CNN Crunches Obama's And McCains Tax Plans

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

In general, capital gains tax treatment is defined by how long you've held the asset before selling it. If more than a year, you pay the capital gains rate (currently 15%), as opposed to the higher rate (whatever the rate is for your earnings bracket).

 

Such tax policy incents longer term investing which leads to growth, jobs and economic stability. It is a cornerstone of any sensible economic policy.

yes, agree. I was giving the one-sentence answer

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Thanks for the link Faking. I'll have to read in full later but I believe I found the answer to my earlier question that CNN tried to hide:

 

The 33% bracket is the $164k-$358k bracket, so there will be a tax hike there for several million people(someone owes me $1000). Also, a much too large increase in the capital gains rates (and I notice only for the top two income brackets -- very slick Senator). I also noticed that he is proposing a 10% mortgage interest deduction for non-itemizers. Contrast that to those who itemize and see their mortgage interest deduction phased out if they are in the 28% bracket. So at first glance, Obama's looks like a highly discriminatory tax plan. If you make an upper middle class living (low to mid $100s on either coast), you will continue to take it in the shorts with this tax policy.[/left]

In addition, I believe the capital gains increase would be damaging to our economic recovery and job growth. Most of the jobs in this country don't come from giant corporations but from small businesses, most of which require capital to thrive and grow. I work for such a company and have (and in fact am currently in the process of) raising money from investors. Getting people to hand us $10MM to run a company that is not yet profitable requires someone taking an enormous risk with their money. To not incent that behavior is hugely damaging to the middle class. Our company employs 55 FTE, 150 PTE and 2000 contractors. That's nearly $1MM per month in payroll going entirely to the middle class (well, except for those 'at the beginning of rich'

) that is coming out of the pocket of the investor class. But increasing the tax on any potential returns (assuming we eventually sell the company or go public) changes the risk/return profile for potential investors and makes it more expensive and more difficult for small business to raise necessary capital.

you're welcome

 

I don't disagree that it's very important to reward and provide incentives to small business or any business for that matter, to spur growth and investment. It's pretty clear that Obama is shifting gears and trying to help the low to middle class at the expense of upper middle to upper class. I suppose he could have said that he'd cut the rates or leave those tiers alone, but he's trying to offset the revenue picture at the same time.

 

You're going to piss off someone or some groups, he chose the $28% brackets and above. McCain's is top down. For a variety of reasons, that top down economic strategy over the past 7 yrs or so has hurt the vast majority of Americans.

 

Of the two fairly discriminatory plans, I slightly prefer Obama's, because at least he shows a little more concrete way to pay for it. McCain wants to continue the current ~$200B spending on Iraq and another $200-400B in tax cuts, without much specifics as to how to fund it other than cutting earmarks. I also read an article today about how the GOP is pushing earmarks (vote for me and I'll bring in more federal money into my district) as a way to get down ticket congressional slots. That tells me both candidates will have trouble getting all this pork eliminated.

 

Is there some really good variation or merge of the two plans that doesn't ratchet up deficit spending? I don't know how to do that, do you?

[Chilly]

Of the two fairly discriminatory plans, I slightly prefer Obama's, because at least he shows a little more concrete way to pay for it. McCain wants to continue the current ~$200B spending on Iraq and another $200-400B in tax cuts, without much specifics as to how to fund it other than cutting earmarks. I also read an article today about how the GOP is pushing earmarks (vote for me and I'll bring in more federal money into my district) as a way to get down ticket congressional slots. That tells me both candidates will have trouble getting all this pork eliminated.

 

I think its important to note that the CBO already assumes Bush's tax cuts will end in 2010 when projecting the $241 billion deficit shortage. In addition, Obama is proposing an extra $200 billion/year in spending on domestic programs. I'm not quite sure how he is going to pay for all that, he's just better at deflecting attention from it.

[finknottle]

I'm not quite sure how he is going to pay for all that, he's just better at deflecting attention from it.

 

Sometimes he say's it is the savings from pulling out of Iraq -

 

unless he is being asked about National Security, in which case he says he's going to spend the same but redirect our troops to fighting AQ in Afghanistan.

[Adam]

Sometimes he say's it is the savings from pulling out of Iraq -

 

unless he is being asked about National Security, in which case he says he's going to spend the same but redirect our troops to fighting AQ in Afghanistan.

Basically no matter who gets elected, the deficit will grow so large that the country will go bankrupt

[Simon]

Is there some really good variation or merge of the two plans that doesn't ratchet up deficit spending? I don't know how to do that, do you?

