What is Digg?Sponsored by Microsoft
Microsoft responds to the headlines. view!
microsoft.com/everybodysbusiness - Read our developers’ points of view on the headlines making news.
34 Comments
- stg3095, on 10/13/2008, -1/+28 We are equally concerned with his proposals to increase tax rates on labor income and investment. His dividend and capital gains tax increases would reduce investment and cut into the savings of millions of Americans. His proposals to increase income and payroll tax rates would discourage the formation and expansion of small businesses and reduce employment and take-home pay, as would his mandates on firms to provide expensive health insurance.
After hearing such economic criticism of his proposals, Barack Obama has apparently suggested to some people that he might postpone his tax increases, perhaps to 2010. But it is a mistake to think that postponing such tax increases would prevent their harmful effect on the economy today. The prospect of such tax rate increases in 2010 is already a drag on the economy. Businesses considering whether to hire workers today and expand their operations have time horizons longer than a year or two, so the prospect of higher taxes starting in 2009 or 2010 reduces hiring and investment in 2008. - 2612, on 10/13/2008, -4/+27Obama has admitted he knows raising taxes and tax rates are not best for the economy - he doesn't care. He needs to make them more "fair" by redistributing the countries wealth.
- gage5000, on 10/13/2008, -4/+19Hello! Obama is a Socialist! Socialism does not allow the market to flourish. It is big Gov't Big Gov't! You think they take a lot out of you paycheck now, just wait until we're a communist country like he wants. Of course if you're a lazy no good welfare suckin, baby making drag on society. Then of course this looks great to you cause you're used to suckin on societies tit.
- inactive, on 10/13/2008, -4/+17"Richard Roll, UCLA"
I know he is a real person, but it is still funny...
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displa ...
There is the yang, with economists support Obama. Economist cat fight! Who to believe?!?!? WHO TO BELIEVE?!?!?!? - ozel01, on 10/13/2008, -4/+17From a reply to a post in response to the article:
"Well, Shag, as one of the signers of that statement I will tell you what nearly every professional economist would tell you about tax policy.
First, businesses are not the ultimate payers of taxes--the taxes collected from them come out of the pockets of actual people. The only interesting tax questions are, which people should pay taxes and on what basis should those taxes be assessed? Barack Obama thinks that owners of shares of stock--and ultimately all other savers--should pay more taxes regardless of whether those owners are very high-income earners or not. Economists who've studied this issue closely have concluded that this tax strategy serves in the long run mostly to reduce the amount of capital provided to workers, thereby reducing their wages. The general consensus is that it makes more sense to tax people on the basis of their consumption rather than their income; Bush's tax cuts were a step in that direction. Consumption taxes can be made to be progressive, and that would not be opposed by a huge majority of economists, but the more progressive those taxes are made to be the more incentives the well-to-do have to avoid those taxes.
This leads me to another principal criticism of Obama's tax plan: such a dramatic increase in the top marginal tax rates would certainly revive the tax-shelter industry. While this may be welcome news to the Tax Prof and his students, it is bad news for economic activity and the fairness of the tax code.
Finally, Obama's claim that he's going to reduce the taxes paid by 95% of Americans is preposterous on its face. About half of U.S. households pay no income taxes already. That's not even "fuzzy math," that's just plain lying.
Oh, and by the way, I--and most academic economists--earn far less than $250,000 per year. Is it so very difficult for you to comprehend the idea that we just might be speaking out on the basis of objective analysis? If so, that speaks volumes about the basis for your own views."
529 economists and growing. - dd12101, on 10/13/2008, -6/+18obama will take what you work hard for, from you and your family, and give it to people who do not want to work, they want reparations,,,,,,, OPEN YOUR EYES,,,, THE TRUTH IS HERE
- Striker101, on 10/13/2008, -3/+13where do I sign?
For months now I've been telling people to stop paying taxes. Since it's a silent individual move I keep no names nor statistics, but I do enjoy wondering how much that's added to the debt. We must refuse to support these warring and socialist infringements on our right to life. - rebrad, on 10/13/2008, -1/+7He'll just blame it on Bush and the proletarian masses will eat it up. They love their masterr.
- inactive, on 10/13/2008, -3/+7I'm not clicking on that link, I won't be Richard Roll'd.
- inactive, on 10/14/2008, -2/+6And the latest incarnation of mightydavefish/cryrighttardcry/iseerightards makes an appearance.
