ROSEN: Obama plan the road to ruin
By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published October 31, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
The centerpiece of Barack Obama's economic plan is his grandstanding claim that "95 percent of Americans will get a tax cut." As a shrewd campaign slogan, it's simple, seductive and fits on a bumper sticker. It's also a lie, and rank demagogy. To see through this con game, it helps to understand the nuances of fiscal policy and Obama's deceptive wording.
For openers, in order to get a tax cut, one must first be a taxpayer. About 40 percent of Americans are excused from paying federal income taxes because their net income - after deductions, exemptions and credits - falls under the tax threshold. How in the world, then, can they get a tax cut? Obamanomics manipulates this in two ways:
1. Normally, a tax credit is an offset to a tax liability. Under the Obama plan, those with no income tax liability will get a check from the government for a variety of new Obama subsidies and social programs. These are called "refundable" tax credits, a euphemism for a government handout masquerading as a tax cut. It's like getting cash for a supermarket coupon when you haven't bought the product.
2. When asked how those who don't pay income taxes can be said to get an income tax cut, Obama's economic spinmeisters muddy the waters by lumping income taxes together with payroll taxes, and then they claim that everyone (except the top 5 percent) deserves a tax cut, including relief from payroll taxes. But payroll taxes and income taxes shouldn't be lumped together. They're two different things for good reason.
Income taxes are imposed on your earnings from all sources including employment, interest, dividends, capital gains, prizes, gambling winnings or a state lottery bonanza. The revenue government collects from these taxes flows into the Treasury to spend on virtually anything.
Payroll taxes are more narrowly based, applying only to income from wages, salaries and tips. (Self-employment income is also subject to this tax.) If you're employed, you pay a share of the tax and your employer pays a share on your behalf. (In reality, you pay the entire tax. The employer's share is part of his cost of employing you. In a competitive labor market, if he didn't have to send that to the government, he'd pay it to you.)
But unlike income taxes, federal payroll taxes are dedicated to specific programs like Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance. Your contribution to these programs is what qualifies you to receive future benefits. The more you pay in Social Security taxes, the greater your benefits in retirement. Medicare is a heavily subsidized insurance plan; your contributions are the equivalent of insurance premiums. The less people pay in payroll taxes, the more these become simply welfare programs.
Obama's brand of Robin Hood economics, using federal taxes to "share the wealth," as he puts it, is nothing new. We've been doing this for almost 100 years through our progressive income tax. He just wants to make it more progressive. But the top 1 percent of taxpayers already shoulders 40 percent of the total individual income tax burden (about twice their share of total income); the top 5 percent pays 60 percent; the top 50 percent pays 97 percent; and the bottom 50 percent accounts for only 3 percent of the total, almost nothing. Obama, "the progressive," says this distribution unfairly favors "the rich," so he wants to raise not only their income taxes even more, but their payroll taxes, too.
Obama's political calculus is transparent. Afflict a small percentage of Americans with ever more confiscatory taxes while enriching a large percentage at their expense. Just two problems:
1. Tax revenues from this scheme won't come close to funding his extravagant spending plans.
2. Pandering to an increasing population of net tax receivers at the expense of a dwindling population of net taxpayers may be an easy way to buy votes but it will ultimately destroy our Republic.
Mike Rosen's radio show airs weekdays from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA. He can be reached by e-mail at mikerosen@850koa.com.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
October 31, 2008
1:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
Well said Mike. Every dollar the government collects from the people is a dollar that the person earning it won't get. Some government programs sound great, some even seem to work.
They are only good as long as their primary purpose and use is encouragement, not active redistribution of wealth. If not, taxes must go up to pay for the needs of all those who choose to take advantage of compassion.
Government does nothing well except fight wars, maintain domestic peace through the courts and laws (this one is slipping a lot now) and create amusement when the political process of an election requires politicians to convince people that the government can solve your problems without any pain and keep a straight face while saying so.
October 31, 2008
6:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
Well documented and thorough examination of "Obamanomics" and how it is a shell game. Unfortunately Mike Rosen used many numbers, facts, logical analysis, and reasonable projections based on what would happen if this type of tax policy is implemented. This will undoubtedly confuse and anger our liberal and left-wing friends who only use their "feelings" when deciding what is best for America. Facts and logic be damned as long as "the rich" are punished and the left can vote themselves more money from politicians willing to steal it from those who actually create wealth and jobs in America.
October 31, 2008
7:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
"our liberal and left-wing friends" are already angry and will soon make personal attacks upon Mike Rosen as opposed to addressing the issues. It will be comical, but pathetic, as usual.
October 31, 2008
7:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
taoistblockhead writes:
“The Republican Party has been kidnapped by an incompetent, highly ideological subset of the Republican Party.” - Barack Obama
Not to worry about destroying the Republic - Since 1947 the U.S. has been a National Security State.... Whatever semblance of a Republic we once had has been subsequently shredded in events such as the Vietnam war, the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Reagan's voodoo economics, the theft of the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, and the never-ending Global War on Terror made possible by 9/11 (the neocon's sought after "new Pearl Harbor").
“The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism” by Andrew Bacevich outlines the absurdity of our non-sustainable culture and pursuit of empire at the expense of republic.