 

A simple invariable 10% tax on every individual and corporation combined with federal spending limited to what is actually alloted for in the US Constitution?

[Adam]

A simple invariable 10% tax on every individual and corporation combined with federal spending limited to what is actually alloted for in the US Constitution?

Does the Constitution actually still exist after the past few years?

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

A simple invariable 10% tax on every individual and corporation combined with federal spending limited to what is actually alloted for in the US Constitution?

you got my vote for the 10% flat tax, but remind me, what does the constitution say about spending? Balanced Budget?

[finknottle]

you got my vote for the 10% flat tax, but remind me, what does the constitution say about spending? Balanced Budget?

 

Nothing really. It grants the government the power to create and collect taxes, to pay debts and provide for the common welfare and defense.

 

Only an idiot would believe that the founding fathers impliticely intended a balanced budget. We would not have been able to fight the Revolutionary War without going into debt. And the fact that they explicitely mention paying debts as a legitimate activity suggests deficits are permissible.

 

(For the record, I am for fiscal discipline. What I am against is the idol worshipping of the founding fathers and their dated perspectives and pieces of papers written for a society that has little resemblance to our own. I really don't care what a bunch of 18th century landowners/weekend politicians thought about economics.)

[GG]

The people who benefit the most from a high stock price are the CEO and major stock holders. If you want to call that the company then ok but I disagree.

 

This statement alone should get you thrown out of any conversation that involves capital. Please, pick up any book on investing, capital markets or finance. When you stop regurgitating talking points you read from journalists who are clueless about a topic, then you will be less of a joke in a debate.

 

I'm glad I made it into your sig line. It doesn't surprise me that you don't understand it's meaning, evidence by your casual dismissal that anyone making over $3 million shouldn't deserve sympathy. Trust me, people making that much don't want sympathy. They just laugh at the likes of you feeling good about yourself and the Robin Hood tax measures. Maybe one day you'll recognize that people making that much usually have a wealth of tax planning schemes available to them that will negate much of the tax hike. And it's not even the treasury that should be concerned, but the move of the productive capital off US shores into more tax favorable jurisdictions, and the inevitable trickle down effect of capital flight on the economy.

 

(There, I used a buzzword that should send your bird brains flying for a week, without focusing on the true issue of growing the economy and keeping capital formation in the US)

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Nothing really. It grants the government the power to create and collect taxes, to pay debts and provide for the common welfare and defense.

 

Only an idiot would believe that the founding fathers impliticely intended a balanced budget. We would not have been able to fight the Revolutionary War without going into debt. And the fact that they explicitely mention paying debts as a legitimate activity suggests deficits are permissible.

 

(For the record, I am for fiscal discipline. What I am against is the idol worshipping of the founding fathers and their dated perspectives and pieces of papers written for a society that has little resemblance to our own. I really don't care what a bunch of 18th century landowners/weekend politicians thought about economics.)

ok, thanks. I really didn't know what the constitution said about spending or balanced budget, and I had a similar (admittedly knee jerk) reaction; as in not sure that our 18th century, well intentioned founding fathers could foresee what our economy would require in 2009.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

More pandering from Obama.

 

News flash, B.O.... Your "windfall profits tax" on oil companies won't be paid by the oil companies. It'll get passed on to EVERYONE who buys gasoline. The wealthy and corporations don't pay taxes. Change the code, and they'll change their means of avoiding them> With good reason, BTW. Why the f*ck should anyone who's worked hard give ANY portion of their hard-earned wealth to the gubmint?

[Simon]

Nothing really. It grants the government the power to create and collect taxes, to pay debts and provide for the common welfare and defense.

You forgot interstate commerce, currency and transportation.

And the fact that powers not granted to the U.S. by the constitution are reserved to the States.

 

 

Only an idiot would believe that the founding fathers impliticely intended a balanced budget. We would not have been able to fight the Revolutionary War without going into debt. And the fact that they explicitely mention paying debts as a legitimate activity suggests deficits are permissible.

Only an idiot would believe that the expansive power of the current federal government even remotely resembles the ideals upon which our nation was founded.

Only an idiot would believe that the men who had the foresight to write up the Constitution would find it acceptable for the Fed to impose itself into the people's business by spending billions of dollars on crap like NCLB.

Only an idiot would believe that our overcoddling and intrusive motherment is what the founders of our nation had in mind when they rightly decreed that liberty and independence go hand in hand.

