Taxing Like Its 1978

Promoted - Paul Krugman says Obama's tax policy would push some tax rates "back to the levels of the 1970s."  I do hope Obama runs on that message. - Jon Henke

John McCain may not be the world's best communicator, but his decision to portray Barack Obama's campaign as "Jimmy Carter's second term" is dead on. Tax policy is just one of the areas where Obama is a dead ringer for the peanut farmer from Georgia.

Combining Obama’s promise to end the Bush tax cuts with his promise to uncap the Social Security payroll tax for those making more than $250,000, the Tax Policy Center notes that Obama would create a top marginal rate of almost 60%. The top rate would exceed two-thirds and could even approach seventy percent for citizens who work in high tax state and localities like New York City or some parts of California.

Commenting on Obama’s tax raising plans, Paul Krugman writes: “it would push tax rates on some high-income Americans back to the levels of the 1970s.” For those of you unfamiliar with Krugman, he meant that as a compliment.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

What are the alternatives?

I'm not eager to give Uncle Sam a big chunk of hard-earned money nor give undue burden to some hard-working Americans, but with a looming debt, fading infrastructure, and growing disparity in expendable income between the wealthy and poor, what other solution (that would carry popular support) do we have?

How about...

...actually cutting the size of the bloated federal government; having a paradigm shift: instead of thinking up new ways of spending, thinking up new ways of cutting spending.  We could start with cutting out all our foreign aid and adventures and put the USofA first for a change. 

 

 

McCain Needs To Better Exploit This

The last time a Democrat ran on a platform of raising taxes, we won 49 states.

The Democrats have done an excellent job of luring in higher-income Americans by essentially backing off on "soaking the rich".  It's really worked well, affluent investors and families that should embrace the Republican's free-market principles have wandered into the arms of Democrats as a result of their policy-preferences for social issues.  Just look at how much Investment Banks and Wall Street give to the Democrats.   If, however, the Democrats seem like they plan on really hitting these people hard in the pocketbook, ie Obama's plan to DOUBLE taxes, expect a big migration of voters back to the Republican Party.

One of the biggest issues we can run against Obama is his plan to nearly double capital gains taxes, from 15% to 25%. So many Americans are now invested in the stock market, with vehicles like 401k and IRA's,  people will really have a hard time with schemes that will DOUBLE their tax burden just because Obama appeals to them on some issues.

I think the Republicans are really missing a golden opportunity here to win back affluent voters.

We can always do what Reagen did?

Reagen taught us we can borrow from our children's future to stimulate the economy. An expanding economy will raise tax revenues to allow for the lower taxes and pay back the debit. The key to this strategy was controlling government spending to a level that would allow this to occur.

For a time there it seemed the strategy just might work. But the effort to control government spending proved to be too much for the Bush/Clinton/Bush administrations. So now we are forced to borrow still more from the future of our children. We can do it,  of course, but the question remains...who is going to slow government spending and for how long?

ex animo

davidfarrar

Wrong Davidfarrar

First of all, federal revenues DOUBLED under Reagan's tenure,and the economy soared.  Lowering taxes works.  Reagan repeatedly tried to cut unnecessary spending with a lopsided Democrat-controlled Congress, but he could only do so much.  We were running surpluses in the Nineties, mainly as a result of decreased military spending because of the end of the Cold War.

Giving more money for Congress to spend isn't going to make future generations more prosperous.  McCain has been one of the best advocates of trimming government spending.  Lowering taxes and cutting spending are the bedrock of conservative principles.  No one who calls themself a conservative can oppose this because of "future generations".  That's nothing but a smokescreen.

BTW, davidfarrar, you like to position yourself as a conservative that's too pure for McCain, but blasting Reagan's tax plan shows your true colors.  You're a liberal, plain and simple, and you're here to create discontent with our Republican nominee.  I have bad news for you, Republicans are going to vote for McCain, warts and all, and Obama is going to lose.

Hey! I was serious.

I am a Reagan conservative, what else am I going to suggest but let's do what Reagan did?

But it seems to me you got your predicate wrong.."federal revenues DOUBLED under Reagan's tenure, and the economy soared." The economy soared due to a lowering of taxes, allowing for the doubling of federal revenues. But in order to achieve this remarkable feat, even in the face of increased government spending, Reagen had to borrow. Am I not correct?  And as you correctly point out, "We were running surpluses in the Nineties, mainly as a result of decreased military spending because of the end of the Cold War." In other words, Reagan's strategy worked brilliantly as long as government spending is curtailed enough to allow a surplus.