“In this utterly original book, Andrew Bacevich explains how our ‘empire of consumption’ contains the seeds of its own destruction and why our foreign policy establishment in Washington is totally incapable of coming to grips with it. Indispensable reading for every citizen.” - Chalmers Johnson
October 31, 2008
7:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
VVVV writes:
Where have you been? Federalism destroyed "the Republic" a long time ago when self-evident rights to equality were countered with flawed arguments that discrimination was the right of the states. Had logic prevailed, dissociating discrimination from the federal vs state issue, we may have preserved the republic. But the baby was thrown out with the tainted bath water, so now we are burdened with a federal democracy, the legal term for a grand popularity contest. And like all popularity contests, the outcasts and pariah are left to resent their exclusion and powerlessness.
Apathy and corruption that fostered opulence in a declining economy is what led to the fall of the Roman Empire. We are now too late to prevent the ultimate fizzling out of our country through entropy. All there is left to do is sit back and watch the circus.
October 31, 2008
7:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
LetsThink writes:
Mr. Rosen makes solid points, that are inescapable.
Will the liberals who reply use intellectual counter arguments? Or will they just hyperventilate with an empty and vague response?
We thank Mr. Rosen for bringing RMN readers the truth regarding Obama's horrible plan for America.
October 31, 2008
7:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
tao - With regard to the alleged destruction of our republic where you cite examples (all apparently based in a hatred for conservatism and the GOP I might add), I am curious how you feel about these examples and their relation to our crumbling republic:
1. The creation of the Federal Income Tax under Woodrow Wilson in 1913.
2. The creation of the modern "welfare/nanny state" beginning in 1932 by FDR and called "The New Deal". Never before had government inserted itself so boldly into affairs and policies not given to them in the US Constitution.
3.The creation under LBJ of the "War on Poverty" which has resulted in the transfer of approximately $6 TRILLION of wealth from those that create it and earn it to those that do not over the last 40+ years. No change in the % of poor people has resulted but the programs continue and the redistribution of wealth along with them.
Just curious where these fit in with your view of the fall of America.
October 31, 2008
8:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
taoistblockhead writes:
America has become a Kleptocracy (sometimes cleptocracy, occasionally kleptarchy) (root: klepto+kratein = rule by thieves), a government that extends the personal wealth and political power of government officials and the ruling class (collectively, kleptocrats) at the expense of the population. See Paulson's Plunder, Global War on Terror, Bush's tax cuts for his base (the elites), FISA, The Patriot Act, etc as examples.
October 31, 2008
9:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
SDaedalus writes:
Rosen says: "Obama's brand of Robin Hood economics, using federal taxes to "share the wealth," as he puts it, is nothing new. We've been doing this for almost 100 years through our progressive income tax. He just wants to make it more progressive."
To be more precise, Rosen should have said "[Obama] just wants to make it more progressive THAN IT HAS BEEN RECENTLY."
Unsurprisingly, Rosen does not make an apples-to-apples comparison of Obama's proposed tax rates to the historical record. If he did, it would be clear to readers that Obama's plan is a small step back (relative to what it was under other presidents, GOP and Dems) from some of the lowest levels of taxation America has ever experienced. Aside from whether our –current- tax policy has contributed to what is regarded as the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, the historical record shows that tax rates have gone up and down, and some of America’s strongest economic growth have corresponded with much steeper progressive tax rates than anything Obama has proposed. Perhaps Rosen and others believe tax rates can/should only go one direction (down) without any consequence, crisis, or public need that pushes them back the other way. But in an era when America must nationalize our financial system, its time to stop day-dreaming...
October 31, 2008
9:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
We started down the "Road to Ruin" 8 years ago when this right wing tool endorsed W.
October 31, 2008
10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
"...some of America’s strongest economic growth have corresponded with much steeper progressive tax rates than anything Obama has proposed." - SDaedalus
This is true and if you would have dug just a little bit deeper you would have also mentioned that when we had incredibly high tax rates on US business, the very wealthy, and even the so-called middle class (40s - post WWII, 50s, 60s, and up through the 70s) the world was a very different place. Those decades marked a time of almost complete American domination of the global economic landscape. Most of the world was recovering and rebuilding from WWII. Europe was in ruins and took decades to rebuild under the Marshall Plan and the communist world - USSR, China, SE Asia, Iron Curtain Countries - and the 3rd world counties - Mexico, India, South Asia, South America - were not even in the game. They offered up no competition to US industry and business and the American worker. We did not need to be competitive in our business practices, or in our tax and fiscal policy. Those days are gone forever and we can no longer just raise taxes when we want without a direct impact on jobs and wealth creation capability in this country. Borders to capital and even workers are almost non-existant. If you jack up taxes too much, those that pay most of them will relocate or simply curtail activity as it no longer makes economic sense for them to produce more or work harder.
October 31, 2008
10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
can you smell it?
after months of avoiding relevant issues, mike finally had to write the column he didn't want to because he's desperate.
the page reeks of it.
you know why he was putting off writing a column about relevant policy issues this election season?
simple.
in order to attempt to make his case, he had to lie in print to do it.
"Under the Obama plan, those with no income tax liability will get a check from the government"
that, my friends, is a lie.
nice try mike.
go back to being irrelevant and try not to get in the way.
October 31, 2008
11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
Mike Rosen offers up thoughtful analysis, facts and figures, and a reasonable hypothesis.
jay offers up...a baseless accusation, an insult, and nothing to back it up.
Aren't liberals priceless? What would we do without them making it so easy for those of us who think to mock them?
LetsThink - You called that one!
October 31, 2008
11:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
hogarm writes:
Pat Robertson wrote, "The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."
Mike you are well connected with the theocrats, is socialist a code word for something?