Dude, why can't you take a hint? You have been banned multiple times. Digg doesn't want you here. - TheInformer, on 10/15/2008, -0/+3What would be even more useful is most of Congress retiring.
- praderwilli, on 10/14/2008, -0/+3Link or GTFO.
- dd12101, on 10/15/2008, -0/+2you are racist condescending hateful person.
- ToddSchishler, on 10/14/2008, -1/+3Let me introduce you to my good friend 'paragraph'.
- VoteRonPaul, on 10/14/2008, -3/+5I guess the "change" is going back to the great depression
- mrlogandavis, on 10/14/2008, -0/+2Tax breaks are going to the top? The top is still paying a much higher tax rate than you.
- legolas68, on 10/14/2008, -0/+2It does make your reply very hard to read. I normally read to end and digest the things that people take the time to put into a thread. I could not do that with your comment. Sorry.
- dd12101, on 10/15/2008, -0/+2blind fool,,, give yours up but leave mine alone,,, that's fair.
- ConsrvativeChik, on 10/13/2008, -4/+5LOL, ya'll have issues. But still made me laugh!
- elcalrissian, on 10/14/2008, -3/+4These are simple facts.
- Business will, naturally, become more and more efficient over time.
- Business growth creates new jobs
- If businesses are taxed more, they will not reinvest their profits into growth
- Without growth, efficiency cuts jobs.
At least we will have a huge government to care for our growing unemployment. - Glynth, on 10/15/2008, -1/+2"Way to take an intelligent analysis and capsize it into a racial issue."
Obama told supporters he doesn't believe in reparations - but get this - not because it was long ago, none of those people are alive, you don't inherit your ancestors' sins, or anything like that. No, but because "they don't do enough." THEY DON'T DO "ENOUGH." And exactly what is it he said he will push for instead, since reparations aren't "enough?" Welfare. Socialism. Redistribution of wealth. It's not me bringing race into it. It's him. He specifically said blacks benefit disproportionately from these sorts of programs, and so that's why he wants to push them.
Still, race doesn't have all that much to do with it. It's mostly culture. A culture that once had far less crime and out-of-wedlock births than whites, but that didn't last once the Left got a hold of them. A culture that identifies itself first as their race than American. A culture corrupted by the Left, a culture wherein Marxist ideology and un-American thought spreads like a cancer (yes, un-American: against the very nature of what the Founding Fathers sought to create). A culture that shaped the Barack Obama we see today.
Obama to the NAACP in 2004:
"I fear that reparations would be excuse for some to say we've paid our debt and to avoid the much harder work."
I don't know about you, but I've owned no slaves, ever. I have no debt to pay. - Observant1, on 10/14/2008, -1/+1cool, a volunteer to be my personal proofreader!!
- gage5000, on 10/16/2008, -0/+0I have a degree in Finance at Missouri State *****!
As for yelling fire in a crouded theater, people like you simple choose to ignore the truth and would stand in fire and argue.
You want communism, Go to Russia or China and ask them how they like it. Better yet Go there yourself and stay because we have fought wars against this and now people like you are too stupid to know better. You don't want to work for yourself and expect the gov't to hand you everything. Wellfare system really makes people better themselves, ya right! - quidpro, on 10/14/2008, -1/+1Know what would be more useful? Hundreds of economists creating a plan.
- Glynth, on 10/15/2008, -1/+1Hello straw man. How are you doing today?
- Glynth, on 10/15/2008, -1/+1Because "spreading the wealth around"* certainly has nothing to do with socialism. Your myopic and hateful rhetoric isn't not fooling anyone around here but yourself, Mr. Turd.
* http://www.breitbart.tv/html/195153.html - algaeturd, on 10/14/2008, -2/+1Please. Do yourself a favor and do us a favor. Get an education. Or your GED, if that's where you're at in life. I bet you can't even define 'socialism' without googling it. You circlejerkers like to toss words like 'socialism' and 'communism' around to try to scare people and to spread smears but let's be honest: You guys aren't the most intelligent lot or the highest common denominator in political circles.
Simply yelling 'socialism!' or 'communism!' is the political equivalency of yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater and that's the ONLY reason why you use it.
If Obama's plan is communism, I'll take that ANY DAY over the fascism that we were held down with by the Bush administration. - inactive, on 10/14/2008, -5/+4Damnit, what is Obama thinking? Clearly the lazy middle class should shoulder the bulk of the tax burden! If you're not wealthy, it's because you're not contributing enough to this great country - it's only fair that you should pay more in taxes.