And I agree wholeheartedly, "Giving more money for Congress to spend isn't going to make future generations more prosperous."  While keeping more of the "surplus" in the pockets of consumers will make furture generations more prosperous; don't you agree?

Your ad hominem attack on my political allegiance is, of course, unfortunate. But win or lose...government spending has got to be controlled.  I don't see any real political will on the part of the general public to engage itself in this respect thus far. But when it does, we had better to sure our record as fiscal conservatives in this regard is clear and unquestioned.

ex animo

davidfarrar

McCain Is A Good Start

Taking less of what people earn is not "borrowing against our children's future." 

What I earn is mine, it's not for some future generation of American.  What was "borrowing against our children's future"  (which is a liberal taliking point IMO) was the profligate SPENDING that Reagan rightly identified when he said Congress was "spending like drunken sailors."  Reagan's boost in military spending could have easily been offset by cutting discretionary spending, but the Democrat Congress was not about to end that gravy train.  Reagan constantly fought the Democrats on their profligate spending, but he was a pragmatist, and thought two out of three isn't bad, less taxes and winning the Cold War were attainable goals.  Soon after his term, we were running surpluses as the new Republican-controlled Congress kept a tight leash on spending.

We know that politicians are unable to live within their means.  Give them one dollar, and they'll spend two.  Higher tax rates are not going to make Congress more thrifty.  Cutting taxes has nothing to do with going into debt, since revenues grow.

McCain wants to both lower taxes (and he has never supported a single tax increase) and wants to cut spending.  Obama wants to significantly increase both.  A conservative doesn't have to think too hard about which plan is better for America's financial well-being.

"McCain Is A Good Start" Is that all you can say?

Twenty years after Reagen showed us how it should be done, all you can say is "McCain is a good start?" Even you, Jeff, must realize something is terribly wrong with this picture.

Now we can go on to discuss why this has happened, but I believe, in the end, it is simply because  we, as fiscal conservatives, have in the past been all too willing to accept your reasoning (McCain is a good start) simply as a means to win the next election rather than stand by our values and let the people come to us, which, in the end, is the true mark of victory in a democracy.

ex animo

davidfarrar

How Stupid Do You Think We Are?

David,

Do you think anyone buys your schtick? That you're a "real" conservative that thinks McCain should lose because he's insufficiently conservative.

We know your stance, "McCain sucks, make sure he loses and then next time conservatives will get a perfect candidate.

Everyone here sees right through you, and you've convinced nobody. You clearly have an agenda, to make McCain lose. Why don't you take it somewhere else?

I'm not selling anything. Are you?

Fiscal conservatives have been pushed to the sidelines for the last twenty years. The question before us now, gentlemen, is: Are we willing to allow another twenty years to go by before we understand that we must stand firm to our ideals first, before the people can.

Winning the next election is not as important as eventually winning the ideological battle over uncontrolled government spending. As long as we accept the argument that fiscal conservatives will vote for the candidate with the "R" beside his or her name, irrespective of his or her ideology, we take away the important opportunity for the people to learn from their mistakes. This is precisely why twenty years after Reagan, we are still at the starting line in inculcating strong fiscal conservative ideals into the mainstream of the American voting public.

ex animo

davidfarrar

 

It's Better Than Your Solution, davidfarrar

McCain's not good enough.  Is that all you can say? 

I live in the real world, and I'll take ANY tax cuts and spending cut I can get, even if they're smaller than I would like.

If I get a raise at work, it might not be as large as I would like, but I'll still take it.  I'm not going to tell my boss, "No, you keep that, and let me know when you've got a really BIG raise for me!"

You offer no solutions davidfarrar, just negativity, and I think your act is wearing thin.

BTW, learn how to spell Reagan.

 

 

Please don't mix your metaphors.

The real issue before us is not who wins the next election, but how to educate the voting public to support your political ideals. After all, these are not just political slogans, brandings and such, but ideals that will have serious consequences if the public fails to adopt and implement these ideals before real damage occurs to the Republic.

You are correct, the solution I offer asks you to look beyond the next election. As I have pointed out, I believe that is where we, as fiscal conservatives, have made our mistake in the past.  Until we do look beyond the next election, we will fail in our primary political responsibility in this democracy, not to elect the next president, but to light the correct path for the public to follow when the present one they are on inevitably fails.

ex animo

davidfarrar

Is it just me. . .

. . .or do folks like Dave seem more like they're waiting on the return of Hale-Bopp than the return of Ronald Reagan?

So Walt, you have been intellectually beaten in our debate...