October 31, 2008
11:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Thanks Mike for an excellent article. Even when confronted with the truth, there's going to be some that won't deal with the facts and will only cut those people down that don't agree with their view. They don't like to argue logic and facts, they spin it to fit their stubborn ideas with rose colored glasses on.
jay, prove Rosen's lying or it's just your "feelings" getting in the way of reality. Explain to us how Obama comes up with $200,000 (used to be $250,000, but after all, Obama is the candidate of "change") for the definition of rich.
tao, how is it the election was stolen in 2004? It wasn't even stolen in 2000....... the Democrats wanted to selectively review votes in a few counties in 2000, that leaned heavily Democratic, yet the Supreme Court ruled that EVERY county would have to be recounted and the Democrats didn't like it. Question....... would you claim the vote is stolen this year if Obama wins yet doesn't receive the popular vote of the country? Also, why didn't you include Jimmy Carter on your list? He applied a windfall profits tax on oil companies that failed, the prices at the pump rose up and there were lines for gas. Obama's mentioned doing that, and it's a way for government to collect taxes from the public while saying they aren't raising taxes on the public.
Speaking of Pearl Harbor, the pacifists then didn't think we should've gone to war against Japan or Germany. Imagine where this country......... this world, would be if the United States didn't enter the war. The pacifists today believe we shouldn't be in the fight against terrorism. History is not a subject pacifists are familiar with.
October 31, 2008
11:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
303Centennial writes:
Anyone with any intelligence and who think for themseleves would understand not only what Mr. Rosen has written and has been repeated by many others would know and accept the fact that there is a great deal of merit to his comments. No-one needs to agree with him or anyone else. A person with an IQ greater than their age could figure out there may be or there is some merit to this thought but don't have to agree.
Right now that is the beauty of America -- Will Pres. Obama attempt to smother your 1st Amendment by re-enforcing the "fairness doctrine" and then make every attempt to repeal your 2nd amendment rights. Quiet the people and the freedom of expression - that's Marxism. Thanks but no thanks!
October 31, 2008
11:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
303Centennial writes:
jay --
What source are you citing your facts? Obama is in a very desperate situation right now as his "lead" in the polls is diminshing quickly and the Country is starting to be free-thinkers and understand what is really at stake. Obama has not kept is campaign promises -- what makes any of us that he will keep his word once he wins the office?
October 31, 2008
11:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
daRock writes:
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their
new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish
history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this
to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000
years earlier:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply can-
not exist as a permanent form of government.
"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that
voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts
from the public treasury.
"From that moment on, the majority always vote for the
candidates who promise the most benefits from the public
treasury, with the result that every democracy will
finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is
always followed by a dictatorship.
"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations
from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years.
During those 200 years, those nations always progressed
through the following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage
October 31, 2008
12:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
alright, before i go off to find a suitable reference point...why don't you guys clarify your confusion for me.
are you under the same impression that rosen is that those folks who don't make enough money to pay income taxes will be getting a "check from the gov't"?
i just want to be sure i understand your position here before proving you wrong.
"Pres. Obama attempt to smother your 1st Amendment by re-enforcing the "fairness doctrine" and then make every attempt to repeal your 2nd amendment rights."
there is just no excuse to be this misinformed this close to an historically important election.
friends don't let friends vote dumb.
http://www.gop.com
http://www.democrats.org
http://www.johnmccain.com
http://www.barackobama.com
October 31, 2008
12:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
daRock writes:
About the Bush tax cuts that Obama will allow to expire, raising taxes on everyone.
Overall, the biggest percentage cuts went to the poorest of the poor (those with incomes in the $10,000 range) and the next biggest to those making about $60,000. After that, with some minor dips up and down, the relative size of your tax cut falls off as your income rises.
That's if you pay taxes only on ordinary income. But what about capital gains, dividends, and inheritance, the cuts that supposedly skew the gains in favor of the rich? Well, let's throw all those changes in, and while we're at it let's include changes in the child-care tax credit, the earned income tax credit, the alternative minimum tax, and payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.
Here's what we get. The biggest percentage tax cut, about 17.6 percent, went to taxpayers in the second-lowest quintile, that is to taxpayers with below-average incomes. After that, the size of the tax cut falls off as you move from the lower middle to the middle middle (12.6 percent) to the upper middle class (9.9 percent). It rises again slightly for the top quintile, but only to a little over 11 percent.
October 31, 2008
12:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
tromiano writes:
What gets me is that the Obama followers are so eager to trust him and a democrat controlled congress with even more money! Who cares if it only comes from the "ultra rich" (which in itself is extremely short-sighted)? How many times do we have to learn the lesson of failed, poorly run, and/or corrupt government programs??!! Given the inherent and grotesque problems we see with social security, Medicare, Medicaid, Fannie and Freddy, education, etc., does that really spur confidence in how well government can spend money, not to mention effectively administer massive programs?? And we want to give them more!!?? Heck, we're lucky if they can get the streets cleared after a snow storm.
Once again, Uncle Sam is proposing 'spending' obscene amounts of money by giving middle class 'tax breaks'. 40% don't pay taxes now - how many fewer under Obamanomics? If Obama and the democratic controlled congress get their way, our federal income taxes may be 'lower', but you can bet on new and higher paroll taxes to pay for inefficient health care and higher premiums to pay for the already defunct social security system.
It's clear that common sense is a scarce commodity in politics, and I'm beginning to think that if we elect this guy as president, it shows that common sense isn't quite as 'common' as it's reputation would have us believe.