 

 

(For the record, I am for fiscal discipline. What I am against is the idol worshipping of the founding fathers and their dated perspectives and pieces of papers written for a society that has little resemblance to our own. I really don't care what a bunch of 18th century landowners/weekend politicians thought about economics.)

Yeah, those old farts were a bunch of idiots. Their classical educations and explorations of alternate politics and philosophies can't hold a candle to the technologically savvy social engineers today. This moving away from our roots must be the primary explanation why our country is so much better off today as the federal government increases its power by leaps and bounds.

Like you I also place way more stock in the current day genius' and their modern perspectives on how to lead our nation. Those out of touch landowners obviously had no idea what they were about. Thank gawd we've tossed away their ideals for the cutting edge wisdom of great thinkers like the Bush's and Clinton's!

[finknottle]

Yeah, those old farts were a bunch of idiots. Their classical educations and explorations of alternate politics and philosophies can't hold a candle to the technologically savvy social engineers today. This moving away from our roots must be the primary explanation why our country is so much better off today as the federal government increases its power by leaps and bounds.

Like you I also place way more stock in the current day genius' and their modern perspectives on how to lead our nation. Those out of touch landowners obviously had no idea what they were about. Thank gawd we've tossed away their ideals for the cutting edge wisdom of great thinkers like the Bush's and Clinton's!

 

Yeah, their wisdom on everything, from race to economics to medicine and cosmology, is rivaled only by their incredible forsight in anticipating future issues in technology and the environment.

 

I particularly like their priorities. The fact that the government shall *never* levy an export tax is apparently important enough to enshrine in the Constitution (a cynic would call it short-term horse-trading to get the southern states on board, but that's a rediculous accusation to place on such wise men), but trivilaities like slavery could wait.

[Alaska Darin]

It has no bearing on Kodak at all unless they are IPO's.

 

Blah, blah, blah...

 

Exactly, that's why they are the most balanced news source. If you take Nancy Grace and Glenn Beck being in primetime an argument can be made that they are conservative.

You know, justs when I think you've reached the pinnacle of your idiocy...You kick it up a notch.

 

Brilliant, brilliant stuff. It amazes me that a person can't draw a single valid conclusion. It's like you just decided to throw a whole buncha words on a page and then laud yourself for it.

[Alaska Darin]

I particularly like their priorities. The fact that the government shall *never* levy an export tax is apparently important enough to enshrine in the Constitution (a cynic would call it short-term horse-trading to get the southern states on board, but that's a rediculous accusation to place on such wise men), but trivilaities like slavery could wait.

It's called pandering, you twit. It's no different than what your masters are doing today. Apparently you're not much different than the slave owners - well, except that you should have more knowledge of history given the dawn of the information age. Try doing some critical analysis once in awhile.

[finknottle]

It's called pandering, you twit. It's no different than what your masters are doing today. Apparently you're not much different than the slave owners - well, except that you should have more knowledge of history given the dawn of the information age. Try doing some critical analysis once in awhile.

 

Apparently sarcasm is lost on you. Of course it is pandering. And horse-trading. It was a bunch of luminaries who played the political games neccessary to get an excellant workable compromise document agreed to. And it was a great success. But your point is my point - they were politicians not very different than today.

 

But there is quite a leap from aknowledging that history to the form of idol worship we have today, wherein we treat the Constitution as the font of all wisdom and carefully parse the writer's intentions, real or imagined, about issues they couldn't conceive of. How should we decide the Napster case? Or Berstein v US in which compilable source code was settled to be speech, and not an item which can be regulated? Let's look at letter's to Madison's mom for clues!

[/dev/null]

Steely Douche : economics :: Governor Huckabee : science

 

or...

 

Steely Dan : economics :: Holcombs_Arm : statistics

[/dev/null]

Does the Constitution actually still exist after the past few years?

 

Yeah it still exists but it's kind of like mullets, spandex, afros, really baggy pants, and Chapelle Show. May have seemed cool at one time, but now nobody bothers paying attention

[Kevbeau]

People invest in something they believe will make money for them. The raise in the capital gains rate will have little to no effect on that IMO. If your company is strong and showing growth it shouldn't be too hard to find investors. If your company is on shaky ground then it doesn't matter what the capital gains rates are. Nobody pays capital gains on losses.

 

Just for my own clarification, are you suggesting that a 10% raise in the capital gains rate would not give a would be investor pause?