...and now turn to ad hominem sophistry as a smokescreen to hide your retreat. It's not necessary you know. A simply goodbye would have sufficed, with perhaps a deep bow of respect to your better as you quietly closed the door behind you on your way out.

ex animo

davidfarrar

Well, Dave. . .

. . .how does one begin to argue with an erstwhile Unity08 activist who was kicked off their forums and decided to switch his support to Ron Paul, only to be kicked off of two of his forums (quite a feat there!), who then decided he should vote for Barack Obama, only to switch back to supporting Ron Paul until Ron Paul dropped his campaign, so he decided to spend his days discouraging people from supporting John McCain in order to usher in a Barack Obama so that he could make such a hash of things that it would usher in a new era of Reagan conservatism wherein true conservatives can rally to establish a nationalized health care system?

It is, quite literally, hard to know where to begin debating with ya, buddy.

Yes, a lot of that is absolutely true.

Except for your musings about Barack Obama, that is. 

I see Ron Paul from a fiscal conservative perspective, a much better candidate than McCain. Of course, his stand on Iraq was politically unsustainable and so he really had no chance of generating any real Republican support. But I feel compelled to point out here that Ron Paul is a Republican who has stood by his values and has attracted an ever increasing following, exactly as I have been preaching we fellow conservatives should do.

Unity08, was yet another example of precisely what I have been preaching. Collective action will be the next new media for the 2010 and 2012 elections. It was a fascinating exercise in E-democracy. Of course, while I was interested in Unity08's attempt to create an online political structure, I soon realized their real intent was simply to use their so-called "delegates" to lay the political foundation for Bloomberg to enter the race.

I guess from another perspective you can say I have been thrown out of both the Unity08 effort and the Ron Pall effort. While both held elements of a new and emerging political structure, both had fundamental flaws and, therefore; I look upon my departure from them as vindication of my determination to help create a honest, authentic, transparent, apolitical, cyberstructure that will serve to accurately reflect the peoples' voice in our political system

Walt, if you would like to talk about this subject, I'd be more than happy to drag out my soapbox and do so. I see it as the new wave of re-empowering the people in our democracy, a way to raise the peoples' voices over that of the special interests that now for the most part control our electoral process. So please let me know if you would like any more explanation of my cybernetic excursions into what is just over the political web-horizon -- which, I was lead to believe, was the reason de'etra of this website, not simply a propaganda sheet for John McCain.

ex animo

davidfarrar

It's a kind offer. . .

. . .but I'll pass.  Thanks all the same, though.  You strike me as a well-meaning guy.  So, I'll just leave it at that.

I think you are a pretty well-meaning guy, yourself, Walt.

Care to get together some time for a beer?

ex animo

davidfarrar

 

Maybe someday. . .

. . .we can do that.  But, for the time being, I'll have to take a rain check.

Awesome Pic, Walt

I think Dave's a troll just here to start trouble.

He's just spinning his wheels, and wasting his own time, as no one here plans to follow his advice to sit out the election.

Brad,

If you are telling me this forum may be too small for me, you may be right. But no one is forcing anyone to read my posts any more than yours.  So, again, I fail to see the relevancy of your post. And my time is mine to waste.

ex animo

davidfarrar

Economics 101

for every $1 in increased revenue during Reagan's tenure Congress spent $3......they would NOT pass the line item veto it was passed during Clinton's term then ruled unconstitutional.....nobody on the hill has tried to rewrite that to pass the constitutional muster....the GOP can persue good economic policy in the run up to the general election....all they have to do is contrast McCain's plan and Obama's plan....those high income folks who drifted over to the dark side will come back intto the fold when they see how much their tax bill will go up under Obama's plan....the overriding mantra for all GOP candidates in 2008 should be the KISS concept.....the simpler the better

Your logic, as they say, is impecable...

...but with one teeny, tiny flaw....people don't learn that way in a democracy. They learn by actually experiencing the results of their vote. This is the very genius of a democratic system. It is the victorious side who understands this aspect of democracy and uses it to its full advantage.

ex animo

davidfarrar

Obama mystifies me

How Barack Obama has managed to return the Democrats to the policies of the 1970s, while at the same time appearing fresh and different mystifies me.  I guess that Soloman was right when he wrote that there is nothing new under the sun.

Really, Kurt. It's not hard to do.

When people are unhappy with their present government, they usually turn to the opposition party for change. It has happened before, it will happen again. In fact, if Barack Obama does win in 2008, it is to this latter point I think we, as conservative Republuicans, should focus our attention for the 2010 and 2012 elections

ex animo

davidfarrar