October 31, 2008
12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
303Centennial writes:
Jay - Thanks for the links -- been there done that. Listen to Obama's words, the words Biden has spoken, and the words of his supporters. The infomation on the websites are thought out and created to spin their win (any candidate, McCain included). Listen to the words that come directly from the candidate's mouth when they don't have time to prepare fancy speeches by well skilled speech writers. One in particular comes to mind, the " ...spread the weath..." What the heck --- I don't think so.
I am not misinformed, simply have a mind that is open to hear what exactly is said, by who and in what context. I don't need speech writers attempting to influence me. I think for myself based on the facts and words spoken -- not posted on the internet.
October 31, 2008
1:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
taoistblockhead writes:
"Democracy is the political stage immediately preceding oligarchy"
-Aristotle
Full Spectrum Dominance - The Right-Wing's Economic Policy
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/
RAND Lobbies Pentagon: Start War To Save U.S. Economy
Paul Joseph Watson & Yihan Dai
Thursday, October 30, 2008
According to reports out of top Chinese mainstream news outlets, the RAND Corporation recently presented a shocking proposal to the Pentagon in which it lobbied for a war to be started with a major foreign power in an attempt to stimulate the American economy and prevent a recession.
A fierce debate has now ensued in China about who that foreign power may be, with China itself as well as Russia and even Japan suspected to be the targets of aggression.
The reports cite French media news sources as having uncovered the proposal, in which RAND suggested that the $700 billion dollars that has been earmarked to bailout Wall Street and failing banks instead be used to finance a new war which would in turn re-invigorate the flagging stock markets.
The RAND Corporation is a notoriously powerful NGO with deep ties to the U.S. military-industrial complex as well as interlocking connections with the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations.
October 31, 2008
1:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
so...again...in order to make sure that i have no confusion about your point here, 303...you believe that because obama said the words ,"spread the wealth", that those folks who don't make enough money to pay income taxes will be "getting a check from the gov't"...as rosen does.
do i have that right?
October 31, 2008
2:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Put the crack pipe down tao.......... OMG, why would you even believe something coming out of China, from state controlled Chinese media outlets?
Hey jay, feel free to prove how Rosen is incorrect.
October 31, 2008
2:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Slimjim_800 writes:
The only thing I got from this article is that Mike did not like the euphemisms Obama used to describe his tax plan. He did not elaborate on how this would destroy the republic.
His other argument seems to be that he disagrees with the progressive nature of our income tax system, but given that this type of system has been around for a long time I fail to see how that validates his conclusion.
October 31, 2008
2:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
nrunner writes:
So where does that leave Alaska because it is a net tax receiver and not a tax payer? During the six years of total Republican control, our budget went south with no tax and all spend. The administration also had a separate accounting of the occupation of Iraq costs not included in the budget. Those are facts, not just opinion. Even McCain has said his party was out of control - so we should trust him - what did he do to change things as 26 years in the Senate. How much did the Keating five fiasco cost the taxpayers?
October 31, 2008
2:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
i hope rosen's readers don't mind me making a suggestion just a few days before the election.
if you're looking for fairly accurate, fairly nonpartisan evaluation of both candidates' tax proposals, please take the time to read this report by The Tax Policy Center.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/Upload...
if nothing else, you'll learn that those who don't pay income taxes will not be getting income tax refund checks under either man's plan.
making rosen either ignorant or a liar....
i think he's just a liar and i'll tell you why.
had he truly just been ignorant about this fact...instead of dishonest...he would have written this article months ago.
now that he's desperate to sway every last vote out there, he took a chance wrote a piece containing an arugment he couldn't make without false information.
just one guy talking, but i give him credit for being smarter than the average bear.
thus, not only is he a liar, but he's not very good at his job either.
October 31, 2008
2:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
SpreadingFactsNotLies writes:
As Jay stated Mike finally wrote an article that was current and what a bunch of lies of course no sources noted because you can't source a lie. How timely as the headlines today are quoting the joint research just conducted by the Brookings Institution/Urban Institute and the Tax Policy Center. Stating that earners of less than 250,000 will have their taxes decrease with Obama and stay the same with McCain. Those who earn over 250,000 dollars (which is Less than 3% of the HH's in the U.S. - US Census) will have their taxes raised! So by all means the 3% of the US go ahead and vote for McCain! 97% of us will vote Obama! Additionally, the lie about the coupon for cash to income tax non-payers NOT TRUE! Check the Tax Policy Center web site - this is an expansion of the already existing bipartisian Earned Income Tax Credit. Full time workers earning min. wage living below the poverty line this is a offset of the Payroll Tax. It has nothing to do with Income Tax! If you only get your information from Mike Rosen and other republican pundits you are a lost cause! Get your head out of the sand and read and find out the facts for yourself!
October 31, 2008
2:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
RodE writes:
Death to Supply Side Tax Cuts
Rosen fails to mention that the Republicans "borrow" from the social security trust funds funded by payroll taxes to pay for the deficits caused by the tax breaks given to the high end of the income tax brackets. But these are either corporations or don't pay into the trust fund after certain limits. So isn't this the same concept as giving a income tax break to someone who just pays payroll taxes but not income taxes.
Just another convenient argument to further the scam that is "supply side" economics. "Supply side economics" is based on a hypothetical interpretation of the Laffer curve. The evidence is now in, and it shows that it is a dangerous concept that does nothing more than create deficits and concentrate wealth, eventually leading to the eventual "too big to fail" institutions - which, of course, eventually fail.
