types of expenses work.

ari1013
09-08-2008, 08:55 PM
Oh, and shadow profits aren't necessarily illegal either. For example, GM carried that 37 billion in losses for a long time, but the SEC forced them to finally declare certain items that can be postponed on the expense sheet. I won't get into it because its very complex and quite frankly I don't know how those types of expenses work.
Oh I agree. I never said it was illegal -- just creative.

And yes I get your point from the prior post. Good discussion. I learned quite a bit from it. Thanks.

SmthBluCitrus
09-08-2008, 10:40 PM
US Is "More Communist than China": Jim Rogers

The nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shows that the U.S. is "more communist than China right now" but its brand of socialism is meant only for the rich, investor Jim Rogers, CEO of Rogers Holdings, told CNBC Europe on Monday.

"America is more communist than China is right now. You can see that this is welfare of the rich, it is socialism for the rich… it's just bailing out financial institutions," Rogers said.

-----

"This is madness, this is insanity, they have more than doubled the American national debt in one weekend for a bunch of crooks and incompetents. I'm not quite sure why I or anybody else should be paying for this," Rogers told "Squawk Box Europe."

(continued) (http://www.cnbc.com/id/26603489)

Rochesta
09-08-2008, 10:50 PM
Oh I agree. I never said it was illegal -- just creative.

And yes I get your point from the prior post. Good discussion. I learned quite a bit from it. Thanks.

Agreed. I actually learned a lot by double-checking what I was saying. I'm just starting accounting classes for my MBA, so its pretty new to me. Thanks for challenging me on it.

hoosiercubsfan
09-08-2008, 11:07 PM
US Is "More Communist than China": Jim Rogers

The nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shows that the U.S. is "more communist than China right now" but its brand of socialism is meant only for the rich, investor Jim Rogers, CEO of Rogers Holdings, told CNBC Europe on Monday.

"America is more communist than China is right now. You can see that this is welfare of the rich, it is socialism for the rich… it's just bailing out financial institutions," Rogers said.

-----

"This is madness, this is insanity, they have more than doubled the American national debt in one weekend for a bunch of crooks and incompetents. I'm not quite sure why I or anybody else should be paying for this," Rogers told "Squawk Box Europe."

(continued) (http://www.cnbc.com/id/26603489)

Not really certain how I feel about the bailout/handout of these two. I understand that a lot of the loans handed out are actually being held by foreign governments who have bought the debt. So allowing them to fail would not go well with the foreign crowd. But would it be such a bad thing to let them take the brunt of buying bad debt. I have heard that allowing them to fail would have massive consequences to our already soft economy. But unless your going to let failing companies go how can people raise up and start something new out of the ashes.

Doc Fluty
09-09-2008, 12:56 AM
i was hearing reports than fannie and freddie are so big if the did not get bailed out the entire world economy would suffer..

without getting into details i think it went something like this

1. sup-prime people asked for loans from fan/fred
2. fan/fred took out loans from other banks to loan to the sub-prime people
3. the other banks loaned fan/fred the money because they are somehow backed by the gov through programs and were enticed by low interest rates(im a lil lost right here)
4. say someone had $1000 mortage, they could only pay a portion and the rest would be put back on the loan to make the payment higher.
5. the poor people couldnt pay there bills so it got higher and higher and then they couldnt afford it.
6. fan/fred got hit when interest rates went back up and when people didnt pay them - they couldnt pay the other banks they got money from

so... if the gubnent didnt bail them out... they a lot of banks would have went under and the FDIC would have been screwed noone would be able to get a loan, banks would hold on to capital and basically ****ed up everything in the world...

i dont know much.. but thats they way i understand it

ari1013
09-09-2008, 09:24 AM
Not really certain how I feel about the bailout/handout of these two. I understand that a lot of the loans handed out are actually being held by foreign governments who have bought the debt. So allowing them to fail would not go well with the foreign crowd. But would it be such a bad thing to let them take the brunt of buying bad debt. I have heard that allowing them to fail would have massive consequences to our already soft economy. But unless your going to let failing companies go how can people raise up and start something new out of the ashes.
I agree. The economy used to get stronger because inefficient companies were allowed to fall while innovative companies would be given the means to start up via subsidies. Now all the subsidies are going to failing industries like banks and airlines. More than anything it's looking like we're stuck in China's pocket.

ari1013
09-09-2008, 09:25 AM
i was hearing reports than fannie and freddie are so big if the did not get bailed out the entire world economy would suffer..