- Nattybumpoe, on 10/13/2008, -6/+4Oh geez, I guess I can see why you dugg this story. Way to take an intelligent analysis and capsize it into a racial issue.
- inactive, on 10/13/2008, -5/+3Yes, refusing to read the articles is the best way to be able to lie without being burdened by the truth.
It's sad how many rightard shills simply refuse to read the articles.
That darn truth just makes lies so difficult, I guess.
So, palineffect, are you proud of your ability to refuse to read the truth? - Observant1, on 10/14/2008, -4/+1I dont know the details of Obama's tax ideas, but old Reagan "trickle down" economics is a total failure. giving all the breaks to the top, where productive/manufacturing went begging to DC for corporate welfare (3-4x what the people ever got) to take the production, jobs, and pollution, overseas, leaving people here unemployed in the name of more profit, was treasonous economic warfare instigated by EPA standards, regulation (not that trying to protect the environment is a bad thing either). the REAL economy was our technology, production, and export, which has been handed away for the last 2-3 decades, largely because of EPA regulations. the solution isnt more handouts without substance to back it up, it is regaining the real productivity, and it sure as hell isnt productive to keep issueing more uniforms and badges to SWAT the people for being unemployed and poor. AIG spent near 1/2 million just partying, which could have easily started a small manufacturing business employing a dozen or more people for years, AIG gives new meaning to the words "developmentally disabled". it takes money (and labor) to make money, handouts of money printed from thin air that comes with the strings of loan interest (is all the private owned federal reserve does) only guarantees debt salvery. these illegal undeclared wars wouldnt be happening if there wasnt the corporate welfare and outsourcing of our technology and production to China, who wouldnt be in a position to be making the loans this government is operating with, because of the trade deficit that was created FROM the TOP down. trickle down economics was more like taking a piss all over us, and WE are the ones who foot the bill for them to do it. why are we baling out wall street and speculative investors? because they dont HAVE anything to bet on and they know it, because they handed it all away in the first place, getting the corporate welfare to do it, and still want to be RICH after selling it out (treason), to eat their cake and have it too.
the bailouts is just more corporate welfare to throw a bandaid on a gaping wound that was caised by the corporate welfares that have been handed out for decades and their solution for people saying so is the same policy as Rome some 2000 years ago, "kill prophets for profits", or ridicule them with nicknames like Dr. No, as a mild example. the US patent office has been caught many times handing away great ideas to foreign interests beyond US jurisdiction, a slap in the face to those who would have tried to do something with an idea and paid a lot to try to protect it. Banks and government arent there to help someone develop a small business, "small" to them is employing over 100 people, and if the idea is anything threatening to "big oil and big energy" you'd be stopped, one way or another (dick cheney's gang). consider this, they fudge the numbers of "manufacturing" by including positions like slapping a hamburger together as something production. unemployment figures are determined only by the percentage of people receiving the benefits, not inclusive to the people who are still unemployed but can no longer receive benefits. meantime the idiot chimp in chief is giving daily propaganda about how great things are since deciding to accelerate the devaluation of the dollar, pumping water into the veins because of all the lost life blood of this nation, and regardless of what HE and the media says, many of us know better.
I've been buried with "TL-DR" before, so that'd be no surprise here. /end rant. - algaeturd, on 10/14/2008, -6/+2OMGZZ!!! THey're coming 4 urs babies! And gunzZZZ!!
The TROOF is heerrezz!!
Get an education, moron. Seriously. You're embarrassing yourself and you're making the republicans look like the uneducated circle-jerkers that they truly are: Paranoid, unstable, erratic, uneducated (oops! did I say that twice?) and INSANE.
Seriously. Only a ***** uneducated insane person would want to hand this half-beaten country over to McCain and Palin. Palin can't even speak the english language and McCain has a foot in the grave at 72. I don't trush ANYONE who thinks these people are qualified to run the country. - algaeturd, on 10/14/2008, -8/+2WOW! I just read how hundreds of scholars, intellects and economists came out against McCAIN'S plan about 2 days ago that went to the front page. IRONIC and a bit funny that someone typed the same story up and used Obama's name instead of McCain's. Nice try, circlejerkers. Not going to happen for you. Your boy is LOSING big time.
- inactive, on 10/13/2008, -9/+3http://reason.com/news/show/129420.html
Grow up.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is