As we saw, the Bush cuts followed classical Keynesian economic theory. We got a short term economic bump as you do with all tax cuts, the size and length of the impact governed by the size of the cut and the multiplier effect. But the multiplier effect is weak if the cut is given to those who don't spend it at the same percentage as say "the middle class". This impact quickly fizzles out. But the barriers to becoming large have been removed as the progressive nature of taxation is removed. There is no longer any "penalty" for getting bigger, wealthier, richer, so why not?
For Democrats, it certainly appears that what we suspected all along was true. It was nothing more than a contrived theory for Republicans to justify tax cuts to their rich donors and party members. If this were not the case, then taxes would be raised on the high end of the tax bracket when the economy is booming to balance the budget and curbe inflation. But raise rates? Never, that would limit the big from getting bigger, more powerful.
So, after the short term Keynesian effect has passed, it just ends up as a give away, even if we have to borrow money so the cuts can remain in place in the time of war.
Now we are left with mounting deficits to pay for the cuts and a huge concentration of wealth, huge institutions. Reversing this effect, something that would really make an impact on the economy is decried as "socialism". Give me a break.
Obama is right. Don't put the short term ahead of the long term. In the end, shifting the break will do more for the economy than any else. We need to kill this junk economic theory of "supply side" once and for all.
October 31, 2008
2:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
BobCratchit writes:
Rosen is incorrect for the following reasons.
The most prosperous time for the MAJORITY of Americans in the last century was the pinko commie Eisenhower administration with a 91% income tax rate for the top earners. That is now down to 35%. If tax cuts are so good, then surely a 2/3rds reduction in MY FEDERAL INCOME TAX RATE would also be a good thing.
Since 70% of our economy is CONSUMER driven, does it not make sense that making sure the people who would SPEND in the consumer sector have more money to do so?
Between inflation and stagnant wages, the buying power of the American household has fallen. Meanwhile CEO wages have gone up tenfold.
Were the IRS to collect what is owed due to tax fraud, perpetrated by those with both the means and motive, it would MORE than pay for the ENTIRE MEDICARE budget.
Mr. Rosen would apparently rather see Paris Hilton get a tax cut rather than someone who goes to work, day in, day out and perform the actual WORK that makes our society function. Warren Buffet pays a lower total tax rate than his secretary. Apparently Mr. Rosen thinks that some taxpayers are more equal than others.
I encourage anyone interested in the real story of taxes, visit...
http://www.askquestions.org/articles/...
October 31, 2008
2:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
RodE writes:
Good point Jay. Rosen is a pure Republican hack and a liar. Why the newspapers print this garbage is beyond me.
October 31, 2008
3:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
303Centennial writes:
I think we are completely niave to believe that there is truly a person or an organization that does not have a nonpartisan point.
Personal attacks don't work, have never worked, and at the end of the day, discredits those who attack. A closed mind is a weak mind. Long winded rants are just that; rants and don't carry any meaning or purpose.
October 31, 2008
4 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Centennial, I know a sales pitch when I see it (Rosen's column). I know you don't like personal attacks (and with good reason) but I can't help myself: he's a huckster. I challenge you to find one column where he doesn't first frame things as a war between the good guys and the bad guys (in other words, there's never a sense of *we*), and proceed to give a singular point of view. There may be, as you say, some merit to what he says, but I for one am not inclined to ferret through all the chaff looking for a stalk of wheat, no more than I'm inclined to sit at home and watch infomercials and think, hey, there must be something to what they're telling me.
October 31, 2008
4:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
dodger0328 writes:
Nice link Jay. It says nothing about tax cuts or tax rebates, which both cadidates have discussed. If a tax rebate is instituted it will indeed be a government handout to many who don't actually pay taxes.
By either candidates proposal, those who actually pay federal income taxes will be reduced further by 3 or 4% to approx. 43 or 44% of citizens who don't pay any income taxes.
The top 10% of earners already pay 71% of federal income taxes and will obviously pay an even higher percentage when either candidate institutes their "program".
At some point they (I wish I were one) will say screw it. It's not worth me investing more, giving more or starting a business.
That link even states that Obamas plan will hurt businesses that need the help the most.
Dude????
October 31, 2008
4:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
303Centennial writes:
anderson - Very well stated and I think we may be on the same playing field philosophically but may differ politically.
I never said Rosen was completely correct and I doubt that he is (I given him more credibility than Rush) but no more so than a liberal commentator or editor. One problem with elections today, are the issues are so complex and the "spin" the candidates make; oversimplify the solution so that the common person can relate and frankly, with the political tarnish and promises hat most likely will never be achieved (on either side of the arena).
My vote will be cast based on my values, for the party that I believe will set up a promising future for my children, and on my own research and listening more to what the candidates have had to say off the cuff rather than from prepared speeches. I have found, spontaneous responses hold more truth & validity than prepared responses and speeches.
October 31, 2008
4:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Agreed--except that I would say the spin and oversimplification is driven more by an interest in selling, than it is an interest in relating to the common person. I think most people are fairly smart. I'm old enough to remember when things weren't always so dumbed-down. Can you imagine today's candidates having to engage and make arguments like Lincoln and Douglas?
October 31, 2008
8:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
LetsThink writes:
So.....after all this discussion.....do we all agree that we shouldn't require the successful to pay most of the taxes (i.e. subsidize those of us who are less successful)?
Or do some of you still want to take from the successful, because it is our 'right' to steal???