without getting into details i think it went something like this

1. sup-prime people asked for loans from fan/fred
2. fan/fred took out loans from other banks to loan to the sub-prime people
3. the other banks loaned fan/fred the money because they are somehow backed by the gov through programs and were enticed by low interest rates(im a lil lost right here)
4. say someone had $1000 mortage, they could only pay a portion and the rest would be put back on the loan to make the payment higher.
5. the poor people couldnt pay there bills so it got higher and higher and then they couldnt afford it.
6. fan/fred got hit when interest rates went back up and when people didnt pay them - they couldnt pay the other banks they got money from

so... if the gubnent didnt bail them out... they a lot of banks would have went under and the FDIC would have been screwed noone would be able to get a loan, banks would hold on to capital and basically ****ed up everything in the world...

i dont know much.. but thats they way i understand it
It's not little mom and pop banks that were doing the bulk of the lending. It was China's Central Bank.

hoosiercubsfan
09-09-2008, 09:58 AM
Stop the presses there is a time that I actually agree with what Obama is saying. I in no way believe these people should take 9.3 million in payments for the government taking over their mess. I think a case can be made that there is definite fault for their dismissals.


Barack Obama objected to reports Monday that the ousted heads of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may receive lucrative severance packages and asked the Bush administration to ensure their "poor leadership" isn't rewarded.


Obama was reacting to a report Monday in The New York Times on a consulting firm's analysis that found departing Fannie Mae head Daniel Mudd stands to collect $9.3 million in severance pay, retirement benefits and deferred compensation under the terms of his employment contract, provided his dismissal is deemed to be "without cause."
http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080909/ap_on_el_pr/obama_mortgage_giants

ari1013
09-09-2008, 12:41 PM
Stop the presses there is a time that I actually agree with what Obama is saying. I in no way believe these people should take 9.3 million in payments for the government taking over their mess. I think a case can be made that there is definite fault for their dismissals.




http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080909/ap_on_el_pr/obama_mortgage_giants
Wow that's total ********. He ran the company into the ground. There's no way they can dismiss him "without cause."

rhino17
09-09-2008, 12:49 PM
Do you make more than 200k a year? If so, please feel free to vote your interests over the country's. However, even some of the richest people in the world prefer higher taxes for the wealthy. Just ask Warren Buffet.

"Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner."

"If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

"Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

there's a big difference in the amount of money Warren Buffet makes and 200,000

Uncle Funster
09-09-2008, 01:55 PM
there's a big difference in the amount of money Warren Buffet makes and 200,000

Exactly. He can afford to be a Limousine Liberal;)

SmthBluCitrus
09-09-2008, 06:09 PM
An article from Time about Palin, Alaskan oil, and taxes. Good read for those of you interested.


Sarah Palin's Alaskonomics

Sarah Palin thinks she is a better American than you because she comes from a small town, and a superior human being because she isn't a journalist and has never lived in Washington and likes to watch her kids play hockey. Although Palin praised John McCain in her acceptance speech as a man who puts the good of his country ahead of partisan politics, McCain pretty much proved the opposite with his selection of a running mate whose main asset is her ability to reignite the culture wars. So maybe Governor Palin does represent everything that is good and fine about America, as she herself maintains. But spare us, please, any talk about how she is a tough fiscal conservative.

Back to reality. Of the 50 states, Alaska ranks No. 1 in taxes per resident and No. 1 in spending per resident. Its tax burden per resident is 2 1/2 times the national average; its spending, more than double. The trick is that Alaska's government spends money on its own citizens and taxes the rest of us to pay for it. Although Palin, like McCain, talks about liberating ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, there is no evidence that being dependent on Alaskan oil would be any more pleasant to the pocketbook.

Alaska is, in essence, an adjunct member of OPEC. It has four different taxes on oil, which produce more than 89% of the state's unrestricted revenue. On average, three-quarters of the value of a barrel of oil is taken by the state government before that oil is permitted to leave the state. Alaska residents each get a yearly check for about $2,000 from oil revenues, plus an additional $1,200 pushed through by Palin last year to take advantage of rising oil prices. Any sympathy the governor of Alaska expresses for folks in the lower 48 who are suffering from high gas prices or can't afford to heat their homes is strictly crocodile tears.

Time (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1839724,00.html)

hoosiercubsfan
09-09-2008, 07:01 PM
Here is a link to another thread that shows Obama finally is starting understand what his tax policies would do to this country.

http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=269500

And the link to the story sparking the talk

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091851312912585.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks

ari1013
09-09-2008, 08:29 PM
Here is a link to another thread that shows Obama finally is starting understand what his tax policies would do to this country.

http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=269500

And the link to the story sparking the talk

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091851312912585.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks
That's a little misleading -- its what they would do to our current economy that's troubling. In a good economy, his tax policies would be quite beneficial.