October 31, 2008
9:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
MUC writes:
LetsThink, these folks are flat out jealous(clueless). If they were so brave, take a risk, start your own business. No, they P&Moan how the rich is always sticking it to them. They do not have the courage to start their own business and take the risk that may make them one of those awful rich. I say go ahead and raise taxes on the so called "rich". I know plenty of small business owners that say they will lay folks off or will not hire any additional folks if their taxes go up. These dingbats like need first hand experience when their jobs go away.... oh that's right Obuma will help them exact their revenge..... Because:
"I am my brothers keeper, I am my sisters keeper"
His brother lives in a nairobi slum making less than $1 a day. His Aunt lives in a boston slum. He sure is spredding his wealth to help is so call loved ones. What a fraud....
October 31, 2008
10:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
jay,
The tax policy center is a leftist organization despite their claim of bipartisanship. They are associated with two leftist organizations, the Urban Institute and the Brookings Center.
Obama has proposed a number of refundable tax credits as well as an expansion of the earned income tax credit. Giving tax credits above the level of income taxes owed is welfare, not a tax reduction. Please do not bring in other taxes. The issue is income taxes, not payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and other taxes. Obama did not invent the idea of refundable tax credits. He just wants to expand them substantially.
The Obama tax proposal is immoral. Obama has vast spending plans. I do not agree with his plans but if Obama and his supporters think they are worthwhile, everyone should pay. The idea that 5% should be stuck supporting 95% is indefensible. Everyone should pay federal income taxes because everyone uses government services.
The vast tax increases on the wealthy will not work as Obama would like. Many subject to the higher taxes will change their behavior. They will work less, produce less, invest less, reduce risk in their investments, and hire less. Many in this category, even those who vote for Obama, will move money beyond the reaches of the US government.
October 31, 2008
10:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
RodE,
You are mistaken in your criticism of the Laffer curve. It has stood the test of time. The curve is just a realization that marginal tax rates affect behavior. The arguments about the curve are the sensitivity of behavior to specific changes in marginal tax rates. There is no argument that marginal tax rates affect behavior.
The deficits were not caused by the tax reductions. The economy boomed from 2003 to 2007 so tax revenues increased substantially. The deficits were caused by spending increases. The war on terror and the conflicts in Iraq and Afganistan were costly. Even beyond military and homeland security, spending was out of control. Bush did a poor job on spending control although the Democrats wanted to spend even more in almost every budget.
November 1, 2008
7:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
"road to ruin"
Hey Mike have you been paying attention on what has been going on lately? Now I know you have a job and like every republican out there (I have mine) could give a rats a-- about those millions of people that has lost their jobs and a lot of them their homes. I have news for you. Because of 8 years of Bush we are a blink of an eye from ruins now. Man I guess any retard can write for the RMN. You are a great example.
November 1, 2008
9:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Jay must not know what a "refundable tax credit" is. Obama's tax plan can be found here:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/...
On that PDF, here are a handful of refundable credits you will find:
A $500 (or $1000 for couples) "make work pay" refundable tax credit.
A $4000 refundable tax credit for college tuition
A 10% refundable credit on mortgage interest
The list goes on....
Jay, because these tax credits are "refundable", as opposed to "non-refundable" or "wastable", they can reduce the tax owed to below zero and result in a net payment to the taxpayer beyond what they have paid into the tax system. So yes, jay, under Obama's plan, those who have not paid anything into the system would receive a check anyway. That makes you either ignorant or a liar....I'll go with ignorant.
November 1, 2008
9:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
troopermsu writes:
(In reality, you pay the entire tax. The employer's share is part of his cost of employing you. In a competitive labor market, if he didn't have to send that to the government, he'd pay it to you.)
Don't think so. Employers would likely pocket this money if there were no payroll tax.
November 1, 2008
11:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
taoistblockhead writes:
Anyone voting rethuglicans who is not ultra rich, who cares about the environment, cares about this country is just plain stupid.
November 1, 2008
11:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Mike you also made this same warning in 1992. Gee I wish we were back in the 90's.
November 1, 2008
1:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
NeilT writes:
Funny...
The Economist just endorsed Obama.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/disp...
I am getting tired of all the arm-chair experts, like Rosen, talking about subjects in which they have no training or credentials.
The whole world knows Obama is the right man for the job. The Economist has been running a "Global Electoral College", to see how the world would vote using our system. Obama is winning the global electoral college votes 9115 to 203.
http://www.economist.com/vote2008/
November 1, 2008
2:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
neil, for you and the other left wing nuts (jay, dilligaf) who say Mike Rosen doesn't know what he's talking about in financial matters, here's the info on him that shows he probably understands more than most people:
"He holds an MBA degree from the University of Denver, was a corporate finance executive at Samsonite and Beatrice Foods, served as Special Assistant for Financial Management to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy at the Pentagon and is a veteran of the U.S. Army."
neil, that sound you hear is the toilet flushing and your last post is going down it like a high pressure flush!
November 1, 2008
2:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
NeilT writes:
Cwillyrun his mouth about something he knows nothing about.
Corporate finance is an entirely different animal from tax policy, public finance and international economics. Night and day, pal.
Of course you’re confused, Willy. You would gain more from visiting a proctologist for a migraine, anyway. Keep on flushing. You seem to have a persistent floater on your hands.
November 1, 2008
5:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
bassman writes:
So, if your rich and privileged boss has his payroll taxes raised, do you think he can still afford to give you a raise? I wouldn't bet the mortgage on it.
November 1, 2008
9:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
bassman writes:
Neil, don't you think Rosen's corporate financial expertise translates, to some degree, to international finance etc. I have a degree in history and it lends me a degree of knowledge in many different areas. Art, Anthropology, Sociology, etc. Also by your argument any left wing columnists without specific credentials on economics are arm chair experts as well. What a ridiculous argument. Jay, not only did your link not deal with this subject, it highlighted Obama's plan to let people take money out of retirement accounts without penalty. This info, from a left leaning organization, described how policy makers are already worried that people take too much money out of these accounts, even with the penalty. This idiotic plan would cause a huge flight of capital from people's retirement accounts leaving them ever more dependent on social security and other government largesse. Oh, I guess that's the whole point.
November 1, 2008
9:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
GhostofReagan writes:
Economic Robin Hood?
That's what my trickle down theory always was -- except that the $$$ goes from the poor to the wealthy.
Sounds good to me!
November 1, 2008
9:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
NeilT writes:
I don't consider myself rich or privileged, but I am the boss. I own a small R&D company and I can tell you that payroll taxes are much less than my ever increasing health costs.
Most of the idiots yelling about free markets and capitalism don't have a clue what they're talking about. You're just another employee and don't have the fortitude or mental capacity to run a business.
This is really simple. Health coverage is killing American companies. General Motors is in the health care industry, but they just happen to sell cars on the side. Small group policies are quickly getting priced out of market. I would be happy to pay more taxes in order to unload my monthly health nut for everybody. At least my taxes will not increase 18% plus every year, unlike health insurance costs.
November 1, 2008
9:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
bassman writes:
Taoist blockhead-if Obama is elected he and the Dem controlled congress will be repealing the patriot and FISA acts ASAP,right? I'll bet any Dem a steak dinner they won't. Also, if you want to talk about kleptocracy let's talk about how Obama steered millions to convicted influence peddler Tony Rezko to develop more slums even after Rezko cut the power to one of these government funded buildings. Maybe it was payback for the real estate deal in which Barack got a large discount off the asking price for his house while Rezko paid full price for his adjacent parcel, according to the Chicago Tribune. Or how he steered government monies to Rev. Wright, Father Pfleger, and Bill Ayers (who devoted a 1974 book, Prarie Fire, to Sirhan Sirhan). Obama's earmarks in 2 years, I believe, totaled 100 million dollars. McCain 0. Obama proposes 1 trillion in new spending and McCain proposes a spending freeze. Who is the kleptocrat?
November 2, 2008
6:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
taoistblockhead writes:
“We are all going to have to pay, because this meltdown comes in the context of what has been “perhaps the greatest wealth transfer since the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917,” says Michael Mandelbaum, author of “Democracy’s Good Name.” “It is not a wealth transfer from rich to poor that the Bush administration will be remembered for. It is a wealth transfer from the future to the present.”
“Never has one generation spent so much of its children’s wealth in such a short period of time with so little to show for it as in the Bush years. Under George W. Bush, America has foisted onto future generations a huge financial burden to finance our current tax cuts, wars and now bailouts. Just paying off those debts will require significant sacrifices. But when you add the destruction of wealth that has taken place in the last two months in the markets, and the need for more bailouts, you understand why this is not going to be a painless recovery.” (Thomas Friedman, 11/01/08)
November 2, 2008
6:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
taoistblockhead writes:
“When rich speculators prosper while farmers lose their land; when government officials spend money on weapons instead of cures; when the upper class is extravagant and irresponsible while the poor have nowhere to turn — all this is robbery and chaos. It is not in keeping with the Tao.” (Tao Te Ching #53, Stephen Mitchell translation)
“The ‘free market’ doesn’t free us from government; it just gives us unaccountable government without a moral mission.” (George Lakoff, The Political Mind, p. 63)
November 2, 2008
9:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
mmmark217 writes:
Bassman: The Patriot Act should be repealed. It's the most oppressive law since The Ricoh Statute was enacted by President Reagen in the 80's. Both of which are unconstitutional, and enacted by Republican Presidents who supposedly are for "less governmental intrusion" in our lives. Now the reason these laws are Unconstitutional, quite simply, is this. The Constitution states that a persons freedom CANNOT be taken away without DUE PROCESS OF LAW as well as having the right to a FAIR AND SPEEDY TRIAL. In both cases of The Patriot Act and Ricoh Statute, these laws state that a person ACCUSED, not PROVEN IN A COURT OF LAW, can have their LIBERTIES taken away without DUE PROCESS OF LAW. In other words, the Government can CALL you a Drug Dealer or a Terrorist, LOCK you up, and not have to PROVE in court that you are what they say your are. The Government can do so for as LONG as they wish. If the Government Can Do Such things to an UNPROVEN Terrorist or Drug Dealer, they can do it to the Common Man. If you want your RIGHTS taken from you that is fine, but I prefer to side with the CONSTITUTION.
November 2, 2008
11:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
NeilT, I've long thought business owners would be glad to be rid of the burden of providing a health plan for their employees (which started more or less as an accident of history, post-WWII), but you don't hear much about this.
November 2, 2008
2:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
mmmark217 - The USSC has ruled that roadside sobriety checkpoints are constitutional. I hate them and think they are not, but the courts have determined many times that certain intrusions into our rights and freedoms can be justified under safety and security for the society as a whole. In other words, our rights are not absolute.
You can use all the caps you want but merely claiming something is unconstitutional does not make it so.
November 2, 2008
3:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Yeah, neil, it's called uninformed people like you. It's why I take pleasure in flushing turds like you down the toilet. No matter what you think of Rosen, he knows more on this than you so don't delude yourself about your intelligence level........ as you said, night and day. You may not agree with him, but what he says carries more weight than your thoughts.
November 2, 2008
3:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Something else, neil, if you knew anything worth a ****, the increased costs in premiums and medical care is due in part to illegal immigrants and the cost of their medical help and the mandates in coverage.
Illegal immigrants are a drain on the health care system. When they don't pay, the costs are passed on in higher premiums and higher rates for medical care.
You do know that Colorado is near the top in states with the most mandates, right? You do know that Ritter just signed 6 more mandates into law? Mandates that don't make sense are prostate exam coverage when I'm not sure if any women are going to need that, what do you think? Another is breast cancer exams, something applicable to women.
Something else that's always forgotten is that people wanted lower vehicle insurance rates and voted against no fault, and some of the cost of going from no-fault were passed onto health insurance instead.
November 2, 2008
6:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
bassman writes:
mmmark217-In agree that the patriot act is unconstitutional as is the income tax and the IRS and the new bank bailout. Have you seen "Freedom to Fascism? A great exploration how both parties are turning this country toward fascism. My question is, will Obama repeal it? I'll bet a steak dinner he won't. I don't know a single Dem who will take the bet. In fact, he called for a national police force. One that is better armed and better funded than the national guard. Washington is probably the only president not to increase his powers when he had the opportunity.
November 2, 2008
10:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
madintexas writes:
I have a really hard time listening to folks that want to lump hard -working, successful people that earn over $250,000 with the super-rich. My husband and I both worked our tails off to get where we are financially. We are both from middle-class (my husband probably lower middle-class) backgrounds. We worked our way thru college and saved $$ to buy our house, cars, etc. while working long hours - without ever receiving help from uncle sam. The fact of the matter is, we never get any huge tax deductions, loopholes, etc. - we max contribute to our 401K, save for our kids' educations, and give to charity. For our efforts, Obama wants us to pay 40% of our income so some others don't have to pay any! I have no trouble paying a fair-share but it's getting ridiculous that politicians can "stick it to" the high-earners because there aren't enough of us to keep them from being elected (and because it's so popular with the uninformed voter). We shouldn't live in a country where we punish the successful and reward a bunch of people that do and pay nothing! We are raising 2 really nice, hard-working kids that know their futures are in their hands (not from a hand-out) and it's depressing that we have to try to explain this crazy robin hood system our country has.. that makes no sense...
November 3, 2008
7:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
I would like to suggest a book for some of you to read who are convinced that low-income workers are the ones fattening themselves at the government trough:
"Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill)" - by David Johnston"
Johnston is a Pulitzer prize-winning investigative journalist who describes chapter by chapter how the most financially sophisticated and powerful in this country rig legislation and the markets to siphon off government money and favors.
Sadly, both political parties enable this. There are a few brave holdouts from both parties who don't, but, they are the few.
I'd really recommend this book to anyone who wants to at least balance their perspectives a bit and get the whole truth on just who is most effective at plundering the government's riches.
I'd also recommend this book to anyone who is beginning to suspect that the "liberal/conservative" labels don't apply when we're talking about pro-corporate policies. As the book lays out, politicians on both sides are either "corporatists" or "peoplists."
November 3, 2008
8:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
While some of you are worried about the top income earners seeing a three point increase in their tax rate, those with a more practical set of priorities will find it of concern that the US now has the highest income inequality and poverty rates just after Mexico and Turkey. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27295405/
When the majority income classes in this country are doing much better, a discussion of the progressive tax code - originally enacted by Teddy Roosevelt - might actually be relevant. But right now, it's a red herring topic that delays any meaningful changes that could see a resurgence of well-paid, family wage jobs for more American workers.
In other words, it's exactly the kind of wedge issue that prevents anything from getting fixed in this country anymore.
November 3, 2008
8:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
NeilT writes: "This is really simple. Health coverage is killing American companies. General Motors is in the health care industry, but they just happen to sell cars on the side."
Did you know that in 2005, I believe Alabama or one of the southern states, was wooing Toyota to open a plant? Well, get this, Toyota ended up declining because the cost of providing health care to the workers would be too much.
So, they opened their plant in...Socialist Canada!
Here's another sad fact: they also realized it would cost too much to educate workers in this southern state who had to rely on color-coded instructions because not all were literate. Canadian workers were simply better-educated.
Of course, you talk about stuff like this and you get called "Un-American." Well, I think it's Un-American to bury our heads in the sand instead of fixing our problems.
November 3, 2008
9:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
NeilT writes:
mytwosense writes: "Did you know that in 2005, I believe Alabama or one of the southern states, was wooing Toyota to open a plant? Well, get this, Toyota ended up declining because the cost of providing health care to the workers would be too much."
Yeah, but...but...but, "health care is not a right, it's a responsibility."
The same people making this claim really do feel health care is a right, but it's their employers responsibility to provide it. Can you imagine the hissy fit these people would throw if their employer dropped their health coverage?
Oh well, I hear if we just rid ourselves of all the Mexicans the United States will become a freakin utopia. Our immigration policy, as well as our lack of enforcement, is absolutely disgusting, but it is not the root of all problems.
November 3, 2008
9:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
NeilT writes:
bassman,
A degree in history?
Rome!
One name can address your second point.
Krugman.
A Nobel in Economics qualifies, me thinks.
November 3, 2008
9:23 a.m.
NeilT writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
November 3, 2008
9:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
NeilT writes:
madintexas,
May I suggest a family trust and a complex maze of LLC's to help you with your tax nut.
This is Warren Buffett's point. You really can pay a much lower percentage than low-income families. You just need to learn the game.